Could We Beam Broadband Internet Into Iran?

abenamer writes "Some reporter at a recent White House press briefing just asked the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, this question: Was 'the White House....considering beaming broad capability into Iran via satellite so the opposition forces would be able to communicate with themselves and the outside world?' 'Gibbs said he didn't know such a thing was possible. (Is it?) But he said he would check on the technological feasibility and get back with an answer.' I'm not sure what the reporter meant by beaming broadband into Iran: Do they even have 3G? Would we bomb the Iranians with SIM cards that would allow them to get text messages from the VOA? Or somehow put up massive Wi-Fi transmitters from Iraq and beam it into Iran? How would you beam broadband into Iran?"

Comments

Ummm

[clang_jangle]

How about we "beam broadband" to our own have-nots first?

Re:Ummm

[DrLang21]

I don't. The more we interfere here, the more likely it is that someone new is going to form a grudge against us. Why can't we just let people revolt without our interference? If the protests in Iran escalate to a civil war, then we need to stay the hell out of it. If we don't, how are we going to respond if the revolt loses and the Iranian government accuses us of encouraging violence and discord in their country? Do we really have to wonder why the Iranian government thinks we're a bunch of bullies?

Eh sonny?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Does whoever asked that question know absolutely nothing about how "beaming" works? We could easily transmit more or less whatever we like down; but that won't magically turn Iranian cell phones or wifi devices into satellite modems. You'd need to substantially change, and upgrade, the hardware that they are using for any sort of communication to be established.

And, if the plan is to provide large quantities of Officially Discouraged Hardware to all and sundry, we might as well just mix rifles in with the phones and call it a day.

Re:Eh sonny?

[kclittle]

I've worked in telecoms for a looong time now, on the technical side (embedded SW). If my Comcast service stops working, and is still not working after the usual sanity checks (restart Firefox, ping google, reset modem and router, etc.), I, uh, call Comcast. What, you want me to break out a 'scope or packet analyzer? Want me to pop the top on their green box out by the curb? Hack into their Cisco box at the head end? No, thanks -- it's *their* debugging problem, not mine! :)

Don't do anything

[giorgiofr]

The world has been clamoring for you guys to stop meddling in their affairs and only mind your own. So I suggest that you should do just that: it will cost you nothing and you won't generate any further ill will towards you. What's not to like?
Maybe people will change their mind or maybe they won't, either way you'll be covered.

Re:Don't do anything

[JustNiz]

>> that's entirely consistent with what should be American values.

Are you being arrogant or just ignorant in presuming that American values are somehow intrinsically better than anyone elses?

Re:Don't do anything

[elrous0]

There are too many people in the U.S. and UK who are WAY too into meddling in this fight. This is something the Iranians have to do or not do on their own. Nothing good can come of western meddling in this case. It will only give the Ahmadinejad regime an excuse to crack down on the dissenters as western-sponsored traitors. Even in the best case scenarios, the people we help will likely only resent us for it in the end (since it will taint their movement with the possibility that it was just some CIA sponsored coup, instead of a legitimate grass roots movement).

The best thing the west can do right now is to stay out of it and stfu.

The question is wrong. Let Iranians figure it out.

[postbigbang]

Iran, murky as it is, is a sovereign nation. Revolutions come from within, which is why we're spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The clue is: the iranians will figure it out. The more external influences are brought to bear, the more a subsequent government will be suspect by its people. They have to do it. We have to sit back and watch. Otherwise, it won't stick, and it will devolve into the seventh civil war in the Middle East. Here's the current list, if you're not sure: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Somalia, Eritrea/Ethiopia. A quiet revolution makes much more sense than one that will continue to divide what were once peace-loving peoples.

No

[abigsmurf]

Could we beam broadband internet into Iran? Yes. Could they send anything back? No.

However, everyone assumes that we 'should' be doing this and helping the revolution so they can experience 'freedom'.

For one thing, this isn't a popular uprising. It's taking place in a liberal city and is mostly students (although not entirely). Polls taken beforehand that were trustworthy indicate that Ahmadinejad could've expected between 40-50% of the vote in the election. That means he has a whole lot of supporters out there.

How do you think these supporters would feel if the opposition not only got brought into power on the basis of 'liberal' protesters who didn't represent them, but they were helped and organised through American help? Even if it wasn't state sanctioned, they'll still see it as America behind it.

All this to get a president into power who isn't that much better than the current one in terms of how liberal he is.

Brown and Obama have taken a strictly hands off approach for a reason. It's best at the moment to hope the situation resolves itself without excessive bloodshed. Too much pushing will at best, make a good portion of the country think we're meddling, at worst, it'll push the two entrenched sides into a bloody civil war.

It's currently Iran's problem and it should be up to the Iranian people to resolve it, not for the outside to decide what they think is best for them.