Can Google Connect the Unconnected 2/3 To the Internet? 99
lpress (707742) writes "Google, along with Facebook, is a founding partner of Internet.org, which seeks "affordable internet access for the two thirds of the world not yet connected." Google is trying to pull it off — they have projects or companies working on Internet connectivity using high-altitude platforms and low and medium-earth orbit satellites. These extra-terrestrial approaches to connectivity have been tried before, without success, but Google is revisiting them using modern launch technology (public and private), antennas, solar power, radios and other electronics, as well as tuning of TCP/IP protocols to account for increased latency. For example, they just acquired Skybox Imaging, which has a low-earth orbit satellite for high resolution video imaging. In the short run, Skybox is about data, video and images, but the long range goal may be connectivity in developing nations and rural areas — substituting routers for telescopes. Skybox plans to operate a constellation of low-earth orbit satellites and that sounds a lot like Teledesic's attempt at providing connectivity in the mid 1990s, using the technology of 2014."
One damn thing for sure (Score:3)
Google wil never ever connect the tinfoil people to the internet. It may be any company in the world, but not Google.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're thirsty, do you really care if the only organization bringing you water is non-profit or not?
Split up Google (Score:2, Interesting)
Content and distribution in one hand should be illegal.
Re:Split up Google (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we focus on Comcast / NBC / Universal / Time / Warner first?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Considering it's Seattle, there's probably a bunch of hipsters somewhere arguing that dial-up has a cleaner, more pure sound than broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that exactly what Google Fiber is doing ?
Re: (Score:3)
What content does Google produce?
Re: (Score:2)
What content does Google produce?
YouTube
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube is a content distribution service.
Next please.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I seriously doubt we'd have smartphones if the old POTS regime were still a monopoly under heavy regulation as a "public utility".
Most groundbreaking innovation happens in the public sector. You know AT&T Unix, TCP/IP, that kind of trivial stuff... centralised organisations which make productivity rather than profit their goal always work fastest, just not always friendliest. Here in Blighty, BT was planning to fibre much of the UK before Thatcher stopped that just to give competitors a chance.
Essential services forming natural monopolies are only wrested from democratic control when ideological leeches enter the game.
Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
From Google's perspective it does of course, because more people online are more people to sell ads to. But what about us, other connected citizens of earth? Will Mbembe's life really be enriched by being able to spend two dollars on special candies in Candy Crush? What about Min Soo-Ah, how will wifi balloons save her from living in a country where hot water doesn't reach above the second floor? How is this not just silicon valley jerking itself off?
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know about you but news makes my life considerably worse than it would be without it, as news is not so much "news" as it is "bads"
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you but news makes my life considerably worse than it would be without it, as news is not so much "news" as it is "bads"
Yeah, things like weather, traffic, political information, pricing information for goods and services, job information, all that does nothing but make people miserable.
You just have no idea how much access to information enriches your life. I dare you to live a year without any access to any news or information source.
Re: (Score:1)
Citation needed.
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the African farmers who say that now with cell phones, they have an easier time trying to find better markets for their produce? Etc.
I think the above benefit is overrated.
In practical terms if you have produce to sell, especially perishable items you have to worry about shelf life more than a better price at a market far away from you.
For non-perishable items - I am from a state which is the largest producer of rubber - even before internet and smartphones the farmers used to get the market prices from newspapers. And you don't need to check the prices more than once a day, you are not playing high frequency trading with your crop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, better communication is overall better.
Re: (Score:2)
world 1 - brokers set the prices and buy the product, take a large cut of profit.
world 2 - Farmers are able to see offers from multiple brokers without worrying that one has come and gone, or isn't there yet. brokers take a smaller cut and compete for product.
Re: (Score:2)
The scenario you described is from some text book.
In real life its not usually the above...if there are brokers then they usually collude on price, or fix the price. So any benefit of reaching broker X or broker Y is not there.
The situation will be better if there are no brokers. But that's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I said you are spouting nonsense from some text book which makes sense in some make belief world.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, you couldn't.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, people generally get their lives improved by being provided with news, information in general, and means to communicate.
The great news about these low, low prices!
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, people generally get their lives improved by being provided with food, shelter in general, and means to make a living.
FTFY.
But I guess internet access is more important.
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about Min Soo-Ah, how will wifi balloons save her from living in a country where hot water doesn't reach above the second floor?
That ain't such a big problem, if you don't have cold winters. You should name basic santitation or access to clean water first. We would have achieved a lot when there were a toilet and a tap for clean (hot or cold) water in every house in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if he has fun, yes.
But more seriously, I have heard news reports (I think on Planet Money podcasts, but I may be wrong about the source) of many small time farmers in various areas of the world using technology -- just finding info about farming techniques and many other seemingly small things -- and greatly increasing their productivity. Having internet access increases their communication, so
Re: (Score:2)
Needs a good name (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Intehsky.
"Affordable"? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what is "Affordable" supposed to mean for subsistence farmers?
What does affordable mean to somewho who cannot even conceive of the concept of money, for someone not even able to conceive of the concept of numbers?
Affordable is not a word that even makes sense to use in the same sentence as 2/3 of the 2/3s.
Re: (Score:2)
No one said anything about Africa. Now who's projecting?
@ AC - Re:"Affordable"? (Score:3)
Because I'm from Africa, you lie and claim I don't understand money. Fuck you and your racist kind. I not only understand money, but I make six figures in the Detroit area.... because I'm black ... Fuck you Republicans .. [blah blah blah]
Wow, what a post! It's made my day.
I didn't see any mention of "black", "Africa" or "Republican" in the GP, he was talking about subsistence farmers and clearly you are not one. OTOH, you are close to projecting yourself as another stereotype, one I won't describe here but not a very nice one.
Anyway, the GP saying that subsistence farmers don't understand money is nonsense. We get too much of earnest do-good romantic hype giving the impression that everyone in Africa lives in a straw hut, trades wi
Re:"Affordable"? (Score:5, Interesting)
You really have no clue.
In much of the 'third world' - phones - dumbphones are revolutionizing banking, and doing things to enable farmers to get higher prices for stuff at market, as well as microinvestment.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1011804... [cnbc.com]
Firefox are launching a $25 phone. Is it a good nice internet access device - no.
But it will render wikipedia (for example) and let someone track weather forecasts, and do email and essentially everything the internet was when you had a 9600 modem.
(neglecting for the moment that it won't be able to connect to the above satellites - but in several years it's plausible for the same price).
$25 is a lot of money for someone earning a dollar a day.
But, it is much less expensive than the cost of schooling for a year for a child.
Re: (Score:1)
You're not really thinking about it. An individual phone would be nice, but they're relatively expensive, as you point out. What tends to happen is one person buys one and sells service for the equivalent of a few cents, or a community chip in and buy one.
captcha: ringing. Nice one.
Re: (Score:2)
1. The people have a concept of money.
2. Subsistence farmers, with improved access to farming knowledge, and the ability to find workers for their land, second-hand equipment, microfinancing, etc. don't stay subsistence farming for long
Many places in Africa, for example, already use mobile phones for communication, and have seen lots of progress through their use. Adding internet to their communication channels will only increase that progress even more.
This is honestly a good thing, even if the cynics o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However that's true of a lot of people. I don't see why someone who programs or designs things on a computer would have a better chance. A better test would be to take away all their money and connections and see what they can do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Warren Buffet has actually made this exact analogy before (I believe when he and Bill Gates did a joint Q/A session). He acknowledges that he has no skills that would be of any use if he were on a deserted island. He's even joked that he'd be eaten in a couple of days if he were born while humans were still hunter-gatherers.
What many fail to understand is that there are positions in society. I'm not talking about peasant versus king positions. I'
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Then there are those who claim they welcome a debate, but adamantly refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that they'
Where the elite meet to elite. (Score:3)
The Internet was such a wonderful place as long as it was purely academic network.
I don't think it's the primordial academic network that the geek remembers with affection but rather a time when the Internet was his personal playground.
What about the other third of the world? (Score:3)
You know, countries where affordable internet access is not available?
Examples: USA, Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're trying to help themselves, they'd get better results in places where people can afford quality internet but it isn't available.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree except that a target of 1Mbps is still way too low. I say 5Mbps should be the basic entry-level speed as it allows Netflix at lower bitrate/SD resolution, which Netflix Canada had to add [netflix.com] in order to help Canadian users not bust through their monthly caps.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has perfectly affordable internet, you simply refuse to do any business with Rogers, Telus, Cogeco, Videotron, Bell etc and go with a TPIA(like Start, Teksavvy, Electronicbox, Execulink, etc), and get more for less.
Re: (Score:2)
And you simply refuse to believe that any area deserved by Télébec has no other option available.
First things first (Score:4, Interesting)
You might want to take a look at this [aidwatchers.com] (safe for work and all, don't worry, it's just a map of the night earth).
And then you might ponder whether giving these people internet is going to do them much good.
Hint: Sending a fridge into the middle of the desert doesn't allow the people there to refrigerate their goods. You know why? Same reason why internet won't work!
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. If you're worried about getting internet to people who don't have clean water, or are worried about the local militia rounding them up, you've got your priorities wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
These people already have or are getting cell phones. A chinese cell tower is vastly cheaper than a wastewater treatment plant, a road or a war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to take the trouble to feed internet to the middle of nowhere, you're also going to bring a few solar panels so people can use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar panels? Lovely! We could use them to power the water pump so we have clean water! And it would probably be strong enough to power our makeshift welder so we can fix that car we got (you know, the one that you threw away 'cause it didn't make it through the DMV requirements anymore, but it still drives, that's what matters here!). And we could...
Say, any chance we could have more of those panels? You can keep that interthing if we can have more solar panels instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What they need to know, they do. Information circles freely there, they also don't care too much about DRM or copyright, you see. Or patents for that matter. They have real problems, they don't have the need to create artificial ones.
So, you gonna deliver those panels now or not?
Re: (Score:2)
To answer your question: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Culture Shock (Score:3, Interesting)
How would 'other 2/3' perceive the internet / computers in general in their cultural context.
Imagine a refugee camp where war torn peoples flock across a border and are placed into a predesignated area. Now (if it was Turkey*) they'd have all the basic amenities, food, shelter, water, plumbing...tv. What they are lacking (as far as I can tell) is any pervasive computer/internet. Consequently, boredom is one of the biggest problems in these refugee camps.
What if they all had the internet though?
What would they do with something of that magnitude that they've never had before? Would it become self-organizing? Would they require classes? If so, how in-depth? What if the literacy rates were low? Could small pictographic games still provide entertainment? Could MMOs (or whatever) provide a sense of purpose, if only virtual, to somebody's life?
Now take that microcosm and multiply it by 'the other 2/3'.
We need to approach this as a legitimate problem that is capable of being solved through research and refinement.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02... [nytimes.com]
Of course (Score:2)
Of course they'll succeed with this critical mission. After all, the first thought a starving child has when they wake up with no food, parents with no jobs, and wondering if they'll eat today, all that matters nought. Their first thought is "I wish I had high speed internet."
The fact that the first thing these people would do is trade a free smartphone for food is also irrelevent.
After all, we're out to save the world through cat videos and LOLs. Screw rational thought.
Who are the 2/3? (Score:1)
Just an advertisement (Score:1)
It's just a commercial to mark Google as the "innovative" company. It won't sell (much), as won't the project Ara phones but it's a nice public advertisement to show Google's potential.
They look for new consumers. (Score:4, Interesting)
Reason Google is behind this drive is that it will allow them (and NSA) to reach more consumers.
Similar to how USA and other countries' corporations were happy to make Iron Curtain fail - not exactly for political/goodwill reasons, but to reach more consumers.
what 2/3? (Score:1)
Where do you find these 2/3 that is not connected?
Some you find in countries that are connected in general, with other words those not connected do not want to be.
I guess you meen that you find the rest in 3rd world countries, but, I guess you havent realized that they skipped the 'sitting athome at a monitor' they went directly to mobilphones, with access to the net. The phone market in Africa is booooooming, there is small sellers everywhere.
The world has moved on, not everything is where it was 20 years
The real question (Score:1)