Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UN Recommends WiFi for Poor Countries

Posted by michael on from the it-takes-a-village dept.

amerinese writes "UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is now advocating that third-world countries be given funds to implement WiFi technology and 'leapfrog into the future.'"

23 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Poor countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's get them food before Internet.

    1. Re:Poor countries... by carm$y$ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the article:
      Some 200 people -- representing technology companies, developing nations, regulators and international agencies -- attended Thursday's conference, organized by the Boston-based Wireless Internet Institute [...]

      Bingo! Food? Forget it! We have stuff to sell, targets to achieve, shareholders to keep happy...

      --
      -- No sig today
    2. Re:Poor countries... by Spacelord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      3rd world countries don't need food, they need an economy where they get fair prices for their goods, so they can take care of themselves and don't have to rely on foreign aid.

      Making internet available to them allows them to be at least somewhat competitive on the global market.

    3. Re:Poor countries... by damgx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In most 'poor' countries the problem in not the amount of food, but the distribution of it.

      These so called poor countries often have large money making industries to buy food, or food is being donated to the country. Perhaps a better way to put it is. Food is being donated to the people, but often does not reach the people, but only the rich. (The seem to own all the weapons).

      Money made from industries, such as diamonds, oile, timber and others goes in the pockets of the few in power, again the army is a prime candidate.

      There are exceptions like North Corea, where stupidity and nature makes up a crule reality.

      Look at your own country. (I asume USA). There _is_ food to go around, yet some goes hungry.

      Distribution of wealth is the real problem.

      --
      I only read slash. for the articles...
    4. Re:Poor countries... by wobblie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't need food, they need the goddamn multinationals to stop buying their lands from their corrupt governments and for the IMF to stop telling them what they can and can't grow.

    5. Re:Poor countries... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish..." well, you know the rest.

      Sending food to needy nations accomplishes nothing besides feeding those people for a day or two. That may be all well and good if they're hit by a draught or locusts, but it's not a long term solution. In fact,
      - Food aid helps local warlords, with bribes paid to them to let the shipments pass. Ever wonder why the warlords' jeeps with machine guns are called 'technicals'? Because they are paid for with UN bribe money, the outlay of which is entered into the ledgers as local 'technical assistance'.
      - Food aid sometimes puts local farmers out of business. If the local market is flooded with free food, how are they going to compete with that?

      Does that mean we should stop sending food? No... but we should be more careful about how, where and when we send it. We can just keep sending them food and they'll be in the same mess a hundred years from now.

      The thing to do is help them develop their industry, infrastructure, in other words helping them help themselves. I don't know if Internet infrastructure is on top of the list of things they need, but it sure is a better idea than just sending them more food and going back to sleep.

      As to the idea that the 3rd world doesn't even have an industry and so has no need for an IT infrastructure: look again. There might even be room for their own IT industry, look at India where one region built the infrastructure, education and business climate from the ground up, resulting in thousands of IT firms in a multimillion dollar business. That business helps the rest of the region, creating demand for other goods and services, thereby creating more jobs and improving the overall standard of living there. This might just be what the rest of the 3rd world needs.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Poor countries... by Kymermosst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh yeah, I forgot how well the Sahara would be wonderful farmland if we didn't put the farmers out of work, how we started the whole Somali famine, caused all of the natural disasters in the world, etc. Nice troll.

      What about the 1 million metric tons of food that we just... give away for free? This link is to just one program... in total, the U.S. gives away (for free) about 9 million metric tons of food to needy foreign countries every year. Where's the "profit" in "free."

      The real problem is distribution. Quite often, the food doesn't make it to the people it mostly needs to go to. Case in point... the U.N. food-for-oil program in Iraq. Saddam kept almost all of it for his government and military, all the while telling the Iraqi people that they had no food because we were stopping the flow of food. Not true... he was keeping it for himself.

      By the way, one million metric tons of food donations equals about 8 pounds per person in the United States. I also happen to donate to local food programs (voluntarily)... approximately 100 lbs per year. Did *you* donate any food this year?

      Oh, and you're wrong about why the WTO is bad: The WTO is bad because it fails to protect workers in the United States from foreign competition and encourages things like NAFTA and FTAA, which put our own people out of work. This happens because labor is a lot cheaper elsewhere (so-called sweatshops, etc), so companies increase profit margin by using foreign labor.

      It's the same reason that hiring illegal immigrants is bad: It gives a job away that could be filled by a higher-paid, tax-paying, protected-by-labor-law American worker. And, the argument that "they do the jobs nobody else would take" is bullshit. If nobody took the jobs, and they needed to be done, the offered pay would increase until people would take the job for the money. Instead, illegal immigrants are exploited because they can't get a normal job, and fear getting busted.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  2. wireless develpment in third world countries by DrRiffic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since these countries don't already have ancient, pre-existing infrastructure, they can roll out wireless faster than if they had a bunch of copper lines to every home.

    look at estonia; ten years ago they were communist bloc peasants, now they're the fastest growing tech sector in eastern europe.

  3. Wifi uh ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about giving reliable electricity, then computers to poor third world countries first (and also drinkable water and sufficient food, since you're there) ?

    Not everything in your home country looks as shiny as your UN office Mr. Annan ...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Wifi uh ? by carm$y$ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their logic is strange:
      Laptops are rare in the developing world and the money to buy the needed electronic gear is scarce.

      Then
      Wi-Fi allows users of laptop computers and other gadgets to access the Internet without electric cords or phone jacks.

      Ok, i'd like one of those laptops powered over WiFi...

      --
      -- No sig today
  4. How about real industry first? by capt.Hij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be much more realistic to establish real industries first and then create an environment that would support an information infrastructure. If an high tech infrasture is put in place before industrial, educational, and commercial infrastructures are put in place then it would essential just go to waste. For example, there is no reason to have IT in Africa when they don't even have a textile industry in place that could benefit from more efficient practices.

  5. This does not make sense by dybdahl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since when is it cheaper to use wireless than to plug in a wire? Price is very important in 3rd world countries, and I don't think they are willing to pay for the luxury of not having to put a cable into the computer.

    Besides most laptop come with a wired ethernet adaptor, but not with WiFi. Therefore, a wire-based system makes a lot more sense.

    1. Re:This does not make sense by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when is it cheaper to use wireless than to plug in a wire?

      I could be wrong but as these many of these contries dont already have any existing wire infastructure it may well be cheaper to start with wireless than with wires.

      Most first world contries already have power poles to hang wire between or cable trenches to lay more wires into.

      I'd expect them to use wireless for the longer links and to join local computers (however many that mat be) together with 'normal' cat5.

  6. Translation by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article :

    Pat Gelsinger, chief technology officer for Intel Corp, the world's biggest computer chip maker, said Wi-Fi was cost-effective, growing rapidly around the world and particularly appropriate for developing nations because it was neither government-regulated nor licensed and was built using industry-wide and worldwide standards.

    Read : Pat Gelsinger, CTO for Intel Corp, recently visited Kofi Annan to do a sales pitch that went successfully.

    Hey Pat, how about Intel donates some WiFi equipment to third world countries, to jumpstart the market if nothing else ?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  7. Technology is not a panacea by BenjyD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is IT always seen as some sort of miracle fix? Kids aren't learning in schools? Give them all computers to 'learn' on. People are living below the poverty line? Give them WiFi, that'll fix their economy.

    What's that big tall white thing? Oh, it's an ivory tower.

  8. He's right on by garrulous · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't pretend to be a world policy mover and shaker, but whenever we try to implement aid to 3rd world nations some self imposed autocrat always seems to get in the way of any real progress. The food is available its just not distributed. What they need is information, info on how to better maintain crops, where to locate agrarian equipment, and most importantly a collective voice. That is the seed of democracy. That's exactly why we see more and more countries like China trying futiliy to crack down on open internet projects. I'm not saying the model will work for Africa, but its a better bet than the sisyphean task of dumping food.

    1. Re:He's right on by garrulous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes I do think we can do it better, because we made a business of it. Because we've poured hundreds of millions of dollars into research and because we've set the world standard for food production. Setting up a nice petting zoo where they can live neolithic subsistence lifestyles like their ancestors is a pipe dream. Like it or not the model has changed, and arrogant or not I believe its our way or bust. To address your subsidies argument, how would isolated small yield farmers stand up to Western agrocombines? By your own admission they can't and don't. But if those same farmers have a chance to pool their resources and they just might be able to do something about it. That's how the US got out from under the foot of the British. While it won't happen overnight it's got a hell of a better shot of working than armchair protestations.

  9. So we can spy on them? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See topic. 'Nuff said.

  10. does the law say WiFi specifically by nounderscores · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could an italian engineer hack up another kind of packet radio which could be cheaply manufactured in kit form? capture the hobbist movement, and keep the big players out of the loop until its widely installed. Smart Governments would love to be seen supporting local industry.

    Don't break the law unless everyone is going to do it at the same time. You are dealing with hardware and any govt worth its salt is going to be able to interdict importers and couriers of physical objects.

    then again, that kind of reminds me of that www.mnftiu.cc cartoon where the clip art guy says "You remember the war on drugs? Like how we used to have a drug problem and then they had a war on drugs and now you can't get any drugs anymore? It'll be just like that. Yeah!"

  11. Extremely clever ! by Krapangor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All they've got to do is to figure out how to create ploughs, tractors and medical devices of WiFi base staions and cards.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
  12. How about a ban on weapons instead? by heironymouscoward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WiFi is so cool when you can buy an AK47 for $150 and hand-grenades for $3 in such lovely spots as Congo DRC, Indonesia's lost islands, the WWI memorial frontier between Ethiopia and Eritrea, etc.

    The the undeveloping nations of the 3rd world desperately need something much simpler: peace. This is beyond the UN's capacity to deliver, but a firm statement that the weapons trade is an evil that must be abolished would be a great start.

    The 3.5 million dead in Congo during the last 5 years is worth something more than a campaign for WiFi, IMHO.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  13. Ignorance of the stupid idiots here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This fscking shit argument of food for third world countries instead of technology is the most ignorant oppressive crap I see consistently being spouted on slashdot (of all places).

    I am (originally) from a "third world" aka developing country. I grew up in the "third world" let me tell you this with authority. THEY DO NOT NEED DONATIONS OF FOOD. What they need is (in order of importance)

    a) get rid of corruption /serial killer dictators
    c) roads
    b) capital to buy equipment (farming/industry)
    c) cheap communications (internet, cell phones) e) free trade so their people can buy technology cheaper
    d) reforms in education system (no memorization)
    f) health care
    g) security
    h) Snoop Doggy Dogg
    i) food

    Donating food is the worst thing you can do to a country (except when there is an actual emergency/disaster)

    Also what I hate is people running around claiming the govt. donates so much to the third world and now they dont have jobs/medicare etc. here. That's plain BS. The ultra miniscule drop of your tax that goes to "foreign aid" is not having any effect on any economy .. yours or theirs.

  14. This is bullshit. by mrseigen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No offense to developing countries, but most of them would rather have clean water, or no civil wars, than the ability to get wireless access anywhere.

    This has little practical value and the UN should be ashamed of promoting something so stupid.