Slashdot Mirror


A Strategy For Attaining Cuban Internet Connectivity

lpress writes "In the mid 1990s, there was debate within the Cuban government about the Internet. A combination of pressure from the U.S. trade embargo, the financial crisis brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union and fear of free expression led to a decision to limit Internet access. This has left Cuba with sparse, antiquated domestic infrastructure today. Could the government improve the situation if they decided to do so? They don't have sufficient funds to build out modern infrastructure and foreign investment through privatization of telecommunication would be difficult to obtain. Furthermore, that strategy has not benefited the people in other developing nations. A decentralized strategy using a large number of satellite links could quickly bootstrap the Cuban Internet. Decentralized funding and control of infrastructure has been an effective transitional strategy in other cases, for example, with the NSFNET in the U.S. or the Grameen Phone ladies in Bangladesh. This proposal would face political roadblocks in both the US and Cuba; however, change is being considered in the U.S. and the Castro government has been experimenting with small business and they have begun allowing communication agents to sell telephone and Internet time. It might just work — as saying goes "Be realistic. Demand the impossible.""

25 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Control vs. Prosperity by maz2331 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Allowing Internet connectivity reduces the centralized control that a totalitarian Communist system requires in order to protect the leaders and the system itself from the inconvenience of reality.

    1. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by mc6809e · · Score: 2

      It's hard to know anymore what anyone really means when they use the terms "communist" and "socialist".

      Marx used both of them to refer to societies where the means of production were collectively owned, where socialism was a transitional period before full communism.

      In practice, collective ownership has meant state ownership.

      Are you suggesting that it's the form of state ownership that distinguishes socialism from communism?

    2. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Allowing Internet connectivity reduces the centralized control that a totalitarian Communist system requires in order to protect the leaders and the system itself from the inconvenience of reality.

      Whereas in other countries we apparently use distributed control in order to protect the leaders and the system from the inconvenience of reality.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Don't even argue. He's just an assclown repeating 'no true Scotsman'.

      Communism is the system of government practiced by self described communists. Old books full of fallacies (the manifesto) don't even enter into the argument. Communism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. Because communism concentrates power and power corrupts.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Communism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. Because communism concentrates power and power corrupts.

      The exact same is true of Capitalism.

    5. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because communism concentrates power and power corrupts.

      And what does capitalism do?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except its not.

      Tell me, if the exact same thing is true of capitalism, then why is it that all of the self identified capitalist societies have the highest education rates, highest literacy rates, and highest standards of living for everybody overall?

      Compare that to self identified socialist states where quality of life and education are the worst. Notice how as China has been sliding away from socialism and more towards capitalism, the quality of life and individual liberties have improved.

      Another example: North Korea chose communism, South Korea chose capitalism. South Vietnam chose capitalism and when the North took over, they were forced into education camps followed by being forced into doing free labor for no reward other than the supposed "greater good." Vietnam has only recently begun to embrace capitalism again, and their economy is beginning to grow.

      Look at Venezuela where the glorious socialist revolution has caused that country to fall into its current period where people have the fewest freedoms they've ever had, to the near point where the president is almost a dictator, and death by murder is more common there than Iraq. Cuba used to be capitalist as well, and look at how poor they became once the "great socialist revolution" occurred.

      Yes, capitalism has its faults, and no system is perfect, but anybody who thinks socialism is any better than capitalism is dumber than a young world creationist. The evidence against that idea is so strong yet they are just flat out oblivious to it because it conflicts with their ideology of out things "ought to be."

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    7. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2

      What I find problematic with that mode of argument is that it tends to turn McCarthyite very quickly. Castro attempted to cut a deal with the US before going to the Soviets, he is rather less committed to communism than either his supporters or his opponents believe. He also gave the CIA the location of Che Guavera when he decided he was a liability. So there has been a basis for cooperation for a long time.

      The list of crimes committed by US Presidents panicking about communism is very long. Snuffing out a democracy in Iran to replace it with a bloodthirsty dictator, supporting the Khumer Rouge after Vietnam ejected them, installing Pinochet, a mass murderer in Chile. George W Bush just managed to cause the deaths of a half million Iraqis and wonders why he isn't being praised for his efforts.

      The problem isn't capitalism of communism, the problem is authoritarianism and elites who believe that brute force is the solution to every problem. Castro is a thug and a murderer but its the US who set up a torture chamber in Cuba.

      Since the US government has been spending a large amount of money to get the Internet into Cuba, giving them a pipe and letting them rip with it seems like the best way forward. They will try to control it but everyone knows that Cuba is going to liberalize in the near future.

      The logical way forward would be for the US to lift the blockade and let the commerce flood in. The communist system would collapse pretty quickly when there was money to be made. But the problem is that there is a faction that is less interested in bringing democracy to cuba as returning their assets that were nationalized. Since they stole the assets under the corrupt Batista regime, there aren't going to be many interested in that happening.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    8. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by Darktan · · Score: 2

      Wait. What does Capitalism have to do with democracy? Some Capitalist countries, especially the richest ones, are democratic, but democracy is by no means a required part of the Capitalist economic system.

      A better statement might be to say that central planning of economies doesn't work. While central planning is a typical feature of Communism, they aren't always the same thing.

    9. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by _merlin · · Score: 2

      Vietnam has a high standard of education. Overseas students from Vietnam definitely show up at Australian universities with better high school education than the locally educated kids. In my experience, the USSR delivered some highly educated people as well.

      It's hardly fair to ignore external factors that affect quality of life in Vietnam. They had the shit bombed out of them by the US and a lot of farmland destroyed with Agent Orange. Then they had the drain on their economy of cleaning up Cambodia in the wake of Pol Pot. Communism is a factor, but hardly the only one.

    10. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      In America, a socialist is a person who wishes to spend money on anything other than the military.

    11. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by iris-n · · Score: 2

      You should do some research on how Cuba was before the revolution. People don't revolt for nothing, you know? Although it's undeniable that today Cuba is quite poor (partly because of their own economic mismanagement, partly because of the US embargo), it is still in a better shape than it was under Fulgencio Batista. At least the people now have universal access to health and education.

      --
      entropy happens
    12. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by iris-n · · Score: 2

      That was a sarcastic answer to GP; I'm not one of these people, I think Sweden is a great country, and I'm fact gonna visit there in two weeks.

      I'm aware that yours is the "correct" definition of socialism, but you should also taking into account that the definition is very much culture-dependent. People in Europe usually refer to Sweden as socialist, and I'm happy to go along, since the old form of socialsm doesn't exist anymore in Europe.

      --
      entropy happens
    13. Re:Control vs. Prosperity by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Except its not.

      Tell me, if the exact same thing is true of capitalism, then why is it that all of the self identified capitalist societies have the highest education rates, highest literacy rates, and highest standards of living for everybody overall?

      Actually it is.

      There aren't any pure capitalist societies, unlike communism which started and failed, pure capitalist societies never ever got off the ground.

      Western economies are mixed economies, neither pure capitalist or socialist, rather a mix of the two and this is why they are so successful. Capitalism and Communism are limited ideologies incapable of change or accommodating anything out of their limited ideologies. This is why communism failed and pure capitalism (libertarianism) has never even started.

      Also, you've failed to explain why the "evil socialist" Nordic states have some of the highest living standards in the world (including amongst western nations).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. The Cuban Landline by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cuba recently (last 18 months) had an undersea line laid from Cuba to Venezuela. Previously they could only connect via Satellite link.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:The Cuban Landline by Coeurderoy · · Score: 2

      And they could share the cost of satelite communication with the Bolivian government which just launched it's own satelite.

      And if they start with providing enough connectivity for a couple of business hubs (wich means a couple of ethernet cables and wifi) they could try to use it to boost their economy, and if it works it will pay for itself.
      If it does not work, then they will feel that they do not really need it (and since easy access to youtube and facebook will not really help the common cuban citizen anyway, it will be somewhat true).

      Hopefully they'll find some way out of the current conumdrum withouth going back to batista times...

  3. Why are you so fucking stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cuba is a totalitarian communist dictatorship. That dictatorship has absolutely no interest in a decentralized Internet solution. Cuba's police state was set up by Che Guevara, who modeled it on that of his NKVD/KGB tutor, Lavrenty Beria.

    The communist government has exactly zero interest in "decentralization."

  4. Re:loving the new beta... by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

    Take a look at apple or microsoft's website if you want some perfection.

    You must be new here. You can't be *both* an Apple and a Microsoft fanboy; you must choose sides.

  5. Re:Not going to help by elrous0 · · Score: 2

    Ah yes, just like Saddam Hussein.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. Re:Not going to help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your "knowledge" of history is somewhat mistaken. The reason Castro was driven to looking for help from the USSR was the stupid attitude of the USA. That help had a cost, which was the placement of nukes. The Cuban missile crisis was the result of America's attitude to Cuba and Castro, not a planned event by Castro. Wise up and learn what actually happened rather than through the filter of "USA! USA! USA!"

  7. Seriously? by bluegutang · · Score: 2

    Cuba is a totalitarian police state. The problem is not too little infrastructure, it's too much oppression. And I don't see how an initiative like this could change the situation.

  8. Cuba-specific Tor + long range wifi (802.22?) by Khopesh · · Score: 2

    If Cuba built its own onion routing network (perhaps using Tor software though not connected to the Tor network), then each satellite dish or other internet connection would automatically be able to facilitate connectivity for the rest of the network. No need to wire anything (except some of the exit nodes), this can all happen over wifi.

    Don't forget that 802.11af, 802.11y, and 802.22 have ranges measured in miles (802.22 can cover 100km). Blanketing an island of 110km would still take a good number of antennae (especially given the dead zones created by dense buildings in cities), but at a governmental budget scale, it seems quite feasible.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    1. Re:Cuba-specific Tor + long range wifi (802.22?) by cbeaudry · · Score: 2

      "The island is 1,250 km (780 mi) long and 191 km (119 mi) across its widest points and 31 km (19 mi) across its narrowest points.[1] The largest island outside the main island is the Isla de la Juventud (Isle of Youth) in the southwest, with an area of 2,200 km2 (850 sq mi)."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

  9. Re:Not going to help by avgjoe62 · · Score: 2

    The U.S.. and a bunch of exiles still pissed about losing their wealth...

    When Pope John Paul II visited Cuba in 1988, he and Fidel Castro went on a boat tour of the harbor in Havana. About half way through the tour, the boat sank. Fidel picked up the pope and carried him back to shore, walking on the water the entire way.

    The next day, the newspaper headline in Tribuna de La Habana read "Castro Displays Superiority of Socialist Man".

    The newspaper headline in L'Osservatore Romano read "Pope Helps Fidel Perform Miracle".

    The newspaper headline in the Miami Herald read "Fidel: Can't Even Swim".

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  10. Re:Yes, it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are kidding, right? I'm a Cuban-American, grew up in Miami. Mom fled while she could, grand-parents got out in the final stages of their lives when they became a burden on the Cuban state. We hosted refugees from the Mariel boat-lift in our home in Miami and saw Miami transformed by the mass migration of Cubans to the US.

    People are wards of the state. They attend government run schools where they are indoctrinated in socialist-communist ideology. They are taught to worship a man Fidel Castro whom they have no right to vote in or out of office.

    Consider the possibility that you don't know as much about Cuba as you think. Over the past 50 years, a peculiar political culture had taken root in Miami which led to rampant speculation and the unchecked spread of rumors. Until recently, the lack of direct telecommunication between Cuba and the US was one factor. Other players were the large populations of exiles who had lost property in the revolution and militants who participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion (you didn't think those radicalized Cubans just disappeared after the invasion took place, do you?), all of whom had a personal interest in making conditions on the island sound as bad as possible.

    Yes, the vast majority of Cubans are quite poor, unemployed, and hoping to find a way to leave the country. On the other hand, Americans vastly overstate the degree that ordinary citizens have been indoctrinated and worship Castro. The Castro brothers are corrupt, selfish imbeciles, and everyone knows it -- not just in Miami, but also in Cuba. The typical citizen who shows up at a Communist rally is there because it was required by their employer (e.g. the government), not because they actually believe in that crap.

    When it comes to understanding the true situation in contemporaneity Cuba, being from Miami is probably more of a liability than an asset. On the other hand, President Obama has recently liberalized travel regulations, which would allow you to legally travel to Cuba and visit your relatives with no paperwork whatsoever. In the hacker spirit of free inquiry, why not go down there and see things for yourself? ;-)

    You'll probably come back less impressed with the Castros than ever, but more impressed by the ability of the populace to see the situation for what it really is.