Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cuba's Pending Tech Revolution

Posted by timothy on from the are-we-supposed-to-be-grateful? dept.

dcblogs writes The White House order last week lifting economic sanctions against Cuba specifically singles out technology, from telecommunication networks to consumer tech. There's much potential and many obstacles. Cuba has an educated population craving technology, but it has little income for new tech. The Cuban government wants to trade with the U.S., but is paranoid about the outside world and has limited Internet access to 5% to 10% of the population, at best. "The government has been very reluctant to have open Internet access," said Harley Shaiken, chairman of the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. But "there is real hunger for technology," and with the easing of the embargo, the government "will be facing new pressures," he said. The country needs a complete technology upgrade, including to its electric grid, and the money to finance these improvements. "Markets like Cuba, which will require a wholesale construction of new infrastructure, don't come along often, if ever," said Todd Thibodeaux, president and CEO of CompTIA, a tech industry trade group. "The flood of companies lining up to get in should be quite substantial," he said. Cuba has a population of about 11 million, about the same size as the Dominican Republic, which spends about $1 billion annually on technology and related services, according to IDC. But capital spending today on IT in Cuba may be no more than $200 million annually.

9 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Did Congress pass a law? by HBI · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Didn't think so. That means the sanctions are still in effect...

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re: Did Congress pass a law? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much as I like what's happening recently, I'm really troubled by the *way* it's happening.

      Eric holder just gutted civil forfeiture. That's a good move, should have been repealed 30 years ago, I'm all for it.

      Has anyone noticed that a single man who was not elected gets to pick-and-choose which laws he will enforce? Here's a man in the executive branch who decided unilaterally to dump an entire law. The legislature can pass or repeal laws, that's their job. The supreme court can bless or condemn laws, that's their job.

      But the executive branch?

      Can they just unilaterally pick and choose which laws(*) they will prosecute?

      Similarly, Obama told Holder awhile back not to pursue "Defense of marriage" cases. That's fine too, the law should never have been passed and should have been dumped long ago.

      Has anyone noticed that this was done by the executive branch all on its own, with no oversight?

      I'm troubled by this because everyone accepts the outcome because the results are so good. The ends justify the means in these cases, it's so good to get these laws off the books that we don't notice *how* they got repealed.

      To be specific, in the future we will see the executive branch gutting laws more often, and if people complain they will point to these good results and say "it's OK for us to do this now because no one complained when we did it previously".

      This is a troubling turn of events.

      (*) I'm making a distinction between pick-and-choose laws, as opposed to pick-and-choose cases, the latter of which is within the discretion of the prosecutor. Yes, there's line, and yes it can be abused.

    2. Re: Did Congress pass a law? by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama can close guantamo. He can't transfer prisoners. He can't get them trials on american soil.

      Congress didn't stop the closing of that base the govenors did by refusing transfer requests.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re: Did Congress pass a law? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has anyone noticed that this was done by the executive branch all on its own, with no oversight?

      No, the executive branch is the oversight. Congress wanted those people prosecuted, but the president acted as a check and prevented it from happening.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Don't know why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't understand why any company would line up to put their assets in Cuba where the Castro brothers will seize them like they did in 1960 to the tune of a billion dollars before the US put the embargo in place to stop it...

    1. Re:Don't know why... by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the contrary, they'll be falling all over themselves to do it. We'd be talking about property rights that are granted by the existing government, rather than a previous one that was overthrown in a revolution. Property exists when a government pledges to defend your exclusive interest in something, and in general it's not guaranteed to survive a successful revolution. Or are you one of those people who thinks that property rights are granted by God?

    2. Re:Don't know why... by gizmo2199 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm still boggled how Western companies do business in countries like China and Vietnam, that have Communist governments. Wouldn't the government just seize all their assets?!

      Oh wait, no they don't...

      --
      This Sig does not Exist.
  3. Re:What Can Cuba Trade? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What, rum doesn't get sold anymore? I'd be surprised to hear that.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  4. Re:Toothpaste by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Venezuela has shortages because of price controls. That's a well-understood economic principle.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."