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?"

12 of 541 comments (clear)

  1. Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could they beam broadband into New York City first? Thanks.

    1. Re:Ummm by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    2. Re:Ummm by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I loved Jon Stewart's comments last night. They played a montage of clips of pundits talking about how America is going to be perceived by the world based on what we do with Iran, what's America going to say, how's America going to promote the cause of the protesters, and so on -- who which he responded something to the effect of, "Because, of course, what's going on over there is all about us!"

      It's not about us. It's about Iran. It's their election and their struggle for democracy. The biggest complaint held almost universally by Iranians is that we've meddled in their affairs for too damn long -- propping up the Shah, funding Iraq in a war against them, sponsoring MEK, and so forth. The last thing they want is the US government yet again trying to tell them how their society is to be run. That's a perfect recipe for the US to be a foil to the hardliners. Nothing will rally conservative forces in Iran more than the belief that the US is supporting a coup against them yet again.

      On the other hand, support from *individual Americans*, that's completely different.

      --
      I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
    3. Re:Ummm by darknb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why can't we just let people revolt without our interference?

      Because in the history of revolting THAT IS WHAT HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED, there has never been a revolt in the world where outside backers haven't cast there lot with one or another faction like that. So any thought of Iran revolting and America not being involved, because of good feelings and such, is just hopeful fantasy. Iran suffering a revolt and America is tacitly condemning the Iranian crackdown because the revolt is not likely to succeed and Obama has already made moves to reconcile with the ruling Islamic government. The only reason to even lodge a complaint against Iran was to put pressure on them, to make them uncomfortable, but unless the govt. shows signs of toppling America will not move in Iran. If America does move we won't even know what side America will back, they could just as easily support the ailing regime in exchange for their unending debt and gratitude...

      A more important question is why we would "beam broadband" (no doubt many slashdotters recoiled at this phrase, but we get the gist of it I suppose) to the opposition forces. Is there any evidence that broadband will help these people out against the government? They could just as easily use word of mouth and secret meetings, no doubt they already do. Unless this whole revolt started on the back of websites and mass emailings...
       

      EVEN MORE IMPORTANT is why you care about Iran in the first place. Tajikistan Turkmenistan Azerbijian and Uzbekistan (check your map all close neighbors of Iran) haven't had free elections in god knows how long. Look up Turkmenbashy! We don't care about these countries beating and torturing opposition supporters. These countries play ball, they are part of the great Caspian pipeline and the same police forces that torture electorates, torture terrorists/anarchists/democrats/republicans/monarchists who try and blow up the pipeline. The only reason human rights are brought up in the news/politics is because the West (sometimes the East) wants to gain something. Go look up the news for Tamil Tigers and War Crimes trials, Europe and the US want the Sri Lankan govt. to be punished, whilst China Russia and India don't: it certainly isn't because of a disagreement about who are the victims. Giving a shit about Human Rights abuses in Iran is hypocritical and foolish. In fact, giving a shit about human rights abuses at all is hypocritical and foolish...
       

      So please stop reading your newspapers/blogs/slashdotinternationalnews and answering for dribble like "How can we beam happy sunshine into Iran". Have some self-respect.

  2. An extention of the Sharks with Lasers Idea... by Het+Irv · · Score: 5, Funny

    Camels with Wifi!

  3. They don't have the hardware on their end... by alta · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. Eh sonny? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. DVB-S2/RCS or BGAN by Bluefirebird · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. The Tor project is already doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Internet, no. But maybe more satellite TV. by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. The question is wrong. Let Iranians figure it out. by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer by mcpkaaos · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might need a lesson in history.

    --
    It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.