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?"
Could they beam broadband into New York City first? Thanks.
Camels with Wifi!
How about we "beam broadband" to our own have-nots first?
Caveat Utilitor
Just make the balloons festive colors and tell them we're throwing a nationwide party for Achmadinejad to celebrate his election. Air drop some party hats and noise makers. I'm sure they won't suspect a thing.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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...
You might need a lesson in history.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Guess he meant to say we don't legally sell guns to Iran.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
"Paper ballots?"
"Digital voting machines are way too easy to tamper with, and campaigns get really competitive around here."
-- Sheriff Jack Carter and Deputy Jo Lupo; Eureka "Here Come The Suns"
I want a website where my ssn and vote are public record!
So... you want a system where your employer can retaliate against you for voting the wrong way?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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
A couple of things:
Mousavi *is* a reformer. At least, he certainly has been promising reforms during his election campaign.
His history is definitely not good. His promises of reforms may or may not be believable... I don't know.
To be clear, in the context of a Canadian election this man and his policies would be considered extremist religious lunacy.
In the context of an Iranian election his election platform is a worthwhile step in the right direction.
If he had been elected last week I would not have any great hope for major reforms... I would hope for some small incremental changes.
Even without significant reforms, simply reducing the amount jingoistic 'jews jews americans americans!' hate-promotion coming from the office of the president would have been a very good thing.
Since the electoral fraud (assuming for the moment that it was fraud) and the supreme leader declaring that the results were legit and will stand all bets are off.
Many millions of people in Iran believe that the announced electoral results were obviously fraudulent.
When the Supreme leader unilaterally declared the opposite he insulted the intelligence of the Iranian middle class and popular support for more democratic rule surged. At least, support for the current system of quasi-theocratic/democratic rule plummeted.
Things have now gone so far that the very structure of government could change (crosses fingers).
In short, Iranians signed up for theocracy, not despotism.
(sure, we could argue that it is the same thing but you know what I mean)