O3B Details Plan for Satellite-Based Bandwidth For Africa

slash-sa writes "O3B Networks has been quietly preparing itself over the last 12 months for the moment last week when it announced that it was going to be offering cheap, low-latency satellite bandwidth that can cover any part of Africa by 2010. It has put in place early finance with Google, Liberty Global and HSBC. Here are more details from the entrepreneur behind the project, Greg Wyler."

Comments

Boom time

[gevreet]

With many african states effectively landlocked and with poor or insecure infrastructure this could be the data boom that africa has been waiting for. That is if it isn't choked off by self serving governments.

Re:Cheap?

[Technician]

"Low latency satellite bandwidth at USD 500 a Mbps or less by 2010"

Due to speed, time, distance physics, geostationary is high latency simply due to the speed of light and the distance out to the geostationary belt.

Because they're approximately 5 times closer to the earth than geo-satellites, the latency is reduced by approximately five times. It's a constellation of satellites?

That leaves low earth orbit. Low earth orbit means dopplar shift and high power or real time tracking.

Maybe for businesses..

Or maybe ISP's who then run WiMax.

Mobiles not laptops

[MosesJones]

I know that we are techies and we like computers but seriously do we think that the internet is the best thing to get into Africa in a hurry? If you look at what mobile phones have done in terms of communication and micro-payments then its hard to see the point of pushing expensive ($500 in a continent where people live on less than $1 a day) internet access as an important thing. Get the mobile phone network out first. This has the advantage of being lower power and with a built in infrastructure that can help micro-payments.

Arguing for VOIP and other internet based services as a way that internet access would be better ignores some of the basic economics and the experience of most 3rd world countries in the success of mobile phone communications in helping to raise people up out of poverty. Basic communications (voice) is the first step here.

So its good that its being done, but it would be nice to see one of these high profile cases actually support an existing approach that is working rather than always going after the "everyone must have a computer" scenario that makes sense for people sitting in an office in California.

 

Re:Mobiles not laptops

[cong06]

Have you ever been to Africa?
Imagine this:
A group of people that want to promote a good organization in the poorest Area of Tanzania. They want a website so they can get support from Americans who are willing to help their cause. Their website will have to be American based because the internet in Africa is terrible, and the fact that they have to connect to it through Cell phones makes it worse.
Instead this organization has a representative (that's traveling anyway) Upload the data in Kenya where internet is more reliable.

Now Imagine this:
A student wants to learn all he can at an affordable price. Text books are expensive and internet is basically not available (and even more expensive). The cheapest way is to have a friend from the states ship CD's of data that the student can then look over.

And this:
A Town wants to start an internet cafe, a source of income as well as development for the town. The two options are cellphone usb cards so that the computers hook up to a cellphone provider and use it as their internet (cheap set up, expensive use, price per MB) or Satellite (expensive set up, expensive use, price per Month). Said town is expected to go through a boom with an international airport about to open leading tourists right into the Serengeti. If the internet could be harnessed, this could mean a good economic boom for the town, and the money getting funneled right into the developmental project.

From my experience in Mugumu, I'd love to have this help them out. (and the airport probably won't yet be finished by 2010)

Re:Mobiles not laptops

[jotok]

You are woefully uninformed about Africa and you are reading into this venture.

There are places where people are living on next to nothing, but there are also relatively stable places that would benefit immensely from cheap internet as an enabling factor (Ghana, Nairobi, Joburg) for education and business. Look at what hooking up Pune has done for India.

It seems like any time anyone suggests investing in the tech sector anywhere in Africa, some doofus comes along and links to the Onion's "Tribesman uses modem to crush nut" or talks about how we should focus on "feeding people," whatever that means. You're basically arguing that we shouldn't improve the economy because we need to help the poor instead.

If you want to get educated, App+Frica is a good place to start.

Re:Mobiles not laptops

[batje]

I live in Uganda, which is the target audience for these satellites. We have 4 mobile providers, all providing GSM services. Mobile services are covered. What is not provided for is cheap IP. 500USD a month for 1 MB is Cheap. Currently the satellite prices are as much as 9000USD. Which is what our ISP would pay. Imagine our pricing or bandwidth sharing scheme! I am currently on a 64Kbps line for 175USD a month. I have a good deal. While the costs and access to communication services have improved tremendously over the last 10 years, there is a very real and true need for the next step. The step where people here can tap into the immense amount of knowledge that the human species is documenting on the Internet. That knowledge, for a great deal, is out of reach of most people here. And it is that knowledge that will eventually lead to the changes here that are so badly needed. This o3b initiative is the most beautiful gift to the African continent, ever.

Impractical.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Should've just dragged fiber.

Do you have any idea how the logistic problems with trying to lay fibre from Satelites down to Africa?

First you've got to fire your rocket carrying the fibre up, get it to loop over the satellite without destroying it, then have the rocket carefully navigate back to your chosen destination.

No - wireless is a better solution with satellites IMHO.

say hello to the next generation of call centers.

[timmarhy]

you know what all this bandwidth will be aimed at don't you, given the super cheap labor in africa. call centers and telemarketers. not necessarily a bad thing as it'll bring wealth into the nations that embrace it, but incredibility annoying to everyone else.

Harder then it seems, trust me

[jiggerdot]

I currently work for a company providing IP communications via satellite (both inclined and geostationary). Most of our customers are in Africa, and include some of the biggest ISPs in the more developed regions. since the bandwidth market there has been exploding in the last several years. So I know what I'm talking about when I say this guy sounds VERY optimistic.

The idea of using low earth orbit satellites is great as the latency on geostationary is indeed horrible. you're looking at a minimum of 500ms just to reach the ISP installation (in the US and Europe, in our case) and the RTT to your destination on top of that.If you run into another satellite link on the way, that's 1000ms minimum. so 123ms sounds terrific. BUT:

1) The guy flippantly says "If they want a gigabit, we'll give them a gigabit". For a gigabit, you'll need to work several transponders, with some insane modulation scheme (highest practical I've seen is 16psk, they'll need something MUCH more dense). The higher they go, the more error prone they get.

2) LEO will require tracking, or very high power. which means either a very powerful HPA (for the small links - the ones without the 3.5 meter dish) or a very fast tracking system for the large links with the dish. And what happens when you have to switch satellites?

3) They're looking to solve the last-mile issue with WiMax. This will interfere with C-band transmissions, so I'm assuming they will go with Ku-Band or higher, which is extremll sensitive to rain fade. Africa has quite a lot of rain. Combine this with point no. 1, and you're in trouble.

4) The article indicates they will give the customer a VAST or transmission station and all is good. It is not. Africa is not a nice place. equipment gets stolen and sabotaged. This is from sad experience. And if you do not have techs on the ground (which are very hard to find, at least competent ones) you're stuck either telling the customer "sucks to be you" or trying to support him through the phone with the replacement of a transmitter, which is a bit like trying to help someone fix an engine by correspondence.

5) The human factor - Without sounding too patronizing, the guys in Africa (even the more professional ones) need a LOT of hand holding. I truly hope they have a big and competent support department and NOC staff at the ready, who can understand garbled English through a bad phone connection, as these guys will want help with everything. From helping to identify which device in the network is causing congestion on the link, to "IP experts" who will be brought in to bring up a BGP session and will not know how to access the router, and will want your help in resetting the password step-by-step. You can, of course, tell them to manage their own networks, but you WILL lose customers. That's a lesson we learned the hard way.

In short, good luck to them, but if they truly think the technical challenges are the only ones, they're in for a very nasty surprise.