SolarNetOne Wants Stable Internet Connections For Developing Nations

There are many initiatives to bring tech to developing areas of the globe; things like OLPC, Geekcorps, and UN programs. One new approach from SolarNetOne strives to allow users in those developing areas to have access to an internet connection without having to depend on unreliable infrastructure. "Each SolarNetOne kit is a self-powered communications network. Energy is produced from a solar array sized to each locale's latitude and predominant weather conditions. The generated power is stored in a substantial battery array, and circuit breakers and electronics protect the gear from overloads and other perturbations. A basic kit includes five 'seats,' implemented as thin clients connected through a LAN to a central server. The networking gear also includes a long-range, omnidirectional WiFi access point, and a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) device. Each kit also includes all the cables and wires required to assemble the system, so few additional materials are required for an installation."

Comments

Is the digital divide really the problem here?

[Palestrina]

Think of it this way, before 2000, or so, most people in the developed countries were not connected to the internet either. But that did not prevent us from attaining a high level of education, standard of living, etc. We landed a man on the moon with most engineers still using slide rules!

So I'm not buying it that the life of the average African would be substantially improved by their ability to download videos from YouTube. The article uses the example of Rwanda, that only 1% of the population can connect to the internet. OK, that is very low, I admit. But maybe decades of genocidal tribal warfare might also be a factor here, and addressing the root causes might a higher priority than the ability to set up a Facebook page.

I think it comes down to the basics: pubic safety, rule of law, market structures, literacy, infrastructure, etc. A connection to the internet can certainly help, in some cases. But in no way is it a necessity. Lower tech solutions may be more robust and effective, e.g., long distance shortwave radios, packet radio BBS's, etc.

Re:Is the digital divide really the problem here?

[Darkness404]

While I agree with you, there are also some things to be gained from having access to the internet. For example how many people would care about the situation in Iran if Iran had no internet? The internet lets people empathize with others around the world and allows for new ideas to be shared that might help create a revolution. When the poor villages in Africa realize that their tribal overlords aren't helping them, that food isn't as scarce as they think it is, change will happen.

Re:Is the digital divide really the problem here?

[Palestrina]

Didn't word of Tienanmen Square spread via fax machines?

My point is if you are looking for the greatest impact, then your idea of robustness needs to encompass more than the physical properties of the device. You're more likely to fail for lack of training, spare parts, support, basic infrastructure, etc. I think shortwave radio is far more robust. That is what we whip out in hurricanes, etc., when all the basic infrastructure is down. It is what works when nothing else does.

If I dropped you at a random spot in Africa, would you rather have a handheld shortwave radio? Or an iPhone?

(And forget for a moment that you would be more likely to be able to trade the iPhone for a ride to the nearest international airport)

Re:Is the digital divide really the problem here?

[PoolOfThought]

C'mon now... Can't I just download the shortwave radio app from the iPhone store?

FTA:Moreover, many countries have makeshift, fragile utility grids, rendering computers and uplinks useless during what are typically interminable outages. Worse, a natural disaster or civil emergency can cause widespread failure of infrastructureâ"ironically, just as the very same facilities are needed to communicate and coordinate with relief workers and local populations. Shipping containers full of recycled computers from the United States and other world powers do little good without electricity.

Seriously though, it seems like an okay idea to make internet connectivity available to every village everywhere, but what happens when it breaks down for any number of reasons? Seems like those panels would be put to a lot better use providing energy for any needs in the event of one of these "fragile utility grid" having a failure than limiting it to just computer / internet access. We just had a grid failure due to a tornado, and I would have taken electricity over internet access given the option...

Re:Is the digital divide really the problem here?

[NoNeeeed]

You are right, being able to watch youtube videos it not very useful.

Unless it's a youtube video about treating a livestock disease, or better techniques for planting.

Or perhaps being able to contact someone at the market *before* you set of on the three day trek to sell your crops/animals so that you know it's worth going and that you'll get a good price, rather than getting there and getting stiffed because you have to sell to *someone* but there's a glut.

Seriously, this isn't about being able to watch Star Wars parody videos on YouTube. It's about communication. In large, thinly populated countries, with terrible physical infrastructure, and sod-all education provision, communication can make a huge difference.

Mobile phones are massively popular in Africa, incredibly useful for farmers and traders, allowing them to organise, and work more efficiently. They have made a very real difference to the way these societies operate.

Remember, unlike the developed world, which is replacing otherwise functional communications infrastructure with the Internet, the developed world is jumping straight to it. This isn't about having the internet in Africa, it's about having any working communications system at all in Africa, and at the moment the best candidate systems are mobile phones and the internet.

Re:Is the digital divide really the problem here?

[notarockstar1979]

I think it comes down to the basics: pubic safety, rule of law, market structures, literacy, infrastructure, etc. A connection to the internet can certainly help, in some cases. But in no way is it a necessity. Lower tech solutions may be more robust and effective, e.g., long distance shortwave radios, packet radio BBS's, etc.

They taught us pubic safety in the military before we went to strange ports. It's important for everyone to know and will certainly increase quality of life.

Re:Is the digital divide really the problem here?

[sbeckstead]

The one thing that we have always had that these developing nations haven't is the ability of the common people to get news and human events stories. When you connect the people you can easily see that there is little difference between you and the people your commander has just told you to wipe out. You can also see that the rest of the world is ready to condemn you for what you are about to do. So communications and information dissemination is the key to these peoples developing more civilization. So even if the digital divide itself isn't the problem fixing it also fixes what is the problem and I see no harm in killing two birds with one stone.

A much better Answer...

[paulsnx2]

The U.S. has nearly broken the bank, fighting for freedom by, well, fighting.

Even in 2001, some technical people felt the better way to promote freedom would be to work to establish communications in countries that are now beset with violence and poverty and totalitarian control by oppressive governments (none of these three problems necessarily being related, mind you).

There exist problems with doing this. One is addressed by this idea, how do you even make computers work where the utilities and support are unreliable if not non-existent. But the advantage of this is limited if you don't deal with a second problem: How you link people into the internet in a way that denies oppressors and/or conflicts from breaking these connections (as Iran has attempted to do lately)?

Then of course, there is the problem of actually doing something. How do you get governments/people/companies to invest in the tiny costs (when compared to fighting in Iraq and elsewhere) of deploying such technology in places where it would be needed. The U.S. and its government is much more interested in dropping million dollar bombs to blow up stuff, than dropping a few bills in a way that would actually have leverage with the people of this world, and that would actually be appreciated.

Bombs and war are disruptive and prevent people from both hearing the ideas about peace and tolerance and telling their own ideas and stories to the world. We need a technology that both gives people a voice no matter what their circumstances, and the ability to join the dialog about such problems even if the power doesn't run all the time.

I hope people take such ideas seriously, and actually do something other than just sell these systems to rich people that like mountain cabins.

Re:The Internet can feed the world

[gclef]

While that statement is true on it's surface, it's also missing the point entirely. You also can't pull a people out of poverty by giving them food. You pull them out of poverty by teaching them how to do things for themselves (and minimizing corruption, but that's another discussion).

Put another way, giving developing nations access to information is the long term solution...food aid is the short term one.

Re:Me, me!

[StellarFury]

I'm not sure that no-infrastructure internet is possible in a heavily-bureaucratized, corporate-dominated country like this.

Unless you're talking about just the "unreliable" infrastructure part. In which case it's still impossible in a heavily-bureaucratized, corporate-dominated country like this.

Re:Me, me!

[Perp Atuitie]

"Reliable" would be good enough for me.

Re:Is it appropriate ...

[sbeckstead]

I can't fix the roof cause it's raining...boo hoo