Slashdot Mirror
Can Google Connect the Unconnected 2/3 To the Internet?
lpress (707742) writes "Google, along with Facebook, is a founding partner of Internet.org, which seeks "affordable internet access for the two thirds of the world not yet connected." Google is trying to pull it off — they have projects or companies working on Internet connectivity using high-altitude platforms and low and medium-earth orbit satellites. These extra-terrestrial approaches to connectivity have been tried before, without success, but Google is revisiting them using modern launch technology (public and private), antennas, solar power, radios and other electronics, as well as tuning of TCP/IP protocols to account for increased latency. For example, they just acquired Skybox Imaging, which has a low-earth orbit satellite for high resolution video imaging. In the short run, Skybox is about data, video and images, but the long range goal may be connectivity in developing nations and rural areas — substituting routers for telescopes. Skybox plans to operate a constellation of low-earth orbit satellites and that sounds a lot like Teledesic's attempt at providing connectivity in the mid 1990s, using the technology of 2014."
From Google's perspective it does of course, because more people online are more people to sell ads to. But what about us, other connected citizens of earth? Will Mbembe's life really be enriched by being able to spend two dollars on special candies in Candy Crush? What about Min Soo-Ah, how will wifi balloons save her from living in a country where hot water doesn't reach above the second floor? How is this not just silicon valley jerking itself off?
So, it's like the Internet, but in the sky? Let's call it SkyNet!
Ezekiel 23:20
How about we focus on Comcast / NBC / Universal / Time / Warner first?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
You might want to take a look at this (safe for work and all, don't worry, it's just a map of the night earth).
And then you might ponder whether giving these people internet is going to do them much good.
Hint: Sending a fridge into the middle of the desert doesn't allow the people there to refrigerate their goods. You know why? Same reason why internet won't work!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You really have no clue.
In much of the 'third world' - phones - dumbphones are revolutionizing banking, and doing things to enable farmers to get higher prices for stuff at market, as well as microinvestment.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1011804...
Firefox are launching a $25 phone. Is it a good nice internet access device - no.
But it will render wikipedia (for example) and let someone track weather forecasts, and do email and essentially everything the internet was when you had a 9600 modem.
(neglecting for the moment that it won't be able to connect to the above satellites - but in several years it's plausible for the same price).
$25 is a lot of money for someone earning a dollar a day.
But, it is much less expensive than the cost of schooling for a year for a child.
I have mod points, but I'd rather simply explain this...
Warren Buffet has actually made this exact analogy before (I believe when he and Bill Gates did a joint Q/A session). He acknowledges that he has no skills that would be of any use if he were on a deserted island. He's even joked that he'd be eaten in a couple of days if he were born while humans were still hunter-gatherers.
What many fail to understand is that there are positions in society. I'm not talking about peasant versus king positions. I'm talking about people who are particularly skilled in a certain area and they can take advantage of those skills to make a living for themselves and/or make others' lives easier. Farmers are necessary, soldiers are necessary, teachers are necessary, and investors are necessary (note, I'm using the term investor as define by Benjamin Graham), etc...
Why is manual labor considered morally superior to allocating one's money where it would do the most good? Why are those who pour hundreds or thousands of dollars into construction companies, mining companies, or wood/metalworking companies demonized for allowing companies in those sectors to expand their business, hire more people, and offer their product in larger markets?
Did the rich build this country? Of course not. However, without the rich, no-one else could afford to.
I would bet that the people who criticize the rich for having money are the same people who criticize those who finance expensive houses, a Mercedes-Benz, and Prada bags with debt for being irresponsible with their money.
Is being poor supposed to be the only moral way to live?
Nobody has brought up an obvious (to me I guess) consideration.
How would 'other 2/3' perceive the internet / computers in general in their cultural context.
Imagine a refugee camp where war torn peoples flock across a border and are placed into a predesignated area. Now (if it was Turkey*) they'd have all the basic amenities, food, shelter, water, plumbing...tv. What they are lacking (as far as I can tell) is any pervasive computer/internet. Consequently, boredom is one of the biggest problems in these refugee camps.
What if they all had the internet though?
What would they do with something of that magnitude that they've never had before? Would it become self-organizing? Would they require classes? If so, how in-depth? What if the literacy rates were low? Could small pictographic games still provide entertainment? Could MMOs (or whatever) provide a sense of purpose, if only virtual, to somebody's life?
Now take that microcosm and multiply it by 'the other 2/3'.
We need to approach this as a legitimate problem that is capable of being solved through research and refinement.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02...
Reason Google is behind this drive is that it will allow them (and NSA) to reach more consumers.
Similar to how USA and other countries' corporations were happy to make Iron Curtain fail - not exactly for political/goodwill reasons, but to reach more consumers.