Google Invests In Broadband For Poorer Countries

Chris Wilson writes "According to the Financial Times, Google has announced their support for a new initiative called O3B to 'bring internet access to 3bn people in Africa and other emerging markets by launching at least 16 satellites to bring its services to the unconnected' by 2010. Coverage is available from Yahoo and the Wall Street Journal as well. 'The $750m project to connect mobile masts in a swath of countries within 45 degrees of the equator to fast broadband networks ... could bring the cost of bandwidth in such markets down by 95 per cent.' This will probably be the largest single investment in network infrastructure for developing countries in history. Google clearly wishes to use this project to enable broadband Internet access in developing regions, but many other things must be in place before that can happen, including fixed power infrastructure, PCs or OLPCs, technical support and skills, and useful content and services for areas with lower literacy."

Comments

Because There's Profit To Be Had

[eldavojohn]

This will probably be the largest single investment in network infrastructure for developing countries in history. Google clearly wishes to use this project to enable broadband Internet access in developing regions...

Ok. Let's get a few things straight here. Phrases like "will probably" and "clearly wishes" are indicative of slant because they don't tell me anything. Let me tell you what's clear here: Google is making an upfront investment to reach 3 billion new customers. Yes, it's great news for those people but I will spell out the only motive Google has--they do not want another homegrown Baidu popping up in Swahili or any other language. They will reach these people first and hand them Google in their native language.

Google's going to bring these people broadband at 95% of their current price and Google's going to make massive profit. In 2007, Google netted $4.2 billion. They are supporting O3B because it is a smart business move and their stock will go up because of it.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's great for the people but Google's only motive is "How do we reach the other 1/2 of the world's population with our services?"

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Google is making an upfront investment to reach 3 billion new customers.

Not 3bn new customers - 6bn new products. Google will sell these eyeballs to advertisers.

*shrug* not too bad a deal methinks.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[locster]

If google make profit by helping African economies develop and taking a slice of the subsequent pie then I say good luck to 'em.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[asdir]

If money would be the real driver behind this deal, then Google accountants are not as smart as I thought they are. Developing nations will not be able to use the internet for quite a while due to already mentioned reasons: Illiteracy rate is high, many countries don't have stable and enough electricity let alone the number of PCs to use the inet effectively. And they won't care for them either, since their main problem to solve will remain to get enough food so they won't starve. It definitely is a nice move from Google and might help the poor along a bit, but there are other things like microfinance, infrastructure and political pressure at the right points that could help DCs a lot more. And Google could provide that as well. To summarize: Nice move, which is certainly not motivated by money that much, but could be more effective.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[the_womble]

Illiteracy rate is high, many countries don't have stable and enough electricity let alone the number of PCs to use the inet effectively.

I live in a third world country, well within the area this will cover. Most people are literate, most households have electricity, you can buy a second hand PC in any town for a few tens of dollars (and about a quarter of the population have bought mobile phones, which start at similar prices). Even as it is, broadband is available in cities and is perfectly commercially viable.

Yes there are a lot of people who cannot benefit from this, but there are also a lot who can.

Take a look at the number of cars on the road in the third world. Anyone who can afford a car, can easily afford a cheap computer and internet connection. Anyone who can afford a motorbike can probably afford it!

You seem to think that people either live at first world standards, or on the edge of starvation. Most of the world's population is somewhere in between.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[Yvanhoe]

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's great for the people but Google's only motive is "How do we reach the other 1/2 of the world's population with our services?"

Only motive ? How about saying they found a way to do humanitarian actions while improving their profits ? I really admire such actions. They take risks, they bet on the fact that helping the world can be a profitable thing when done right. I wish we see more of these.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[Anonymous Coward]

so what? Of course it's for profit, it's just too bad most people are too small minded to realize money and profit aren't the same. Real progress is when people profit from both sides of a transaction, otherwise it's just the usual explotation and theft. This story stands out because, for a change, these poor people may also profit, rather than being ripped off by the already overly affluent.

Personally, I've come to realize that greed cannot result in true happiness, just shallow gratification and a undeserved loss for others.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[TapeCutter]

"Let's get a few things straight here. Phrases like "will probably" and "clearly wishes" are indicative of slant because they don't tell me anything."

Making a profit is NOT evil. This will probably be news to you even though you clearly wish not to hear it. The fact that they also clearly wish to make a profit will probably be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, in no way does that change the meaning of the quote even though you clearly wish it did.

Your own anti-corporate slant is breathtaking, god forbid anyone make a profit from doing something that just might, in it's own small way, assist in dragging 1/2 the planet out of the stone age.

technical support and skills ?!?

[BitterOldGUy]

In a developing country? You're kidding right?

That's where all tech support departments are these days.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[locster]

45 degrees either side of the equator is a pretty wide 'belt'.

How about this country?

[Chemisor]

I'm still waiting for broadband here in the US. That last mile is a killer...

clarifying

[mapkinase]

"but many other things must be in place before that can happen"

Sure. But satellites would be probably the most costly and the most steep step.

Broadband is not what they need

[segfault7375]

*sigh* How much food and HIV care/prevention can you get for $750m? Priorities people! But then again there's no money to be made in that I suppose :(

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* How much food and HIV care/prevention can you get for $750m? Priorities people! But then again there's no money to be made in that I suppose :(

im not sure that you don't vastly improve the HIV problem with internet access... the big problem in the 3rd world is a lack of access to information about consequences... when a population thinks you cure HIV by having sex with a virgin... its not going to do so well...

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[MarkKnopfler]

Bad observation. Hackneyed observation. Disease and violence are symptoms. They are not the cause. The underlying cause is an underdevloped, impoverished economy and the lack of human-resource. Treat the causes by developing the economy and educating the people. Treating the symptoms never help. Although broadband access is not the silver bullet, but it is the the variety of change that would be desired.

I'm at 26.4 kbps in the USA. Where's Google?

[professorguy]

My 26.4 kbps (that's right, not quite 28.8 modem speeds) connection is right here in the good old USA. And I am a network administrator for a hospital who needs to remote in some nights that I'm on the beeper. That's rather painful at 3,000 bytes per second. My community would benefit from my having better remote control of the hospital.

But, hey, why not spend a few billion to get an African peasant farmer a 1 Meg connection?

Re:wouldnt

[somersault]

There are already people doing that. Educating people to boost their skill levels and economies would enable them to buy their own food and learn to dig their own wells.. I know I'd rather be self sufficient than live on hand-outs all the time (though I admit it's pretty easy to say that when I'm nowhere near starving or destitute)