Slashdot Mirror
Google Patenting Less Noble Use of Project Loon Tech
theodp writes "In June, Google unveiled Project Loon to acclaim from the press for its "moonshot" project that aims to use high-altitude balloons to cheaply provide internet connectivity to rural, remote, and underserved areas of the developing world. So it's interesting to see that a just-published Google patent application for Balloon Clumping to Provide Bandwidth Requested in Advance, which pre-dated the Loon launch by a year, paints a not entirely altruistic picture of balloon-powered Internet access technology. Google describes the invention — which had been kept secret with a non-publication request — as just the ticket for those well-to-do enough to pay a tiered-pricing premium to get faster internet access while attending concerts, conferences, air shows, music festivals, and sporting events where a facility's overtaxed Wi-Fi simply won't do. Hope this revelation doesn't make Bill Gates think any less of the project!"
..not a non-profit. Using the tech in this way is hardly immoral.
Wait, you don't mean someone has figured out how to use this technology for their own benefit, do you!? The horror! The humanity of it all!!
Liberty in your lifetime
The horror, the horror!
Google patented a method to help cover the costs of free wireless access balloons. This of course makes a bunch of idiots very upset that Google would not just pay for the balloons out of their magic profit printing press, because Google forbid that people who use a service help pay for it.
What's offensive is not making a (reasonable) profit. It's acting all trippy and cool about helping the poors, and then being all about the profit. If they'd launched the balloon idea saying "We'll make a mint off rock concerts," people would have probably said only, "Interesting" and moved on.
Also, about that reasonable profit: GOOG has a bigger profit than the GDP of lots of countries. They're making that off tracking you and feeding generally off other people's data and the (publicly funded) internet. So where's my check for 10% of what they're making off me? Capitalism is not actually supposed to be synonymous with "rip off." (I know. I know. Ridiculous to even mention it at this point.)
Using this tech for profit in developed countries, doesn't precludes using the same tech in underdeveloped and underserved countries for free.
Wait, what? Are those somehow mutually exclusive?
If they'd say "Oh, we're gonna help the poor!" and then only launched those balloons over the stadiums - you'd have a point, but you're saying "How dare they _also_ use this idea for making profits!"
PS: "So where's my check for 10% of what they're making off me?" - I think you used those up to fund all the services you use. Like, you know, Google search or all the sites that opt to use Google's ads and page stats to provide the services and entertainment to the Oh So Entitled You.
I really don't see why an innovation cannot simultaneously be both altruistic in intent and potentially profitable in application.
Who cares if they can also make some money on their invention that will bring internet to the world's remotest, poorest people at low or no cost? Good. It'll give them a reason to go ahead with it at all speed, and avoid it being shelved if they have a bad quarter.
I still have mod points left!
Funny how rather than the realistic idea that the organizers of an event might have use for internet access, TFA assumes some ultra-rich lady would bring her own internet. At say, the Super Bowl, do you think maybe the broadcast crews, the security team, the merchandising companies etc. might want reliable internet access? Nah, I'm sure just some random guy in seat 44K would be the customer.
This author sure had to work hard at playing stupid to come up with this attack against Google, didn't they.