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

[Alwin Henseler]

Google's going to bring these people broadband at 95% of their current price

Ehmm... TFA talks about "bring the cost of bandwidth in such markets down by 95 per cent". Doesn't that mean: take 95% off, leave 5% (1/20 th) of previous cost?

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[houghi]

The oil companies have been doing this for ages. Only the help is less and the slice is larger.

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

[zehaeva]

You sir, need to be modded up. There is nothing wrong when capitalistic gains coincide with the greater good. It is really sad that most businesses do not take this approach. Sure, if you wanted Google to make them selves out to be fscktards and say "We are going to expand our market by increasing broadband penetration in 3rd world countries, so that we may better exploit the advertising dollar."(I never can figure out if you need an extra period, or if you should just omit the period inside the quotes). But you still have to contend with the fact that they are bringing communication and development to a good deal of people who don't have the wealth to merit such expenditures.

Really though, why would Nike pay to advertise to people who can not buy their product? Truth is you can not. Well okay maybe you can but I do not think they can get away with it for long. 6 billion more eyeballs maybe a great thing but when they can barely afford a $200 laptop designer jeans buying they are not.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[eggnoglatte]

Even most of the small elite that COULD use the internet right now, will not have enough disposable income to make them a good target for advertisement. If this is an investment, it sure is a very longterm one. Kudos to google for doing it anyhow.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[discord5]

Google will sell these eyeballs to advertisers.

6 billion eyeballs... I'm pretty sure there's a Nigerian guy who'll sell them to you for a lot cheaper than the cost of launching a single satellite.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[Thelasko]

Let's hope they don't play bait and switch with this like they did with Meraki.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[locster]

Oil money comes into economies through very focused routes. Basically it ends up in the lap of government officials who then have to resist corruption. If widespread internet access helped develop the economy it would (hopefully) be a more broad development, the cash would be more evenly distributed.

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

[symes]

Indeed - it may also be the case that Google's business model can play a very important role in developing areas. Because infrastructure is generally so poor, transport costs are high. Meaning that any producer must get their goods to market as efficiently as is possible. Having www access will allow buyers and sellers to come together more easily, do the deal and transfer goods without waste. At the moment the fisherman takes his product to the local market in the hope that there are people there to buy it, has to deal with corrupt officials, etc.. With Google he could possibly advertise/sell online [fish-facebook anyone?] before the fish have made shore.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[mtairhead]

Of course, you're wrong. Besides the fact that there are plenty of people who can read and afford computers, you make no mention of the #1 driver for economic and improvement: business!

Why plop down a warehouse or plant in a nation with no dependable way of communicating with it? Access to the Internet will attract business, which will create jobs and bring an influx of money.

Further, PCs aren't the only things that can benefit humanity with access to the Internet. You're thinking inside the box. Developing nations have solved many problems without our confined 1st World ideas. I don't believe you need to sit an Tanzanian in front of Wikipedia to call the Inet an African success story. Creative uses will come from uncommon and unexpected corners, just as they always have. This is just one more tool, and one from which Google /will/ profit.

PS - Once you're in the position to call $3 billion dollar shots like these, I don't call you an accountant anymore. You're management.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[Swizec]

Targeted ads man! You don't advertise designer clothes to those people, you advertise bacon and water and stuff.


... guns ...

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

[Timedout]

I wonder though. Is this really a solid investment? Google has struck gold mines with the whole adword and adsense, but giving broadband to countries with little to no GDP? It is a very kind move, but it strikes me as irresponsible. Of course, even if it does pan out in the end wouldn't they have seen a larger return investing in a BRIC country? It is really a question of: Why take the greater risk?

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[Vexorian]

I for one am impressed by your innate ability to find and point out the obvious.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[MrNaz]

My warning to the poor:

Beware geeks bearing gifts.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[MrNaz]

Yea, just look at how the public at large shares the control of and profit from the telco carriers in the western world!

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[elrous0]

While I certainly acknowledge Google's ulterior motives in this matter (as with Intel and their Classmate PC, MS with their stripped-down Windows version, etc.), I would have to question the assertion that there is a lot of money to be made off of advertising to people who can barely afford to feed themselves.

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.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[Crazyswedishguy]

broadband at 5% of their current price

There, FTFY

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[3t3rn4l]

When I first read the headline, I thought to myself, "That's great, but shouldn't we try to feed them first, so they are alive long enough to utilize their eyeballs?" Perhaps those people can "work from home in their spare time" as phone technical support or other and raise their standard of living.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[Eesh]

This only shows that money *can* be made by doing good things, that are beneficial to society and your customers, and not just by treating them like the enemy, into whose eyes you must shove your content forcefully, out of whose wallets you must take as much money as possible, and whose freedom (to choose or otherwise) you must limit.

I wish more huge corporations would see the market this way. Sure, Google isn't perfect, but initiatives like these sure make me believe they have positive intentions, all in all. I'm not saying we should blindly trust them, but they deserve some credit.

There's no shame in raking in wads of cash. The shame is in doing it in dirty ways (Like MS's monopoly, the RIAA's lawsuits and illegal conduct, etc. etc.)

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[sukotto]

Yes, but he'll want you to send him 5,000 eyeballs and your adsense account info first.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[LWATCDR]

Pretty much. I find it so amusing that so many people think that Google users are their customers. We have the same relationship with Google has cattle do with a rancher.
They feed us and then sell us.
I am sure that Google will hope to reach some customers in Africa as well. They will hope to sell ads there as well.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[VeNoM0619]

Too bad OLPC was being criticized for being used for porn. Imagine what happens when the 3rd world discovers sheister porn?

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[infinityxi]

No we shouldn't feed them. They need to feed themselves. Now I know this sounds trollish but before you mod me let me explain.

What "we" should be doing with countries with extreme poverty (meaning they are going hungry and need more than computer tech) is facilitating ways for them to have their own basic agricultural industry. People in poorer countries would benefit 10 fold from that than by being dependent on foreign aid that does nothing to get anyone on their feet. I am not saying "stop sending food aid immediately" but we should wean them off of it in the long run. It's like knowing someone down on their luck who is homeless that you occasionally help out. What would benefit him (and you) the most? You giving him a sandwich every day, or helping him become a productive member of society so he can feed himself?

I am also sure that when the article states "poorer countries" it is referring to countries that are significantly poor in relation to the most industrialized countries but not so poor that food is a number 1 pressing issue. There do exist countries with serious economic problems but most people eat at a decently comfortable level. Not every country that is not 1st world, is made in Sudan's poverty stricken image, just to give an example.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[LWATCDR]

Oh I have no problem with it. I just don't delude myself that I am Google's customer. Hey if you want to have a different analogy then here.
We are no more Google's customers than an Orange tree is a grove owner's customer.
You could also use sheep and Shepard if you want.
The thing is that we are not Google's customer we are their product it is as simple as that.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[DragonWriter]

I wonder though. Is this really a solid investment? Google has struck gold mines with the whole adword and adsense, but giving broadband to countries with little to no GDP?

Little to no GDP now. Providing communications infrastructure increases the likely rate of economic growth in those countries, and the returns for investment there. As a move for profit, it only works if it actually does help spur economic growth in those countries, but it certainly isn't unreasonable to think that it will. Whether or not Google really does no evil, this is certainly the kind of investment which has the possibility of Google ultimately doing well for themselves while doing good for others.

Of course, even if it does pan out in the end wouldn't they have seen a larger return investing in a BRIC country?

Broadband access is already rapidly growing in those countries. Inasmuch as Google benefits from increased broadband access anywhere (provided that Google isn't actively blocked) they don't need to invest anything to gain that benefit. And, as for other kinds of investment in BRIC countries, Google has been making those, so its not an either/or scenario.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[VanGarrett]

I never can figure out if you need an extra period, or if you should just omit the period inside the quotes

American standard: punctuation outside the quote.
British standard: punctuation inside the quote.

Another accepted standard is to only include punctuation inside the quote, if the punctuation is part of the quote. Personally, I prefer this, as it is more precise, though I think the proper comprehension of it escapes the average person's mind; thus, British and American standards that fail to be dynamic.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[ShakaUVM]

I am all for making money and helping the world at the same time.

It's way better than the other options:
Making money and fucking over the poor
Not making money and becoming poor (or relying on government handouts)

My company worked with poor kids here in San Diego for a long time, while we were designing an educational software game. We turned around the lives of a lot of kids (most of whom were already burnt-out on learning), learned which pedagogical techniques worked with kids like that in an afterschool setting, and then went on to sell it to other school districts 1and made a decent amount of money at it, while also helping their kids.

There's nothing shameful in making money while doing a good thing for the world.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[nospam007]

>I would have to question the assertion that there is a lot of money to be made off of advertising to people who can barely afford to feed themselves.

They'll be able to google on how to feed themselves.

Re:Because There's Profit To Be Had

[Yvanhoe]

Rich with culture ? They may have a rich local culture, but it is nothing like the thousands of different cultural backgrounds and experiences an Internet access would bring to them. Bringing internet access to third world country doesn't destroy their culture, it gives alternatives to it and even a bigger voice. What is great with internet is that it works as well for downloads and for uploads (culturally speaking).

There has been a lot of suggestions from African country that they prefer to get a service they pay for and be a consumer with a contract and rights rather than relying on irregular humanitarian help that could be free but that is so condescending.

technical support and skills ?!?

[BitterOldGUy]

In a developing country? You're kidding right?

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

Triple Play

[Anonymous Coward]

Food, water and broadband.

For only $99/month*, you could provide a child with Facebook and MySpace.

(*) For the first year of service. Offer void where prohibited by law. Not really. Please see a doctor if broadband persists for more than four hours.

LEO means intermittent

[Peter Simpson]

So...16 satellites in LEO, meaning intermittent coverage, plus they will need spares and steerable ground antennas. I'd like to see an article with all the technical details, but it doesn't sound practical for providing continuous high bandwidth links...and it seems pretty expensive for covering only a belt around the equator.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[locster]

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

Re:LEO means intermittent

[Chaos Incarnate]

Even with those caveats such a system might be more usable for those within the coverage zone than many current US broadband providers' connections are.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

16 satellites in LEO, meaning intermittent coverage, plus they will need spares and steerable ground antennas.

They're going to use the satellites for long haul & 3g masts for last mile.

and it seems pretty expensive for covering only a belt around the equator.

45 degrees is half way to the north/south poles.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[somersault]

Useful for streaming and downloading large files perhaps, but probably a bit of a PITA if you want to do something like online gaming or some quick web browsing, because satellites=high latency. Not saying it's a bad thing though, it's a good start :)

Someone above made a comment about this just being about advertising and google's business - well sure it will benefit them in the long run, but in the short term they're not going to make much advertising money from countries who can't even afford the infrastructure in the first place. I think this is most definitely a Good thing to do, whatever the motives. People who are always trying to make out like Google are actually evil need to get a grip. Businesses exist to make a profit, but Google also is conducting business in such a way as to benefit computer users in general. Think of the large limits on GMail inboxes forcing Hotmail to provide a similar service (my inbox space jumped from 200MB to 2GB), and Google Docs creating competition for Office, etc. I still think Google is a very 'good' company as companies go.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[thermian]

So...16 satellites in LEO, meaning intermittent coverage, plus they will need spares and steerable ground antennas. I'd like to see an article with all the technical details, but it doesn't sound practical for providing continuous high bandwidth links...and it seems pretty expensive for covering only a belt around the equator.

There's been a fair amount of progress in planning the positions of constellations of LEO satellites to provide continuous coverage, or at least very close to continuous, see the following paper:

Williams, Edwin, William Crossley and Thomas Lang, "Average and maximum revisit time trade studies for satellite constellations using a multiobjective genetic algorithm", Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 49, 3, 385-400, 2001

Re:LEO means intermittent

[mspohr]

If you had RTFS (I know I'm being pedantic), you would have discovered that they only need 5 satellites to cover the earth. The rest are for redundancy and to increase bandwidth. They also state that this is much cheaper to install than fiber. Latency goes down to 100ms with the LEO.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[mspohr]

If you had RTFS, you would understand that these LOW EARTH ORBIT satellites offer a 100ms latency... not bad.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[somersault]

I know that online gaming is the least of Africa's concerns at the moment, but an extra 100ms latency on top of normal internet latency levels would be pretty bad for gaming. It takes you down to 56k modem latency levels, and that's pretty bad I can assure you :p On a LAN you could expect 15-30ms latency, for an online game in the same country as you you would probably have about 50-150ms latency, but back when I was using dial-up I'd be lucky to get a 250ms ping in Counter-Strike. If the gamers were just playing against other peeps in their area without having to go through the satellite then that would be fine though.

Likewise for everything else an extra 100ms (or 200ms when you consider the traffic has to go both ways) on the response time wouldn't be that bad, especially if they'd never used broadband before.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[somersault]

BTW you mean 'RTFA[rticle]', the summary doesn't mention LEO :p

I just read some of the other comments around here and someone mentions that as well as the satellites the last mile will be 3G connection, which isn't particularly good for latency either.. so these will most definitely only be useful for browsing and downloading rather than stuff like gaming and Skype.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[pipatron]

Maybe you should call Google and tell them. You seem to know much more than the engineers that have been thinking about this.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[raju1kabir]

On a LAN you could expect 15-30ms latency

If your LAN has more than 2ms latency, you may want to think about replacing the tin cans and string with actual, you know, wires.

Anyway, where I am, ping times to the USA are about 300ms, and it's fine for most normal uses (web, email, VoIP, ssh sessions, etc.). I'm not a gamer, but as you say that's probably not Google's major concern at the moment.

Re:LEO means intermittent

[somersault]

I was basing it on Counter-Strike pings rather than actual latency I've measured myself, I thought they'd be basically the same but apparently not (unless our current main switch is a lot faster than the one we were using a few years ago). Perhaps CS pings are measured in ten-thousandths of a second rather than thousandths..

Just checked with a command line ping to one of our servers and am actually getting 0.2ms latency (that will be through 2 switches).

Re:LEO means intermittent

[nospam007]

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

Yep, it's exactly where the US is located. ...and China, North-Korea,....

Re:LEO means intermittent

[supersat]

Even parts of Canada are within that region...

Can't happen fast enough!

[bigtallmofo]

I desperately need new recruits willing to read and type in CAPTCHAs for 20 hours and 3 cents per day.

Thank you, Google!

I wonder what affect this will have on people...

[HungryHobo]

Will being able to communicate easily give people more ambition or will they hit 4chan first and decide that the rest of the world is a pit of evil that has to be avoided at all cost...

How about this country?

[Chemisor]

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

Re:How about this country?

[magus_melchior]

Google would have to break a few barriers:

1. The FCC, DoJ, and states' AG would have to let them do it, despite the fact that they're the biggest search engine on the planet. Even then, expect Microsoft to cry foul.
2. AT&T and a very small handful of smaller companies would need to let them use their fiber, unless Google wants to spend the billions needed to lay new fiber across the country.
3. They would need to contend with local construction laws and somehow get around the complex service arrangements that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al. put in place to squeeze out true competitors (i.e. those that don't lease their services).

O3B?

[MikeRT]

Sounds like someone decided on the name based on a conversation with accounting? "How much money would we have to dump into this to get into the African market?" "Oh... 3 Billion, at least!"

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.

Re:clarifying

[theaceoffire]

"satellites would be probably the most costly and the most steep step."

Somehow I think it would be cheaper than laying cable, protecting it, and repairing it for 45 degrees off the equator.

Re:clarifying

[mapkinase]

Cable work could be done incrementally, village by village. As for the satellite, you need to pay big sum upfront.

Re:clarifying

[bendodge]

I doubt launching a few satellites is more costly than building power plants and laying copper all over the same area the satellites will cover.

Re:clarifying

[NoisySplatter]

Nobody can dig up and steal your satellite.

Re:clarifying

[clockt]

The good thing about satellites is that you need an advanced technological society to bugger it up - LEO is out of the reach of most machete weilding militia. Not so with fibre, copper or cable infrastructure (or Nigerian oil pipeline) where any angry man with a sharp implement can wreak havoc - and any poor man so equipped can improve the chances of feeding his family in the short term by flogging lengths of liberated telecommunications cable for it's scrap value in the local market.

Re:clarifying

[kcelery]

I guess the satellite dish connects to a small town and relay through wireless means such as http://www.usbwifi.orconhosting.net.nz/

In that case, there might be fund raising campaigns for a few containers of Chinese parabolic cookware and wifi dongles.

THHGTTG

[goose-incarnated]

Marketing is great, innit?

"They cannot afford our product, so lets artificially accelerate their development until such point that they can, and then sell them out product"

Not that I, paying ZAR70 per gig for internet access, mind at all. Hell, bring it on - those monopolistic providers here in Africa, please, by all means, hand their asses to them.

Re:THHGTTG

[jamesh]

I was thinking that too. And if at some point the whole world becomes too poor to afford google at all, the googleplex will be put into suspended animation until the world can afford it again...

wouldnt

[ionix5891]

that money be better spend feeding the poor or even building up basic infrastructure like schools and wells

Re:wouldnt

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

that money be better spend feeding the poor or even building up basic infrastructure like schools and wells

Most places that will be using this sort of commercial service have adequate food/water/power/education infrastructures.

Most that don't have such infrastructure have a problem that google can't solve. War - of one kind or another.

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)

Re:wouldnt

[zrq]

Have a look at this Eleni Gabre-Madhin: Building a commodities market in Ethiopia

Broadband internet access would probably count as very useful part of the infrastructure needed for an African commodities market.

Re:wouldnt

[ganjadude]

I could give you a burger and feed you today or i could teach you to use google and you could cook your own damn burgers!

Pass the parcel

[zmollusc]

.. so now the Indian tech support companies that everyone have outsourced to can themselves outsource to some new African companies.

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

[xaxa]

Hopefully it will bring some education, which is good for the long term. We can't really expect an advertising company to give away food and drugs.

Google.org does the charity stuff.

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.

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[bickerdyke]

Now you'll get thousand of myspace-sites spreading that "cure".

just hope that someone will herd those people to the real information sites.

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[Longwalker-MGO]

There is inherent HIV protection in this. It will get them all sitting behind screens jerking off to pictures instead of having actual sex with actual women - Just like the rest of us.

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[geminidomino]

Meh. With all the misinformation on the net, I doubt it will make much of a dent in it.

The only way I see it really making any sort of measurable difference is because people will be too busy dicking around on the net that they won't be banging as often for the sake of something to do.

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[discord5]

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...

Suddenly I am reminded of the slogan of an awful website reading "The internet makes you stupid".

Case in point: I have a few family members who recently have begun using the internet. With all of this wealth of information at their fingertips, they have chosen to disregard it and use it as a medium to forward each other jokes usually involving half naked women that somehow ended up in powerpoint presentations.

What surprises me is that I'll often be asked simple technical questions like "The clock on my laptop is showing the wrong time, how can I fix this?". While I'm happy to help them with this, the question "Why didn't you look that up on the internet?" remains unanswered up until this day.

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[bendodge]

Infrastructure is far, far more valuable to these people than a disposable handout. People have a remarkable ability to better their own situation, given an honest chance and some education.

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[aaarrrgggh]

It can easily be argued that (general) education and economic development can lead to a decrease in HIV in the long term. Helping people live mildly better lives in the short term won't improve long term opportunity.

I lived on an island for several years. While its source of revenue was mainly tourism, businesses could not operate reliably when you had to try and go up the mountain to use one of the old analog brick telephones to contact the mainland. When land lines came to the island, a whole new range of possibilities opened up. While I hated the idea of cell phones coming, their arrival made it much easier to operate a business still. And, when ADSL finally came, you could attract people with more money.

This change has helped enrich the people of the island (at least financially), and has improved education and healthcare over a 20 year period. It might still be reliant on tourism for business (I don't think the shoes named after it are made there), but internet access clearly brought opportunities for the people.

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[Singularitarian2048]

The internet is the greatest tool of enlightenment mankind has ever known.

Check out www.artofproblemsolving.com and tell me again that the internet makes you stupid.

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[RealGrouchy]

This debate was also made thorougly in the OLPC discussions: not everybody is shit poor, and education is the most effective way of reducing disease in the long term. If all we ever do is patch the symptoms, they will never improve.

Further, Google is making an investment that it hopes will eventually lead to a return on that profit. Google, a private company, will not likely get any return for $750M spent on HIV care and prevention. Despite this, through the improved access to information being promised by this investment, health care and prevention and access to sound medical information will probably improve significantly.

If you want to complain about wasted money that could go to foreign aid, talk to the US government (or your local national government). I hear they have a war or two that is burning through a lot of money with little relative return.

- RG>

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[James Youngman]

Some of the handouts make the problem worse in some ways.

By US law, food aid given by the USA must be bought from US producers. Even once shipped to the country being helped, the aid food often undercuts local supplies of food. This results in collapses in local markets, making the situation worse (or at least making it persist).

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[XcepticZP]

"Bad observation. Hackneyed observation. " to you too! Underdeveloped and impoverished economies, and lack of human resources(I assume you mean skills with that), are the symptoms and not the causes.
Truth is, you can't really say what the root of their problem is. Heck you can even go back in time to colonialism, but it won't do you any good in trying to find the root cause. Their problems are embedded too deep in their culture, and no amount of money being thrown around will help solve them anytime soon.

Re:Broadband is not what they need

[donnielrt]

Adding to that, why do people feel that only one problem must be treated by everybody? Sure, Cancer, AIDS or poverty are causes that need support, but just because I choose to donate to animal welfare instead, what gives you the right to condemn me?

I (read anybody) am only doing good by helping any such cause. Would you have blinked an eyelid if they'd announced a 3 Billion dollar spend on upgrading their infrastructure? But now that they're also helping people in the process of making money, they're suddenly EVIIIIIIIIL!

Umbrella Corp

[xmarkd400x]

The next move is to build a great city with a secret underground component. Call it "Raccoon City" perhaps.

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?

Add this to the satellite they launched recently

[vkg]

and they could actuarially revolutionize life in the developing world.

Take all the data from the satellite, crunch it through Precision Agriculture systems to generate recommendations for crop care (and even crop selection), and then distribute the results over the broadband network, along with things like video tutorials for farming techniques.

Boing Boing has a post on the basics of precision agriculture here: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/09/agroveillance-using.html

http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/hexayurt/supercomputer-applications-for-the-developing-world-375

Was an approach to doing this based on repurposing military imagery.

Really could change the world in a big way, food security for all.

Content

[bickerdyke]

suitable for people with low literacy?

Rule #34.. there's already porn of it .-)

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

[thermian]

My 26.4 kbps (that's right, not quite 28.8 modem speeds) connection is right here in the good old USA.

Then why not protest and try to have this improved? If all you do is pay your bill and mutter on slashdot, they'll keep you on your current rate.

Re:I wonder what affect this will have on people..

[WDot]

Things I anticipate doing once these 3 billion people are hooked up:

-Send the first goatse link
-Be the first to solicit cybersex
-and ask "a/s/l?"
-Degenerate various African languages into their equivalents of "AOLspeak."
-Accuse them of being teenage boys unless they "show pics"
-ATTN: Dear Sir/M, I am Mr. Johnathan Ashcroft. an Auditor of a BANK OF THE WASHINGTON, DC. (FCT). I have the courage to Crave indulgence for this important business believing that you will never let me down either now or in the future.

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

[mspohr]

Stop whining and get a satellite connection. More than 50% of existing satellite Internet connections are in the 'developed world'. When this new satellite service is installed, you, too can benefit (you see, the satellites go all the way around the world) and they'll be happy to sell your ISP a connection.

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

[Chemisor]

> Stop whining and get a satellite connection.

You obviously have not actually used a satellite connection. The quality of service is abysmal and you'll be lucky if you can get speeds faster than dialup. Oh, and latency totally sucks. And it costs an enormous amount of money for what you get. Satellite companies have every incentive to cram as many users as possible onto their satellite(s), and so they do, with the result being speeds just fast enough to prevent their offices being razed by angry customers.

419 boom in 2010!

[herewegoagain]

... so, I guess we can expect to have a lot of widows on the internet who would like to find trustworthy people to help them launder their millions?

Re:419 boom in 2010!

[gujo-odori]

Absolutely. Those poor 419ers won't have to go to the Internet cafe anymore.

Wonderful. I'd rather see Google working getting all the cables to Africa cut. Surely they can afford a special ops submarine with all their money.

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

[mspohr]

Stop whining and RTFS.

This low earth orbit satellite offers speeds up to 10 Gb/sec and latency of 100ms at a cost of only 5% of existing connections.

Eh....

[SmallFurryCreature]

Wow that is some creative number crunching, you turn 3 billion people into six billion eyes to be sold to advertisers. Are africans related to cameleons and can focus their eyes on two different ads at the same time?

More Spam

[shameus_burp]

We thought those spam messages from Nigeria were bad enough, now the whole African continent will be sending spam. Wonderful.

No satellite available here.

[professorguy]

Satellite reception requires a clear view of the southern sky. I am on a the northern slope of a steep mountain which is forested to the top. I cannot cut trees beyond my property line, and the trees further uphill block my line of sight.

Also, my boss had satellite for his remote beeper adventures. After 6 months, he kicked it to the curb as unacceptable. He's back on (admittedly much higher speed) 44 kbps dialup.

Re:No satellite available here.

[raju1kabir]

Are you allowed to build a tower?

oblig

[Ogive17]

I, for one, welcome our new Microsoft 2.0 overlords.

Re:oblig

[supernova_hq]

I, for one, welcome our new satellite launching, search engine overlords overlords.

There fixed that for you. But seriously, what the hell does Microsoft have to do with Google sending satellites into space?

Re:oblig

[Ogive17]

Return on Investment

MS hands out free copies of Windows to schools, get the kids use to Windows at an early age so when they grow up they buy legit copies.

Google puts a satelite in orbit to give broadband access to a new market, who do you think gets the ad revenue when hundres of millions of people gain access to the internet courtesy of Google?

My litmus test is this, if you replace Google with Microsoft in the story, how does it sound?

You took me literally, but not literally enough.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Wow that is some creative number crunching, you turn 3 billion people into six billion eyes to be sold to advertisers. Are africans related to cameleons and can focus their eyes on two different ads at the same time?

You see, the thing is, when I said Google will sell these eyeballs to advertisers. I meant that google will literally buy these people's eyeballs and sell them to advertising agencies to fry & eat, or whatever it is ad agencies do with their eyeballs.

So you see, my maths does make sense after all.

I agree, they don't need more broadband

[GregPK]

They could use it, sure.

However, countries in Africa could really use a 4 billion dollar investment into Concentrated solar power.

4 billion is all that it would take to make the necessary power for the entire continent out of sun power, mirrors, and liquid salt and some high power lines.

Once you get past the corruption anyways.

No satellite available.

[professorguy]

No line-of-sight to the geo-stationary plane. (I'm on the north side of a mountain.)

Poorer Countries?!

[morari]

How about we invest in broadband throughout America first? There are still plenty of smaller towns and rural areas that don't get to complain about how slow their 20mb cable connection is. All we have as options are terribly managed telephone lines which yield 24.6kbs at best, or if you're feeling lucky, you can hook up a laggy (and expensive) satellite.

Reality Check

[Ayrezyle]

I'm just back home after three weeks in Lusaka, Zambia, where our vsat link running at 128kbps up, 384kbps down is costing us just over $2,000USD per month. Yes, geo sync sat latency is a pain, but we'd take affordable bandwidth whatever way we can get it. Against this kind of price gauging, people are still making it work (http://link.net.zm/?q=node/230), but there like everywhere else, early adoption is costly (http://link.net.zm/?q=node/217).

Re:Reality Check

[kcelery]

From TFA, the cost of bandwidth could come down 95%, so that means new price can be $100 / month. I just wonder where they can find 3bn customers who can afford this amount.

Complain to whom?

[professorguy]

And who would I be complaining to? The South Carolina phone company (I'm in New Hampshire, 1000 miles away) that just bought the lines just took on $5B in debt. Think their first priority is to build out additional infrastructure in a sparsely populated rural area?

Good luck with those protests.

Luckily, a local consortium has promised wireless boradband within five years. Of course, I've heard that for the last 10 years.

OK, sign me up.

[professorguy]

OK, this sounds great. I'm in. So who would I be contacting to get this 10G service here in the northeastern US?

Oh, that's right. That'd be NOBODY.

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Re:OK, sign me up.

[Arthur Grumbine]

Sir, judging from all the replies you make to all the replies you received, I can see that you are both: an expert complainer, and someone who doesn't mind cheating their employer out of money (by doing this during work time).

I think the big news for you, though, is that we are not socialists, and that you do not deserve what everyone else is able to easily get. You choose to live in an area that geographically does not help you to be lazy at doing your job. I am so sorry to hear this. I truly am. When I think of the millions of poverty-stricken people in third-world countries who will be able to better themselves through this system, well...it just pales in comparison to the suffering you must go through...sometimes having to get paid to drive in to work late at night, to fix some crash/instability caused by your own ineptitude as an administrator.

I weep for you, Sir.

Food and vaccines handouts don't create jobs

[S3D]

And infrastructure do. In fact big food handouts could kill national agriculture, fragile as it is, and make people worse off in between handouts. Of cause broadband will create some potential for outsourcing. That is a legitimate complain, but don't have the moral high ground to invoke.

Cost to provide vs cost to purchase

[wurp]

If you can produce a product at 5% the cost of anyone else, and you maximize profit by providing it to the customer at 95% of the cost to buy from anyone else...

Of course, usually if you really can provide it at 5% of the cost, # of customers x $$$ profit per customer is higher for lower $$$ per customer. I'm just trying to point out that % discount to produce a product != % discount for a customer to buy the product.

TFA now says FIVE degress of the equator

[moondawg14]

... not 45. Big difference.

Politics

[Shivetya]

See the problem Google would face here is political.

If they invest in building better broadband in the United States they would have to go where told after awhile, if not upfront. Otherwise they would get vilified if here was offended or wanted to be offended.

It was like when high speed cable was being rolled out in my area, it HAD to go into certain neighborhoods, less than 10% uptake, before coming to mine because otherwise it would not have been "fair".

I am all for them going into countries like they provided they aren't paying some damn warlord to pad his wallet or sell out people for what they post.

Re:Some precisions

[raju1kabir]

Finally, one has to be careful about the commercial case. There -is- infrastructure in Africa & other areas. The problem isn't so much lack of technology as abusive pricing by national telecom operators. I can't imagine they would allow a system like O3B to operate in their country without charging a license fee (like mobiles).

So go around the monopolies. Google can leaflet villages with plans of how to build an earth station using a wok and parts cannibalized from old car stereos.

Oh God Lord No!

[supernova_hq]

Perhaps those people can "work from home in their spare time" as phone technical support or other and raise their standard of living.

The last thing we need is tech support being outsourced to yet ANOTHER country that knows even LESS about computers!

They're not doing it to sell ad space

[nrgins]

I don't think the issue here is bringing the Internet to all these people. As the summary notes, there's problems with power, literacy, etc. Plus, how much could Google actually make selling advertising to poor Africans? How much would advertisers be willing to pay to advertise to people that don't have much money with which to buy? No, the real goal here, IMO, is to set up an infrastructure that allows businesses to operate in the region, by making broadband available, and then sell broadband access to businesses who can set up shop there, get cheap and abundant labor, and have broadband access. Problems with literacy wouldn't be an issue, since only managers would need to access the Internet. And power issues wouldn't be that large, since they'd only need power lines to the places of business, not to individual homes. So here, I think, Google is looking to function as an ISP, rather than as an ad merchant.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Pietzki

[Pietzki]

[sarcasm]yeah, nothing but advertising and market share. I mean if they really wanted to make a difference, why don't they just target the causes of problems?[/sarcasm] seriously people... yes, google (or anyone for that matter) could pump this money into feeding people for a year or two, but after that, things would still be the same. Western civilisation has been giving aid for how long now? And how much difference has it made (apart from keeping people alive another day so they can suffer tomorrow instead)? I am all for help for the poor and needy, it - but I beg to differ on what constitutes REAL help. I used to think that we should just support poor countries as much as we can, but now I know that the only way any country will ever learn to stand on its own two feet is if (well meaning but ultimately flawed) handouts stop. The economic recovery of Germany after WW2 didn't occur because people just 'gave' Germany food and medical care. It occurred because under the Marshall plan, the US made long term investments into infrastructure and the economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder I'm not saying that google has no other motives than helping the needy, but neither did the US with post WW2 Germany. If they can make a buck while doing good, then good on 'em! Please people - read, and then think before you form an opinion!

Evrybody needs the internet...

[whizbang77045]

Eubola, the HIV virus, and now this.

Good Idea

[lznancy]

Traditional literacy is not a requirement for effective use of electronic communication, and as a bonus quickly learning an informal communication system (supplemented by verbal/visual content) is the best rapid learning curve in existence ( think of the scores of Pidgin languages that have and still do crop up for bartering over the centuries). On a wireless net using new low powered devices with solar and other locally available energy sources, this network can reach anyone anywhere. If this works out even filthy rich folks can use it for casual means and to keep in touch with everyone else while still having their exorbitant gadgets, etc. I think one of the problems with attempts to provide a laptop for all is not marketing them to everyone (the original buy two keep one and have one shipped to someone who can't buy one was the best model for shared communication and common ground, but it was dropped for simplistic pointless philosophical reasons and I suspect for serious market pressure from vested interests, someone correct me if I'm wrong, I wanted one and liked the idea of someone else getting one who needed it!) Real Human progress depends on those with more than sufficient marginal means setting aside about 20 percent of the Global marginal resources to build a minimal level of Human infrastructure that provide dignity and opportunity. The best way to insure that you don't starve is to build a society where no one is allowed to starve even if you occasionally have to eat hamburger. I applaud Google and I hope they eventually make money fairly for this foresight and imagination.

Now,

[The Cisco Kid]

if only they could do something about the sorry state of broadband in the US. Mainly the lack of any real competition.

Forced bundling with a phone line, for a combined fee of $80/mo, with a two-year contract and a $300 early termination fee? No thank you.

Forced bundling of TV services? Maybe with a contract too? For a combined fee of $80/mo? No thank you.

Anywhere except in high-density cities, the monopoly incumbent telcos and cablecos have a virtual stranglehold on you, if you want anything other than dialup. And thats assuming you are lucky enough to have both as an option.

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

[donnielrt]

Obviously it's Google's responsibility to work for your welfare! How selfish and uncaring of them to think outside of helping people with the richest government of the world!

And it's not like your hospital can afford anything more than a 26.4 kbps connection! It's not like those millions of African (and Indian, and Bangladeshi ... ) peasant farmers really need any more help than they already have to get out of poverty!