Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Nokia Siemens Networks, the joint venture of Siemens AG and Nokia Corp, provided the deep packet inspection monitoring center within the Iranian government's telecom monopoly as part of a larger contract with Iran that included mobile-phone networking technology, according to the following article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html
Not affiliated with Time-Warner.
Could they beam broadband into New York City first? Thanks.
Just recently there was a story on slashdot about using balloons in Africa to distribute internet connectivity. I don't recall the speeds they considered feasible. Such a deployment in Iran may also have to contend with attempts to shoot down or disable said balloons by those in power.
Camels with Wifi!
How about we "beam broadband" to our own have-nots first?
Caveat Utilitor
We would have to ask Scotty if we had enough power to beam broadband.
Great, one more thing that Iran could accuse us of... meddling in their election, providing support to protesters in hopes of influencing their electoral process, just what we need! Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, and I'm all for helping but it's just one more thing. Don't we have enough to worry about on our home soil?
Getting a signal TO them is easy. You just have to set up a source with sufficient power. Satellite, ground, shortwave, whatever. I think it would be feasible (I'm not radio guru) to beam them FM from space or Iraq. Basiclly you'd be breaking all the transmit power limits to further your cause.
The problem with networking is they don't have any devices powerful enough to beam the return signal BACK to us. Sure, we can broadcast them a packet 1000 miles away, but their hardware only has the power to return it 1 mile back... Yeah, you can tweak the sensitivity of your receiving equip, but not enough for this. And the idea of cells is that you are counting on a signal only reaching a certain distance, so you can reuse that frequency in another location. Even if they all put 100,000 watt amplifiers on their wifi cards, on our end it's just jumbled garbage.
By the time we got any hardware to them to let them communicate with us, this revolution will be over... R&D, Procurement, Distribution...
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
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.
There's a number of places that offer satellite internet to geosync satellites. http://www.wildblue.com/aboutWildblue/how_it_works_demo.jsp http://www.ussatellite.com/how-satellite-internet-works.html
There already are various Satellite Providers that offer Internet Connectivity also in Iran, just try to :google it .
I'm pretty sure the US Army already has it's own satellite ISP that works in Iraq, which means it also works in Iran, they'd just have to be so generous to let the Iranis use it, they don't really need special equipment for this, they can buy satellite capable phones in Iran, they just need the access to the US army networks, or commercial networks. Just give them some access to satellite providers, then they can set up their own networks on site if they're the least bit organized, otherwise it's no use anyway.
Wifi from Irak isn't really possible, It would work around the borders, but that's all, Iran is a pretty big country, it's meaningless, satellite is the only option, either that or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers .
Would Muslims want to use ham radio?
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.
Global warming is a cube.
There are two possible technologies (among other similar ones)
With DVB-S2/RCS you have a bidirectional satellite system that requires a 1.2 meter dish antenna and a satellite terminal composed of an indoor unit (about the size of a bulky cable-modem) and an outdoor unit (transmitter and receiver horn mounted on the focus point of the satellite dish. This costs around US$1000 dollars and it takes about 30min to install (if you are an experienced installer).
With BGAN you have a very portable terminal (about the size of a netbook) that only requires you to point it in the general vicinity of the satellite location in the horizon.
Both systems use GEO (geostationary) satellites, which means that they have a fixed location in the horizon. They are actually located over the equator (0Â latitude) and they orbit the earth in 24h cycles, thus appearing to be stationary.
With DVB-S2/RCS you can have a 50Mbit/s in the downlink, although most services provide less than 10Mbit/s. The usually upload speed is 1Mbit/s. This speeds are shared between all terminals within a beam (similar to Internet over cable, where you share your Internet within a residential area of about 1000 persons).
With BGAN you only have 492Kbit/s in both the downlink and uplink. On the other hand, it is designed for mobility.
Fear is the mind-killer.
http://www.wildblue.com/aboutWildblue/how_it_works_demo.jsp
WildBlue's two satellites, located 22,500 miles above the Earth's equator in geostationary orbit
So no, that isn't LEO.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
The Tor project has taken it upon themselves to help out the resistance in Iran. They have instructions to setup Iran only Tor bridges to provide secure/anonymous internet access to and from Iran.
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/measuring-tor-and-iran
Too bad the press isn't paying attention to the (very successful) efforts by the Tor project in helping out the people of Iran get communications in and out of Iran. No need for the White House to do anything, the good folks and volunteers at Tor are taking care of it in a much more practical way.
Also, whoever wrote this article/said that comment has no idea about physics and technology. Some of the comments here talking about how unbelievably implausible "beaming broadband" into Iran is are very funny.
You can't just throw internet into a country.... not in any practical way anyways, especially from a satellite without proper ground equipment.
Give the handsets to the guys who smuggle booze in over the Turkish border. They've been giving Iranian authorities the runaround for years.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Some are born with Internet, some pay a lot for Internet, and others have Internet thrust upon them.
The US is currently sending out satellite TV news in Persian 24 hours a day. It's on Telstar 12; the eastern edge of coverage is near the Iran-Pakistan border, and the whole EU is covered. Someone please take a look and see what they're sending. The IBB doesn't seem to have the transponder number, symbol rate, or frequency on their site, which is lame.
Where there any revolutions recorded in history before the internet existed? Sorry if this seems like a dumb question. Maybe someone is doing their thesis on it or something.
The majority of the country lives in mud huts with goats in their yards and are lucky to have electricity for even part day if at all.
And that's where Ahmadinejad got his 60% of the vote. It might be interesting to enable the 'intellectual elite' of Iran living in the big cities to make their displeasure known to the rest of the world. But as long as they have a semblance of a democratic system, their fundies are going to run the place.
Have gnu, will travel.
while it is true that "beaming" broadband into Iran is absurd. as others have said, whomever asked the press secretary that question is ignorant of how broadband works and deserves to be laughed at soundly by their peers. :p
that said, your characterization of Iran is way off. Iran is considerably more civilized then what you think it is. Electricity, cell phones, computers, and internet access are all relatively common place in Iran.
The place that you are describing is called Afghanistan.
In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
In Iran.. protesters that have been arrested, have been put on TV to tell how they have been influenced by the BBC and Voice of America to riot.. This is part of their punishment. The government is spinning everything as a western plot.. The latest is that the shooting of the girl Neda, was somehow staged by the west.. The Iranian governments propaganda is is like conspiricist theories on steroids.. They will use a question about beaming broadband to prove that the west is behind it all, you can be sure,
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
How is Palestine a civil war? Or are you talking about history? The last civil war in that area took place a couple thousand years ago, which makes sense seeing as how that was the last time the area had sovereign rule against which to start a war.
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.
Wouldn't the Iraqi government have to sign off on that, since Iraq is sovereign nation? I suspect there is enough Iranian influence that they would not allow it.
The uplink is the difficult and expensive part. Receiving satellite multi-cast is cheap. Wifi is cheap. So it should be dirt cheap to produce lots of local satellite->wifi repeaters pumping out data, so long as you skip on the uplink. Have some sort of simple one-way streaming multi-cast protocol. (You'd only need to do multi-cast on the LAN, and depend on distributing lots of units to get wide area coverage.) You'd have to distribute a new piece of software so that RSS readers and web browsers could view the content. Opera Unite might be able to do this. Any kind of locally installable web browser would do.
Balloons are cute, but you wouldn't even have to do that. All you have to do is get them to locals somehow. Just make these things self contained, disposable, battery powered with lots of longevity. The locals could stash them in random places out in the open and it would be completely deniable.
Of course, FM radio is a *lot* cheaper. So is analog television.
How is Palestine a civil war? Or are you talking about history? The last civil war in that area took place a couple thousand years ago, which makes sense seeing as how that was the last time the area had sovereign rule against which to start a war.
it seemed pretty civil warrish when Hamas booted out Abbas by using guns.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
And that's where Ahmadinejad got his 60% of the vote. It might be interesting to enable the 'intellectual elite' of Iran living in the big cities to make their displeasure known to the rest of the world. But as long as they have a semblance of a democratic system, their fundies are going to run the place.
It is also where more than 100% of the people voted (you'll have to scroll down on that link, I don't know why I can't get a static link directly to that article), and somehow Ahmadinejad got a lot of new support since the previous election. Seems a bit unlikely, don't you think? If Ahmadinejad does have such huge support, why does he have to photoshop his crowds?
The people in the countryside are religious, but so are the people in the city, and so are the reformists. In fact, the entire basis for this democratic push is based on Islamic religious principles. Notice also that Mousavi is not trying to force himself to become president, he is merely asking for fair elections. This must be something even people in mud huts must want, otherwise they wouldn't have voted. There was a poll taken before the election that confirms this point: nearly 4 out of 5 said they wanted to elect even the supreme leader.
While none of us can go to Iran and ask people what they think, and while it is possible that Ahmadinejad won the election and might possibly even win a revote, it is hard to find a reason to think that most Iranians don't support Mousavi's ideas of fair, honest elections. Who votes and then doesn't want their vote counted?
Qxe4
I don't get the whole Iran thing at all.
What do I know:
Mousavi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi ) is not a reformer. He was prime minister during some of the worst days of the revolution. He held high offices and oversaw the imprisonment of tens thousands of peaceful opposition figures (or just ordinary people caught drinking wine for example). Many of whom were tortured and/or killed. For some insight into those horrible times you can check out Persepolis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(comics) ) movie or comic.
Mousavi seems to be a member of a so called "reformist alliance". Former president Khatami also belongs to the same group. He was elected, because many people seemed to hope they could bring some change using the elections. Khatami himself said that he is not a reformer. But still tried to ease up on the restrictions governing the daily lives of the Iranians. It didn't help. Other "more hardcore" elements of the government that are not controlled by the president and the parliament cracked down and reversed changes. As a result the public grew weary of the so called "reformist alliance" that could not (or didn't want to) actually reform anything.
The whole thing looks like trouble within the supposedly ruling class of clerics. Why do so many people protest on the streets? Most likely it wouldn't make a difference if Mousavi was elected. Also AFAIK the Pasdaran actually control Iran. A very corrupt military organization ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution ).
Can anyone shed some light on this whole thing? Could it not be that Ahmadinejad actually got 60% of the popular vote? After all he is a populist. Maybe he is popular after all. Why would the rulers of Iran risk a popular uprising for nothing. Khatami couldn't do anything at all. He didn't have much actual power. Same with Ahmadinejad. He is just a puppet. Mousavi would also just be a puppet.
"propping up the Shah, funding Iraq in a war against them"
Those were blatant means of changing specific policy/removing governments we didn't like, etc..
I see no reason why the US can't help promote general ideals (freedom of press, etc..) while not commenting on any one leader. I think it is morally correct to pressure Iran into NOT arresting reporters and killing protesters for example.
Obama seems to be increasing the verbal pressure in denouncing some things, which I think it good. However, I see no reason why we should pursue additional means of pressure, sanctions, etc.. whatever.
It is a fine line between 'interferring' and upholding basic human rights. That is, assuming you agree that we should attempt to promote what we consider basic human rights in other nations (I do, but I know that some do not)
Well Iran has also "meddled" in US affairs and their regional neighbors as well.
After the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in late 1990's- their embassy was overrun and staff murdered. Iran had concerns that Taliban would target Iran in their jihad. After 9/11 foresaw an opportunity to defeat the Taliban without blooding their hands. Iran provided the US with intelligence to help defeat the Taliban in northern Afghanistan with assistance with the Northern Alliance (who had good ties with Iranian Government).
When the tea leaves showed that US was planning to invade Iraq, Iran was offering to provided the US with intelligence for the upcoming battles. Their angle was that after the Saddam regime was defeated Iran would have a solution. Exiled Iraqi politicians in Iran who were sympathetic to Iranian politics would be instilled as the new government. US declined this generous offer.
Iran now provides arms and training to opposition forces in Iraq
How did your revolution against the British turn out on your own? Oh wait - it didn't. The French helped - as did the Dutch & Spanish.
But go on it seems to be the prevailing thought process on Slashdot today so you'll get your +5 insightful. Iraq & Afghanistan btw have different problems as to why they are currently expensive (probably has a lot to do with the horrible mismanagement & wide-spread corruption with the private contractors Bush liked so much).
BTW the CIA promised help thus encouraging the Hungary Revolution in 1956 against the Soviets. Guess how well that turned out for them without any external help. What do you realistically expect to happen here? If we leave things alone, the Iranians potentially could get slaughtered (however, I'm not going to presume to understand all the intricacies of the political system - it's extremely complex with lots of factors like the guardian council, which elects the Ayatollah actually supporting a recount AFAIK). Simply saying it's in our best interest to stay out of it is extremely stupid - it's hedging the bet that everything will remain status quo. If there is a successful overthrow, they probably won't appreciate not getting help from the States while they were dying - they might not care, they might understand, they might not.
Sit down.
Get rid of your bile and your testosterone. Leave them alone.
If our interests are the Iranians, let's watch them win this one. If it's US interests, then you're just one more corporate stooge looking for your next earnings statement.
Hedging your bet means getting your hands dirty. Let them win by exposing bias and distortions of the truth within their process. External pressure from the US and/or UK will have a negative reaction. Give them tools; let them do the work. Things are much more valued if you really have to earn them.
And the US tendency to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations is plainly stupid and serves (often) only corporate interests, not those of the US people or those of the sovereign nation. Look at what history tells you. Look at the damage done.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
In theory, WIMAX can give you usable (if somewhat slow) speeds out to 50km - which might get some villages close to Iran's borders but won't help Tehran at all.
Anyone who has the right sort of CPE, the right knowledge, and proper credentials can use a dish subscriber network to get as much as 2mbps down and 1mbps up. The latency blows, but it's not like the service is meant for playing the latest FPS. The big downside is the customer equipment - satellite dishes are thick on the ground in most areas of the middle east, but I'd be a little surprised if enough of them are the right sort of dish to matter. If they are, it may not matter - Iran's been taking various measures to reduce citizen's access to satellites