Can Cuba Skip Cell Phone Connectivity?

lpress writes: Cuba has a second generation cellular network and Internet access is limited to about 5% of the population via work and school accounts and (mostly dial up) access in a few homes, so it was big news when they rolled out 35 public WiFi hotspots. Can they expand this public WiFi and skip 3G and 4G cell infrastructure until 5G equipment is available in about five years? By then, the US trade embargo will be gone, the Cuban economy will be improved and 5G and other wireless technologies will be available. Will they even need cell phone capability by then? The linked post has some interesting musings that apply to places other than Cuba, as well.

Comments

People have to be careful

[fustakrakich]

You make communications too cheap and easy, and there won't be any profit in it...

Re:People have to be careful

[dreamchaser]

Milk is profitable still. So are eggs. Trust me, everything that matters will remain fairly profitable. Governments will guarantee it.

Re:People have to be careful

[rtb61]

Excuse but US trade embargo will have not much at all to do with Cuba. It is all about US tourist going to Cuba (legalising Cannabis will promote that faster than anything else) and some Cuban products going to the US. Why the hell would Cuba import anything from the US when the US imports it all from China. Let's be honest Cuba just wants US dollars (for as long as they last) to buy stuff from Russia and China.

Re:People have to be careful

[fustakrakich]

This is true. Through price supports (there goes cheap) and heavy regulation (so much for easy) some people will make a tidy sum. Indeed abundant opportunities await.

Re:People have to be careful

[Karmashock]

That will be controlled by the market unless the government subsidies overwhelm it.

If I supply so much of X that it exceeds demand and drives the market price below the production cost of X... then that will stop investment in supply and probably cause supply to contract.

Supply will contract until such time as the demand price increases to some number above the production cost.

That's just fundamental economics. You can't both over supply a market AND have that over supply continue indefinitely without subsidies. Which means while you can get points in time when the supply exceeds demand... over time... supply tries very hard to provide just ENOUGH to meet demand.

Its much more common for supply to be BELOW demand rather than above it. Take the supply of submarines or rocket ships or whatever... There's much more demand for a lot of things than there is supply to meet that demand. At any price the world can only produce so many hand made sports cars built in some Italian factory. There's a limit. And the high ticket price of such things is largely a rationing system.

You get similar things in healthcare... and that shows the limits of subsidies. Even if you throw money at something you're only going to get so many of X and throwing more money at eventually gives you diminishing returns.

Labor issues, resource limitations, space constraints, logistics.

Point is that Cuba can't sustainably provide more communication to the people than the people either want or can pay for.

Re:People have to be careful

[gl4ss]

you think the 5g will be free?

I don't understand though why the OP seems to think that 5g cellphones wouldn't be cellphones or 5g cells wouldn't be cells, or why 3g phones aren't phones or some shit like that.

they might skip GSM but uh gsm is 20 years old technlogy. that's like asking in 2005 if some countries will skip straight from not having nmt to having gsm+3g base stations.

will they skip cellphones to cellphones? sure..

Re:People have to be careful

[kenwd0elq]

There will never be (until the "Revolution" collapses and the Castros have attained room temperature) any wireless service that isn't aimed squarely at the tourist market. No Cuban who isn't a government agent will ever use it.

Re:People have to be careful

[sound vision]

The vibe I got from the writeup was this: 5 years out, it could be feasible to have a country-wide wifi network that would handle data voice.
Of course I don't think that's actually the case, due to range issues among other things, unless you are looking at only providing service to heavily urbanized areas.

Re:People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

Point is that Cuba can't sustainably provide more communication to the people than the people either want or can pay for.

In a typical micro-economics analysis, there's a supply curve and a demand curve. The idea behind the demand curve is fairly straightforward: all other things being equal, people will collectively buy less of a product as the price increases. The macro-economic picture gets more complicated, though: imagine that the money people use to buy the product comes from profits they make by selling the product. If there's too little money in the economy then no one can buy anything because no one can sell anything.

But I digress. Even in a simple micro-economic analysis the supply curve is more difficult to understand. The contention is that "the market" will be willing to sell/supply more of a particular product at a higher price. In the very short term, this makes sense: if I walk around asking people to sell me the shirts off their backs, I'll find more people willing to sell if I offer a higher price.

But in the longer term, I'm up against economies of scale. If I can guarantee that I'll buy a million shirts a year for the next ten years then someone is likely to build a factory that can produce shirts very efficiently (e.g. only a few dollars per shirt). But if I only want one shirt and someone has to go off and figure out how to make it by hand then I could easily be looking at thousands of dollars for just that one shirt.

Now, just about everything that is produced requires some combination of limited resources (e.g. labor and/or raw materials). So if you try to produce millions of shirts made out of solid gold then eventually you'll run out of gold. Or if you want billions of haircuts every hour then you'll run out of people to do the labor of giving you the haircut. So, at the extremes it does sort of make sense that you would have to pay a higher price in order to get the market to supply more of a particular product.

But that all ignores long term gains in efficiency due to increasing knowledge. Computers are an obvious example. People have much more powerful computers than they had, say, fifty years ago. But that's not really because they're paying more. In a certain sense, in this case, the supply curve is sloping the other way: people are paying a lot less for a lot more.

So, can a government sustainably provide more communication to people than they want? Well, yes, it can. Such a policy won't be optimal in terms of economic efficiency but it's not fundamentally impossible from the perspective of basic economics either.

Re:People have to be careful

[Karmashock]

hmmm... what do you mean by "too little money in the economy"... this sounds like short hand for "poor".

If there is less money in an economy then there is no means to reward suppliers by exchanging value you create for value their create.

As to markets trying lower costs, increase profits, increase production, etc... nothing I said contradicts that.

I did not specify what was or was not a profitable price. I simply said that if the people in a given reason do not have the money or the interest in a product or service it will not be supplied without subsidization.... which effectively is another group of people paying and buying a good or service for someone else. Thus when speaking of subsidization, you have to treat the people offering the subsidies as the people with the demand because the demand end of the equation is sustained by them and not the consumers.

Re:People have to be careful

[ultranova]

At any price the world can only produce so many hand made sports cars built in some Italian factory. There's a limit. And the high ticket price of such things is largely a rationing system.

True but meaningless. The world can produce enough cars for everyone. It can even produce enough sport cars for everyone. The attributes "hand made" and "built in some Italian factory" are slapped on to turn an otherwise ordinary product into a status symbol, who's defining feature is exclusiveness. It has no consequences for people who simply want to get from point A to point B fast and thus need a (fast) car.

In other words, "hand made sports cars built in some Italian factory" are primarily the modern equivalent of Imperial Purple of ancient Rome: they advertize their owner's social position. They simply happen to have some utility as cars as well.

What this all means is that the economics of hand made sports cars have nothing to do with economics of communications. Everyone can't be richer than everyone else, but even the poorest person in a country could be well wealthy enough to have a 100 Mbit Internet connection on their cellphone. And in fact the wealthier they are, the more likely they are to participate in the economy, politics, culture etc. in a productive manner; for example this discussion is more likely to produce good ideas and expose bad ones as such than if all of us sat on a carboard box somewhere and tried to forget our growling stomachs.

Point is that Cuba can't sustainably provide more communication to the people than the people either want or can pay for.

It can, however, change the relative costs of various options to steer development away from local optimum towards true optimum, or even infinity. "Cost" here can involve either money, punishments for undesirable behaviour, or extending willpower to resist indoctrination. Theoretically, this can lead to better outcome due to planning ahead of time and thus having better coordination; in practice, this planning needs to be done by someone, and that someone is chosen from candidates filtered and heavily targeted by various interest's propaganda, leading to the reality-disconnected insanity we see in politicians and other powerful people all the time.

Luckily, better communications also make untrue indoctrination harder to maintain. There's a reason why, for example, religious fundamentalists oppose - either via terror like in Afghanistan or via sabotage like in the US - education: it might not destroy the student's faith in God, but sure does destroy the illusion that the group's dogma is God's will. It's why censorship is nearly synonymous with tyranny, and why everyone who's nation is building national firewalls or other such infrastructure can be certain there's nasty surprises in store. If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, after all.

Re:People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument is that Cuba might want to skip a dedicated voice network and go directly to IP for everything, not that they shouldn't have phones. This is the direction the rest of the world is going: LTE already doesn't have "circuit switched" voice anymore, and landline phones have been in decline for more than a decade.

Re:People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm... what do you mean by "too little money in the economy"... this sounds like short hand for "poor".

The notion that socioeconomic inequality leads to high unemployment and general economic stagnation is certainly attractive to people who dislike socioeconomic inequality on ethical or even aesthetic grounds. But the evidence for that is mixed at best. As far as basic economics is concerned, at least, it should be possible to have an economy where almost everyone is desperately poor but nonetheless fully employed producing luxury goods for a small hereditary ruling class.

But too little money in an economy leading to a recession has a lot of solid evidence. It's a complicated macro-economic thing but the Capital Hill Babysitting Co-op is a useful model.

Re:People have to be careful

[Karmashock]

I never said otherwise.

Re:People have to be careful

[Karmashock]

... You're claiming that there are billions of sports cars available for sale right now?

Here you might say "COULD be made"... not really. The economic system would collapse if it even tried to do that.

As to status symbols... who said the product had to make sense? If people want cod pieces hand made by a famous artist then that's what they want. The artist is in scare supply by definition thus giving the status symbol value.

But if you'd prefer something less silly we can talk about jet engines. Can we produce a jet engine for everyone? No. We cannot produce 5~7 billion jet engines.... we do not have the industrial base to do that. And even if we did, we wouldn't do it because it is inefficient

As to "true" optimum... you don't know what that is.... People always cite what they think something should cost as what the market should charge for it. There is no intrinsic value. A box of shit is not inherently worth more than the greatest collective works of art of all humanity.

What gives something value is our opinions of it or our desire for it to accomplish some goal. But when you cite your opinion of value as if everyone else should share it or the market should share it... you are either arrogantly presuming to tell everyone how they should structure their economy or you're just confused as to how the markets work.

You don't assign value for the market. The market assigns value. it is a democracy of dollars. People voting with their wallets. If they find something to be a good idea they'll buy it. If they don't they won't.

As to the inevitable collapse of the final communist failures... yes. Their stupid ideology is doomed. It is ironically holding on strongest in the US... amongst our neo peasantry. But the ambitions of that sad ideology are quickly becoming moot... our industrial and economic systems are shifting beyond the reference frame of their conceptual model.

Re:People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

You NEED Food Items. You don't NEED Cell Phones. Cell Phones, TVs, Games et. al. are a WANT.

People don't seem to understand the difference between a need and a want anymore.

Re:People have to be careful

[Zontar The Mindless]

People don't seem to understand the difference between a need and a want anymore.

Nor are they supposed to.

Re:People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

You're looking in the mirror again?

Re: People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

That rather depends. For a lot of jobs in the US, you do in fact need a cell phone. For finding jobs in certain industries--same thing because people expect you to be available. Things like cell phones and computers with internet access long ago moved from 'this is a luxury item' to 'you're at a competitive economic disadvantage if you don't have it'.

Of course, some people never adjust their thinking based on changes in facts. You're probably one of those people who think we don't have a poverty problem in this country because a lot of poor people have televisions, aren't you?

Re: People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

...it should be possible to have an economy where almost everyone is desperately poor but nonetheless fully employed producing luxury goods for a small hereditary ruling class.

Should be possible? That's how the world works right now, including the US which is rapidly descending from an oligarchy into feudalism. They just keep up the propaganda and consumerism so people don't notice so much.

Re:People have to be careful

[Severus Snape]

Excuse but US trade embargo will have not much at all to do with Cuba. It is all about US tourist going to Cuba (legalising Cannabis will promote that faster than anything else) and some Cuban products going to the US. Why the hell would Cuba import anything from the US when the US imports it all from China. Let's be honest Cuba just wants US dollars (for as long as they last) to buy stuff from Russia and China.

Let's be honest, US has only brought Cuba back in to the peace because of the current geo-political situation.

Re: People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter that much? Cuba is not that big to begin with rollout isn't going to be a billion dollar job... and given subscribers it shouldn't take too long too recoup?

Re:People have to be careful

[bjwest]

You make communications too cheap and easy, and there won't be any profit in it...

Why does everything need to produce profit? Why is breaking even not an acceptable goal?

Re: People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear moron,

AC was implying that a need is a requirement for survival. I would suggest an article on reading comprehension to you, but alas, my efforts would be wasted.

Yours,
AC

Re:People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHA! Good one! Bite the troll's head off!

Re:People have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse but US trade embargo will have not much at all to do with Cuba. It is all about US tourist going to Cuba (legalising Cannabis will promote that faster than anything else) and some Cuban products going to the US. Why the hell would Cuba import anything from the US when the US imports it all from China. Let's be honest Cuba just wants US dollars (for as long as they last) to buy stuff from Russia and China.

This is the first I've heard about Cuba and legal weed. Are they even considering that?

That said, I can't really see that as a huge tourist draw. I can get all the pot I want to right here in the US. I love ganja - smoking some right now as a matter of fact, but I'm not about to go to Cuba to get it. Seriously, if you have to go to Cuba to get pot you're just not trying. If you can't find it in your own backyard, go to California or Colorado or even farking British Columbia. If you want to travel to get your pot you can also go to Amsterdam or Portugal or Uruguay. Hell, you could even go to Mexico even though it's not actually legal there. It's cheap and you don't even have to look for it - it will find you.

Tourism in general though should be huge once it opens up. If you're an American you still can't just book a vacation in Cuba solely for the sake of hanging out on the beach and drinking Cuba Libres. Cuba is close, it's got beaches, it's got sun, it's got rum, it's got beautiful women, it's got music, it's got cigars, it's got history.....those are the reasons American tourists will flock to Cuba once we're allowed to.

And while Cuba has survived the trade embargo with the US, they have done so poorly. I'm sure they would love some newer American cars there. Do we (the US) not trade with other Caribbean nations? Let me google that for you: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2470.html

That's one example - we have exported 3.6 Billion dollars worth of shit to the Dominican Republic in the first 6 months of this year. We have also imported 2.3 billion dollars worth of shit from them and their GDP is only slightly less than Cuba's.

Let's be honest. While Fidel Castro was perfectly content to tell the US to fuck off and that they didn't need anything from us, there is money to be made and it will be made.

FFS, the cigar and rum exports to the US alone would be astounding and would probably increase Cuba's GDP immensely. It has the added factor of being "forbidden fruit" in the US. I've had one Cuban cigar and one bottle of Cuban rum in my entire life - both brought to the US illegally.

Of course Cuba wants dollars, but we also have exports they want. I'm not really sure what we're exporting to the Dominican Republic, but whatever it is I'm sure Cuba wants some too.

Re:People have to be careful

[lpress]

Let's be honest, US has only brought Cuba back in to the peace because of the current geo-political situation.

I disagree that it is the only reason, but think that fear of the growing influence of China in Cuba and Latin America is a motivating factor. (The State Department denies this by the way).

Re:People have to be careful

[rtb61]

That's a laugh the US was finding itself isolated in it's own local sphere. South America et al wanted Cuba treated properly and were massing against the US diplomatically. See those sanction against Russia from the US and Europe, South America loved them and the Russian government will keep them going after Europe drops them and long after the US drops them. US quite simply did not have a choice, to much warmongering and not enough diplomacy plus being recognised for putting Comical Ali to shame when it comes to bullshit. Just like the Ukraine, the US was pushed right out of the negotiations but is now trying to force it's way back in. US exceptionalism only exists within the US, in the rest of the world it is just seen as bullshit.

Re:People have to be careful

[ultranova]

... You're claiming that there are billions of sports cars available for sale right now?

No. Like with all design decisions, "sports" implies tradeoffs in other areas which are more valuable to most people. Furthermore, all people don't want a new car right now, and it makes sense to delay production as long as possible since technology keeps developing.

Or did you perhaps confuse "everyone can have a car" with "everyone can have an infinite number of cars"?

As to status symbols... who said the product had to make sense?

Status symbols make perfect sense in a class-based society. However, they obey different economic rules than mass-produced goods, because status symbol's utility comes from its exclusiveness, while a mass-produced good's utility comes from its functionality (and thus doesn't go down when more is produced, and in the case of phones actually goes up).

But if you'd prefer something less silly we can talk about jet engines. Can we produce a jet engine for everyone? No. We cannot produce 5~7 billion jet engines.... we do not have the industrial base to do that. And even if we did, we wouldn't do it because it is inefficient

Right, so what does this have to do with either cell phones or cars?

Also, you do realize that small jet engines exist, right?

What gives something value is our opinions of it or our desire for it to accomplish some goal. But when you cite your opinion of value as if everyone else should share it or the market should share it... you are either arrogantly presuming to tell everyone how they should structure their economy or you're just confused as to how the markets work.

Failing to account for externalities, in this case opportunity costs, is a well-known failure mechanism in market-based price forming.

it is a democracy of dollars.

It's an odd democracy where one person gets to cast hundreds of times as many votes as another. In fact it sounds more like a dictatorship to me.

As to the inevitable collapse of the final communist failures... yes. Their stupid ideology is doomed. It is ironically holding on strongest in the US... amongst our neo peasantry.

Ironic, yes, but predictable. As soon as the communist block collapsed, the upper classes began looting everyone beneath them - because what are these "neo peasants" going to do about it, start a new revolution? Which they will, once their situation gets bad enough, which it will, because the rich and powerful can always get a little more so by squeezing a little harder. So the cycle will repeat itself until one revolution actually manages to solve the inherent problems of capitalism (specifically, that wealth tends to concentrate towards the top without limit) through sheer dumb luck if nothing else. Whether it'll call itself communism, social democracy, anarcho-whatever or something else is irrelevant; either way, it's capitalism that's doomed, or at least delegated to guiding developing economies through Industrial Revolution to the Information Age. This might even mean perpetual existence, should we ever get serious about colonizing space.

It's not the Marx's and Lenin's who'll bring forth the downfall of capitalism, but the Trump's and Koch brothers.

But the ambitions of that sad ideology are quickly becoming moot... our industrial and economic systems are shifting beyond the reference frame of their conceptual model.

And that shift is taking them to a place where most people have little to look forward to except flipping burgers and waiting to see how they're screwed over next. The ideological structure of capitalism is starting to get

Re:People have to be careful

[Karmashock]

1. do not conflate "nice sports car" with "fucking anything with four wheels and some kind of motor".

When I say that there are resource limitations that mean we cannot... CANNOT build 5 billion sports cars. I am not saying "any kind of conveyance what so ever".

I'm not quibbling over the point with you. The issue is that because of infrastructure, labor, and resource limitations there are finite limits to how much of any thing that can be produced at any given time. If you wanted 5 billion sports cars in 1 year's time... we could not produce them no matter how much money you threw at it. And if you tried... the global economy would eat itself... and not only would we not have those cars but people would be starving to death.

2. As to status symbols and class... it really is irrelevant to my point which is that X cannot be produced in Y quantity.

3. As to your citation of hobby jet engines to presume to contradict my obvious point... this is the point in the discussion where I spit in your face. *Spit* Are you serious?

When I referred to jet engines I was obviously referring to something capable of moving an actual airplane... not a fucking model or something but one that real people... not zoolander people (from the Derek Zoolander School for Kids that can't read good)... they're the size of ants!
https://youtu.be/NQ-8IuUkJJc?t...

Point is... you're being a jackass for presuming to call that a contradiction. And even if that were acceptable and it isn't... you're still not building 5 billion of the fucking things.

4. As to externalities (The catch all term for stuff that can't be quantified and is arbitrarily made up on the spot to support a position), I'm not excluding them at all. I'm just not letting you arbitrarily decide what is and is not relevant. You don't have that right. The market decides what it considers something costs and you can't contradict it with your opinions. If you want to insert something that has to be added to the cost calculations... and please make it somewhat relevant to bandwidth in Cuba... then let us hear what needs to be considered. I'd really like to know. If you cite CO2... I will nail gun your cat to your garage door. Cite something else please. The CO2 thing has grown tedious.

5. As to democracies of dollars not being like normal democracies... that's probably why I used a different term.

You think?

6. Ah... here we are. This is why you're making these little petty snipes. You're upset that I pissed on Marx's grave. Tough.

As to your dreams of the revolution etc... you people never learn. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? What have you clowns accurately predicted with your world view? If the communists have such a perfect vision of the future then why do they keep getting raped by reality?

As to some non-democrat groups doing things that will lead to the end of all things good... including puppies and sunshine... Sure.

Tell me, how is Detroit doing? That was your great experiment, shithead. You killed it. Which is generally what people like you do to everything you touch. Show me your great success. I'd love to see it. Something you didn't accomplish without parasiting off the bad evil people you hate so much... but which you cannot live without. Your entire ideology is like the entitled unemployed hipster child that constantly whines to his father about how his father doesn't understand or is evil or something. While of course never failing to eat at his father's table.

Go live in the wilderness and build your own society from scratch. I won't trouble you there. But that's the last I want to hear from your rot.

7. As to people having nothing to look forward to but flipping burgers... no you don't even have that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As to the people... you're threatening me with violence. :-)

I literally get hard thinking of you tryin

Re:People have to be careful

[ultranova]

As to your citation of hobby jet engines to presume to contradict my obvious point... this is the point in the discussion where I spit in your face. *Spit* Are you serious?

Thus far you've moved the issue under discussion from cellphones to sports cars to jet engines. Frankly, it seems like you're trying to find something resource-intensive enough to manufacture that each person can't have their own in hopes of then (mis)applying the conclusions back to the cell phones. But I tried to give you the benefit of doubt.

As to externalities (The catch all term for stuff that can't be quantified and is arbitrarily made up on the spot to support a position), I'm not excluding them at all.

So... how do you avoid excluding something that, according to yourself, can't be quantified?

I'm just not letting you arbitrarily decide what is and is not relevant. You don't have that right.

I don't have a right to decide to take long-term consquences into account?

The market decides what it considers something costs and you can't contradict it with your opinions.

That's an odd assertion, since I just did.

As to democracies of dollars not being like normal democracies... that's probably why I used a different term.

No, you used the term democracy, and are still talking about democracy.

What have you clowns accurately predicted with your world view?

That as the changes brought by it continue to eat away its underpinnings, capitalism will get into crisis after crisis, which will lead to social unrest and eventually revolutions.

If the communists have such a perfect vision of the future then why do they keep getting raped by reality?

Like I said: the previous generation of communist revolutions failed because they clung to violence. They tried to fight capitalism with capitalism's own weapons, which of course led them to merely embracing its worst aspects in the form of oppressive corporate states.

Tell me, how is Detroit doing? That was your great experiment, shithead.

Detroit was a communist state?

As to the people... you're threatening me with violence. :-)

No, I'm not. I specifically said resorting to violence was the fatal fault of previous communist revolutions. Future ones will need to utterly disown it to have a chance at success.

I literally get hard thinking of you trying it. Literally. Please start your revolution... do it now. I want you to so badly. Nothing would put a spring in my step as much as you dropping you in self defense.

Of course you do. You live in a system based on violence. It could hardly persist if it didn't indoctrinate you to approve of and even participate in that violence.

This is actually a good example of the contradictions inherent in capitalism: the system drives technological development, which includes ever deadlier weapons, which makes general approval of violence ever riskier, which in turn leads the system to the impossible position of requiring total approval of violence in some circumstances and total disapproval in all others, as well as the ability to keep moving the separating line as people figure out new ways to survive in a system that deems them worth less than profit.

Well, we see you coming. You think you're going to have the numbers with you when you start attacking random people in their homes to loot and steal everything like locusts? Have fun with that idea. I'm really really happy you were as obvious as you were. I might have taken you seriously even after your dumb point about jet engines. But reading through the rest of this... you're a bitter marxist!

Re:People have to be careful

[Gallomimia]

Milk is profitable still. So are eggs. Trust me, everything that matters will remain fairly profitable. Governments will guarantee it.

Not only do I disagree, governments are specifically involved to manipulate the markets for milk and eggs and make small-players unable to compete. Not only does profit not need to matter anymore, neither does money, nor governments. Economics, government regulation, and even profits aren't changing their tunes fast enough to keep up with technology today. It will outpace and outstrip them all for usefulness. 5 Years is my estimate.

Re:People have to be careful

[Karmashock]

As to Detroit being a communist state, so you're saying you don't associate socialism with communism?

Because Marx did.

Re: People have to be careful

[fustakrakich]

And I would say that any two way radio communication device is a good survival aid in these *modern times*. Wouldn't you agree?

Re:People have to be careful

[ultranova]

As to Detroit being a communist state, so you're saying you don't associate socialism with communism?

I do. I simply don't see what Detroit has to do with either. Except, perhaps, as a cautionary tale about the results of leaving your community's fortunes up to the whims of the markets and (in)competence of corporations, but I doubt you were going for that.

Because Marx did.

While that has nothing to do with Detroit, it does bring up another weakness of past revolutions: dogmatism. It's understandable - if you're assembling a murder machine to force your will upon others you don't want that murder machine to think for itself, least it refuses your orders - but it will inevitably lead to idiocy like Lysenkoism. Giving up violence also allows future revolutions far more flexibility, since they no longer need to justify killing people and thus can treat Marx as an economist he was, rather than the semi-divine figure USSR (had to) turn him into.

Re:People have to be careful

[Karmashock]

You're blaming the fall of Detroit on the corps? The corps were the ones that made Detroit rich in the first place. And the fall of Detroit doesn't correspond with anything the corps did. It corresponds rather with the great cities program which Detroit was the center piece of... and you basically nuked the city.

You took the richest city in the country and destroyed it.

As to your evasions... keep wriggling on the spit. It amuses me.

Re:People have to be careful

[ultranova]

You're blaming the fall of Detroit on the corps?

You are blaming the "fall of Detroit" on communism. I pointed out that Detroit is an American town most renowed for its association with American corporations, making your assertion absurd.

But no, I'm not blaming Detroit on the corps. The corps have no more choice than any other actor caught in the system. They move manufacturing where it's cheapest or they go bankrupt. Or both, in the case of American auto industry, but incompetence is not a moral failure. It's the system - capitalism - that's to blame.

The corps were the ones that made Detroit rich in the first place. And the fall of Detroit doesn't correspond with anything the corps did. It corresponds rather with the great cities program which Detroit was the center piece of... and you basically nuked the city.

Auto companies made Detroit a center of manufacturing, which led to a population boom requiring infrastructure development, which became a problem when those companie's fortunes turned. It's a classic "boom town" cycle.

Basically, Detroit is detritus left behind by the chaotic economic tides of the capitalist system. Manufacturing moved away, people were left behind. It's the kind of thing that happens when individual actors simply pursue their own goals with no mutual planning or coordination.

As to your evasions... keep wriggling on the spit. It amuses me.

And there come the fantasies again. The model of the system you've internalized feeds you both the mental image and the feelings it wants you to associate with it. It pulls your strings and controls your likes and dislikes, and through them your choices. It's the invisible chain that explains why capitalism - or any system - so rarely needs to resort to overt force and can thus maintain a veneer of respectability.

The problem is, as more people fall into deeper poverty their despair breaks the spell and the violence becomes visible, which helps disillusion more people. Revolution is sparked and fed by the inhuman aspects of capitalism; I hope it can be steered away from becoming inhuman itself, like it did in the past. Ideally the new economic system is built and functions parallel to and simply absorbs people and organizations who abandon or are abandoned by capitalism, leading it to shrivel away with the minimum of disruption.

Re:People have to be careful

[Karmashock]

capitalism and detroit... it had problems when the American socialists used it as a guinea pig to test their urban planning project on. The 'great cities' program which was an expansion of the great society program. Neither of which were great and both of which fucked over everything they touched.

Capitalism made the city rich and prosperous... socialism destroyed it.

I like that you cite "american" as if there aren't american socialists or communists. We've had them since always.

Are you familiar with Jamestown? Early pre revolution American settlement in the Virgina colony. They basically wanted to run the town/village on communistic principles. This was pre marxist communism... but the general gist of it was the same.

They wanted a communal community with no ownership. Everyone would just work as much as they wanted, work whenever they wanted, and everyone would share equally in the property of the community.

Guess what happened? They basically almost starved to death because communism is stupid. Few people would work because there was no personal incentive to work. You could work your ass off and you'd get no more than the guy that just jerked off all day. All the issues with communism... the fundamental problems that are pointed out every time some child suggests it played out like clockwork.

And it got so bad that they had a town meeting and it was declared "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

Now... imagine if the socialists got told that? Today in modern America. Don't work? No welfare. Here you'll say "but there is no work"... Oh, I'll find you something to do. You might not like doing it but I'll fucking find you something. It might be picking trash up off the side of the road or digging ditches or cleaning bathrooms or sitting at a desk licking envelopes for six~eight hours a day but I'll find you something.

This is not a new argument. Its an ancient one. That thing spoken in Jamestown... it was quoted from the Bible... that's at least how old this fucking argument is. its just the same old shit with a new coat of paint and new dopy followers to argue cross eyed "why should I work, dur hur"... well there shall be an answer to that in time, sir.

And while you dream of your silly revolution where you'll throw down all the people competent enough to keep this shit show going... and replace them with your crew of asshats... I know what happens when people like you win.

You get places like Venezuela. Where the socialists/communists in charge are so fucking incompetent that they've some how figured out how to have a water shortage... in the middle of a jungle, a money shortage when they have one of the richest oil countries in the world, and a toilet paper shortage which I cite merely because that is actually funny.

You don't like me because I shit on your beliefs.

I shit on your beliefs because they're idiotic, contemptible, hurt everyone that is dumb enough to apply them, and ultimately harms anyone too powerless to escape the endless procession of evil clowns that tend to push these things into policy.

So if you're upset that I'm shitting on your beliefs... tough fucking shit. They should be shat on after a long night of binge eating spicy food with tremendous force and gusto. It is only fitting and proper that I and everyone else with a clue do so.

Good day, sir.

so fast your head will spin

[rubycodez]

I've seen a third world country go from pots lines to buried fiber, superior internet speed to most USA major cities, ubiquitous 3.75G mobile internet....in less than 10 years. And Cuba is smaller and less populous.

I'll wager by 2025 most Cubans traveling to USA will be complaining about the shit internet and shit cellular here.

Re:so fast your head will spin

[TWX]

Countries have played technological leap-frog for some time. The United States was ahead of many European nations until their rebuilding after WWII made it necessary to put in new equipment, equipment that was arguably better than what the United States didn't have to replace in the first place.

As to Cuba and cell phones, it all depends on how much rural coverage they want and how much potential disruption in urban areas they want in order to put in ubiquitous urban networks. Personally, if they're going to install conduit they may as well design a very open and versatile "layer 0" to allow for easy future growth or revision, regardless of what technology might be vogue at the time.

Re:so fast your head will spin

[rubycodez]

it's the size of Kentucky though, I think in five years they'll make Kentucky's situation look bad

Re:so fast your head will spin

[trout007]

Depends on if the follow China's lead and allow foreigners to own capital. You know Capitalism?

Re:so fast your head will spin

[Gravis Zero]

I'll wager by 2025 most Cubans traveling to USA will be complaining about the shit internet and shit cellular here.

LOL! How much are you willing to wager? I would like to point out that Cuba's regime clamps down hard on communications technologies. They fear rebellion because they are tyrants.

Re:so fast your head will spin

[DNS-and-BIND]

What makes you think that Cuba's government is going to allow its citizens to leave the country? They can't leave, anyone who does is labeled a defector. It just happened a few days ago, some Cuban athletes turned up missing at headcount.

Re:so fast your head will spin

[Feral Nerd]

I've seen a third world country go from pots lines to buried fiber, superior internet speed to most USA major cities, ubiquitous 3.75G mobile internet....in less than 10 years. And Cuba is smaller and less populous.

I'll wager by 2025 most Cubans traveling to USA will be complaining about the shit internet and shit cellular here.

I'm not a telecommunications industry insider so I have never quite understood why we are pissing about (pardon my French) with 3, 4 and 5G when we could have switched to long range WiFi a decade ago. If we can miniaturize a radio transmitter/receiver to the point where it will fit into a mobile phone and still provide high speed radio communications with a cell tower up to 35km away we can design a WiFi module that will fit into a laptop or tablet and that can communicate with a distant radio tower or a local hotspot with equal facility. What I'd like to see is Cuba or some other country to do that does not really give the volume of gas contained in a standard rectal emission about what the telecommunications industry thinks is build something like municipal wifi, except nationwide where there is no GSM, just skype like apps and where you can choose whichever app gives you best performance or features because they all run over the same IP network anyway.

Re: so fast your head will spin

[Anonymous Coward]

That wouldn't leave any profit.... what's the point in becoming western if greedy corps cant make big $$$

Re:so fast your head will spin

[Anonymous Coward]

The range limitation (through EIRP limitation) is necessary because otherwise nobody could use Wifi for anything. You wouldn't just have a dozen or so competing access points from a 100ft radius (inside a building), you would have thousands of access points all trying to use the same few MHz. The hidden station problem would not be limited to stations within a couple dozen yards. You'd have access points trampling all over your frames from miles away.

A cooperative protocol could of course be designed to take care of these problems, but then you would have to enforce protocol compliance on the frequencies which are dedicated to this protocol. That would make it very much like the mobile phone network. Even a cooperative protocol can't escape the physical limits, which dictate that overall bandwidth goes down as range goes up. Fewer transmitters which can transmit at the same time mean lower compound data rate.

Re:so fast your head will spin

[drinkypoo]

it's the size of Kentucky though, I think in five years they'll make Kentucky's situation look bad

I'd already rather move to Cuba

Re:so fast your head will spin

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a telecommunications industry insider so I have never quite understood why we are pissing about (pardon my French) with 3, 4 and 5G when we could have switched to long range WiFi a decade ago. [...]

This is the standard simple engineering "different design goals, different priorities". The aim of wifi was basically "cheap overall system; provides internet at home". The aim of mobile networks has been "sustains an ongoing communication wherever you are and more or less whatever you are doing". The assumption behind WiFi was that the consumer would buy and configure the basestation, which then has to be included in the system cost and which can't have complex requirements. The assumption behind mobile networks is that the network would set up the base station and ensure that it works right. Also lots of complexity is put into the network which allows the devices to be relatively cheap.

Basically WiFi just isn't designed to be used for the proposed job. Even WiMax failed to provide the same. By the time you change WiFi to do the work of 5G it will basically have become the same as 5G.

There is an important patents discussion in there too.

Re:so fast your head will spin

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, ignorance is bliss. Cubans can leave the country at will, all they need is a passport (virtually everybody can get it), a visa to enter the destination country (hard to get) and the money for the ticket (hard to get). What happens is that the US still applies the retarded Cuban Adjustment Act, in particular the Wet feet, dry feet policy that automatically grants refugee status to ANY Cuban citizen arriving to the US, government help and expedited track to permanent resident and citizenship status.

Want to bet what would happen if the Mexicans were under the same rules?

Lol, Captcha: sinning

Re: so fast your head will spin

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean until they sell their resources cheaply to foreign corporations which will work hard to destabilize the country until they do? Oh, and those same corporations will hire thugs and mercenaries to terrorize or kill anyone who tries to say that maybe the local people should benefit from the use of their land and resources?

You know, capitalism. Or do you think so much of the world hates us for our freedom?

Re: so fast your head will spin

[Anonymous Coward]

The US tries to clamp down on communications, especially stuff they can't read, because our leaders fear rebellion and are tyrants. What's your point?

Re: so fast your head will spin

[tnk1]

No, they really don't. I don't know where you get that from.

Sure, they want to read our stuff. That hasn't prevented rollouts of new things, it just causes the government to whine that they need backdoors. That's not the same thing as failing to roll out because you don't want your people talking to one another.

Re:so fast your head will spin

[thebarry]

There remain today only three countries with Soviet style planned economies: North Korea, Laos, and Cuba. The GDP per capita in Cuba is 6k usd, and they are one of the most corrupt nations in the world. Until they move towards capitalism and crack down on the corruption they will continue to be impoverished and there will continue to be very little resources to spend on high speed internet.

Re: so fast your head will spin

[trout007]

Once again you are confusing your terms. We are talking about economics systems not political ones. Capitalism simply means private ownership of producer goods (and all property).

What you are describing (terrorize, theft, and murder) has nothing to do with Capitalism. It has to do with the political system. Terrorism, theft, and murder is how all governments stay in charge. That isn't much of a surprise. The difference is just in degree on how much violence is used and how evenly it is used.

Re:so fast your head will spin

[rubycodez]

it has more latina pussy than Kentucky, for sure

Cuba is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO! MOo cows MOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU COWS!!

Re:Cuba is for cows.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Didn't I already teach you how to say it in Spanish? Fail fail fail.

Re:Cuba is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Todos ustedes son vacas. vacas dicen moo. MOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO! MOo VCacas MOOOOOO! Moo dicen las vacas ! USTED VACAS!

Re:Cuba is for cows.

[Zontar The Mindless]

You make me so very happy.

Re:Cuba is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cow is still English ... A Spanish cow says : "MU! MUUUUUU! MUUUUUUUUUU!"

Sure they can.

[sims 2]

That's why T-Mobile only has 2g service here they are waiting for the 5g equipment to become available.

Re:Sure they can.

[segin]

Actually... that's not correct... in the least... T-Mobile is actively deploying LTE across their entire 2G footprint, and are skipping 3G in the process. 2G cell sites are going to 2G/LTE but not 3G. If it's still justifiable after that's all done, then they might do a second pass to throw up 3G as well. By then, though, I expect them to be well into going into "4.5G" - whatever enhancements to LTE that are still-to-come whilst we wait for "5G" - assuming 5G will involve a revolutionary air interface (5G might end up being LTE as well.)

A "phone" is already obsolete.

[mcrbids]

I don't have a phone line for my home. Instead, I have a VOIP MagicJack that cost me about $20/year for unlimited calls. It is wired in place of my old phone line in my home, the old land line phones work the same way as always.

At my business, we replaced all telephone equipment with VOIP equipment. Audio quality is better than cellular, not quite as good as the old land line, but is plenty good enough, and we can have representatives take calls anywhere over wifi or any other Internet connection.

Over 90% of my use of my cell "phone" is for Internet-related activity, and the phone is really just one of many apps on the phone consuming data.

The idea of a "phone" is already obsolete. Why are we doing this, again?

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[Anonymous Coward]

ObiHai works through Google Voice so you only need to pay for the ATA, although there's no E911 service. Not that $20 a year is steep or anything but it's worth noting.

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[Nutria]

Drive beyond the suburbs and disabuse yourself of the notion that everyone lives within range of a Wi-Fi station.

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[mcrbids]

We have an office in a small, very remote town. Until recently, we got 100 Mb Internet though a WISP by installing a microwave tower. Recently, the local power company installed fiber optic Internet, so now we have 100 Mb Internet at the same price, without packet loss!

Meanwhile, in our home town, Comcast recently announced support for 2 Gbit Internet for $350/month, and the entire area is blanketed with 4G LTE through ATT/Verizon/TMo.

I climbed a remote mountain. I facebooked the pix I took at the peak before hiking down.

What is this "darkness beyond the 'burbs" you speak of?

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[Nutria]

We have an office in a small, very remote town.

And the people who live 8-10 miles outside of town?

the entire area is blanketed with 4G LTE through ATT/Verizon/TMo.

IOW, cell networks.

I climbed a remote mountain.

Wi-Fi access on top of the remote mountain?

Or was a cell tower erected?

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to NJ where just outside of town, within a packed development, we still only have 2G, 10Mbps ADSL service, and cable internet that *always* sucks because the technology companies play tricks to make you think its faster than ADSL. It's not. I was using a cable internet connection the other day and had speeds of 4mbps during prime time despite the tricks. The reality is everybody gets on at the *same* time so cable connections often suck. Sure you can get faster connections when nobody is on, but if nobody is on, what do you need a faster connection for? Chances are your not on either at 3AM. No thank you. I'll stick to my "slow" reliable ADSL connection where I get 10Mbps consistently without lots of tricks.

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[sims 2]

Whats the population there for comparison?

Sallisaw, ok has fiber ranging to 50/50mb for $157/mo.
Thats with a population of about 8,600.

Nothing but a wisp offering 10mb max for those outside city limits $100/mo.

Unless you want to consider dialup/sat or lte in which case we are covered by verizon, att and sprint.

But dialup is slow and sat's high latency makes secured websites slow and lte's high cost per GB highly limits what most people can or will do with it. So I don't like to consider them vaild options for broadband. The wisp doesn't even count if you need your connection to be stable.

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[thinkwaitfast]

I live 25 miles from a very small town (population 50) and have DSL. No water or electricity.

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[SQL Error]

Come to NJ

Thanks, but I'm busy that day. Got a thing...

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[Goragoth]

Agreed. The faster we move to all telecommunications being treated as raw data the better. Of course the old telecom giants hate this idea and are fighting it tooth and nail but it's inevitable. Give it a few years and there will be no more phone lines, no more "talk minutes", no more SMS. Just plain old data, and everything else will exist on top of that. Developing countries like Cuba have a chance to get ahead of the game without the inertia of decades of shitty business practices by the telcos.

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[Nutria]

I live 25 miles from a very small town (population 50) and have DSL.

Congratulations. My mother lives 8 miles from a modest sized town (population 718) and does *not* have DSL availability.

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[Anonymous Coward]

$20 a year is still expensive.

I have a google voice number I use with an ObiHai device. Aside from the one-time equipment cost, free.

I also have a standalone VoIP outbound I can use to call anywhere in the world. Most destinations, including the US, are fractions of a penny per minute.
 

Re: A "phone" is already obsolete.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't care. Safe in our basements, we thumb our noses to the harsh world and fap our lives away.

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[BitZtream]

I call bullshit.

Your leaving a large amount of information out of your statement or you are flat out lying.

The cable run alone for a 25 mile patch is millions of dollars just to put it in the ground, not even the equipment required to make it work.

You're lying about the scenario you are in.

Re:A "phone" is already obsolete.

[lpress]

That is true for the US and a lot of other places, but Cuba has very little IP connectivity today so their 2G phones are still useful. In my post, I was suggesting that in perhaps five years they would be able to ditch their 2G phones and not bother with obsolete phones beyond that. Check the graph in my post for confirmation of your contention that "phones" are obsolete.

Re:Wikipedia is for fucking bastards

[KGIII]

You should just move everything and say you are NieIN On Wheels. The greatest Wikipedia "hacker" of all times. Then we can call you Willie Junior on Wheels or Willie on Wheels Junior.

And yes, he was as awesome as he sounds. Encyclopedia Dramatica (for what it is worth) is actually a good source of information about him. Oddly, they are also a good source of information about Gamergate. I would not roam far away from that/those search terms. They are not meant for polite company. It is like /b/ leaked to the rest of the Internet. I have visited 4chan... *sighs* I stayed for a month or so to see what the fuss was about. This was way way back and they have actually improved, by some metrics, as well.

But, I digress...

I should like to see your Wiki hack and will be looking forward to it. You know they have live snapshots, right? Assuming I have everything configured, I should be snapshotting the main page on that date. I hope for lulz. I also hope you used a VPN or a proxy. DHI will almost certainly assist a lawful order to reveal your IP address and I am almost certain that they never thought to hash it though, I suppose, that could be brute forced.

Good luck Brave Anonymous Coward and Buddha speed!

By the way, if you do this? I will donate $1000 USD to the Wikipedia Foundation (after you are done stealing their money). I kind of like them. However, I do think it would be funny. Just make sure that you stop when you are done so we can keep going. Good luck living in Russia. Also, enjoy your time in prison. That too will be funny to me. I hope you get a Russian prison tattoo while you're in. Those are nifty. You should get a cathedral, you'd be allowed a spider's web, you can get at least a ring. and you may be able to get the star on your shoulders or knees - go old school and get Stalin on your chest too. Also, get the "general" stars on your knees instead of your shoulders. They are much more valid on the knees in my opinion. Make sure to use your own urine, of course. But, good luck in prison unless you have already prepared to donate some of your "winnings" to Putin.

What? So I like Russian prison tattoos. I like all tattoos with a story. It is tough to find good information about them but, damn it, I try. There was one couple who collected the skin (after they died) but I do not think they ever published the book and, really, I do not want the skin.

Re:What are you smoking?

[KGIII]

They are obviously not thinking this through. I admit that I have only been to Cuba twice but, well, I suspect that is more than most but it does not make me an expert.

First, there are lots of remote people - comparatively. Second, some of them live in some rather extreme terrain. Look at how long Castro was able to hide from Batista's army... Those mountains and jungles are still there. There are still people there.

Yes, they *can* skip cellular. No, they won't. Why the hell would they? They may be a small island on a map but, really, they are bigger than that - those are just scaled maps... Sheesh... It is not pink like it is on the map either. ;) It is not like their entire population lives in one area and that area is bigger than a thumb. Sheesh again.

Anyhow, there is some issue with the country nationalizing and taking stuff. I do not think anyone is going to get their money back, however. The mafia lost some money and there are some rumors that it was hidden and never recovered from a couple of documentaries that I have watched. That should be, as well as the lawsuits, an interesting side show. I would expect some sort of agreement that says the nationalization resulted in a loss of property and that there is no recovery method even through the courts. At least I hope that is how it goes. Otherwise the courts will be tied up with idiocy of that nature and will be quite expensive due to the likely lack of information, time that passed, and a mixture of laws as well as American unfamiliarity with the laws. They are NOT going to let the legal actions take place on American soil. Not even a chance of that happening no matter who is in charge.

Meh... So far, I am liking Raul. Fidel was awesome but, frankly, he was also a dick. We, on the other hand, were far worse than he ever was. We were also more stupid. But, in our defense, we did have some hilarious assassination and coup plans and attempts.

WOW! SO A WHOLE 10 YEARS' BEHIND

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my whatever will Desi Arnez's Band do now?

Tourism will need the Wifi

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty much a given.

Why not skip legacy technology?

[plopez]

Avoid the costs of infrastructure build out of obosolete tech and associated main. cost. This is actually an advantage developing countries have, the ability to jump right to leading edge tech without the baggage of older tech hanging around.

The embargo is not why they are poor

[trout007]

The reason Cuba is poor is because they are communist. Without changing that they will remain poor. Making US tourism slightly easier won't have a huge effect. It's not like they were hurting because they couldn't access US markets. There are plenty of other markets they could access. Now if they allow private ownership of capital by US companies that will have a much larger effect.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[SQL Error]

But look at Venezuela. They have a socialist government now and everything is just peachy.

So long as you don't want jobs. Or food. Or toilet paper.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the riches brought by Capitalism in Haiti and the rest of the Caribbean?

If the embargo were considered useless by experts it wouldn't have been put up in the first place.

There are plenty of other markets they could access.

At at very high cost only. Ships that stop in Cuba are (were?) not allowed in the US for some time. That means if you have a ship you only deal with them if they pay a good bonus, otherwise it isn't worth losing the major client in the continent.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason Cuba is poor is because they are communist.

Heh heh - as opposed to Haiti and Jamaica which are poor because they're capitalist.

That's not to say that governments don't matter. But we can play No True Scotsman hot potato with the various poor countries in the world until we're blue in the face without ever resolving anything. You can claim that all the poor countries that are capitalist aren't really capitalist. And I can claim that all the poor countries that are communist aren't really communist. And then you can claim that the successful socialist countries aren't really socialist. And then I can claim that the successful capitalist countries aren't really capitalist.

In the end, though, I tend to agree with Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address: that a successful country needs to have a government of, by and for the people. And by "people", I mean ordinary people. Far too often a country will be controlled by a small, mostly hereditary, ruling class - where ordinary people then exist primarily to be exploited by this ruling class. Sometimes you also get "banana republics" where ordinary people in one country are exploited by the ruling class in another country.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether a country is nominally capitalist or nominally communist (e.g. China). What matters is whether the government is focused on improving the lives of ordinary people rather than a small hereditary ruling class.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[SQL Error]

There are poor capitalist countries. There are rich capitalist countries. There are poor communist countries.

There are no rich communist countries.

What matters is whether the government is focused on getting out of the lives of ordinary people.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[Anonymous Coward]

We're about to find out, there's no reason why a communist country couldn't be very wealthy if done right.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[Anonymous Coward]

There are rich capitalist countries.

Heh, heh. No true Scotsman...

There are no rich countries either that are pure capitalist in the sense of only enforcing contracts (and defending against foreign invasions). For that matter, can you point to any country at all, rich or poor, where the government is, as you put it, "...focused on getting out of the lives of ordinary people."? I mean, word on the street is that the government in Somalia is very weak - not really affecting ordinary people all that much - but Somalia is hardly a shining example of economic success.

There are no rich communist countries.

Having a government try to completely control an economy right down to owning all the businesses and land and deciding on everyone's employment and housing does lead to certain economic inefficiencies.

But it's interesting to note that quite a few people who lived in the former Soviet Union were actually happier under communism than under the capitalist system that they have now. And if you look at the World Happiness Report, the countries at the top have government policies that most Americans would consider to be radically socialist.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[Zontar The Mindless]

We're about to find out, there's no reason why a communist country couldn't be very wealthy if done right.

We're *about* to find out? Guess you missed what's happened in China since 1981?

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[Hognoxious]

If the embargo were considered useless by experts it wouldn't have been put up in the first place.

Right. Because politicians always act rationally and never due to ego, to show who has the biggest dick, to pander to stupid sections of the electorate ...

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[SQL Error]

Having a government try to completely control an economy right down to owning all the businesses and land and deciding on everyone's employment and housing does lead to certain economic inefficiencies.

Catastrophic and insoluble ones, yes. J. B. S. Haldane (himself a communist) pointed that out as far back as 1926.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[trout007]

Actually a centrally planned economy cannot be wealthy because there is no way to determine what people want and need without the free market to set prices.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[Rob Lister]

What you wrote is closest to the actual reality. As such, lifting the U.S. embargo isn't going to make them a free country. They will remain poor and ... incommunicado... so long as they dictatorship exists. If Castro et al had wanted cell phones and internet, they could have had it right along with the rest of the world, but that would likely result in the end of Castro et al.

Our embargo has not, in any way, prevented them from doing that. It isn't like the U.S. is the sole source of that technology.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[TeknoHog]

There are poor capitalist countries. There are rich capitalist countries. There are poor communist countries.

There are no rich communist countries.

What matters is whether the government is focused on getting out of the lives of ordinary people.

You need to distinguish between two kinds of government involvement. There's free market vs. centrally planned economy. Then there's the social policy axis. For example, Nordic countries are free-market and socialist, so we don't fall neatly into the simple capitalist vs. communist dichotomy. We're not filthy rich, but you might say we're pretty well off.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[trout007]

We need to define our terms carefully, socialism is very specifically defined as the public ownership off the means of production. So no private ownership over production. Communism is no private ownership of anything. Capitalism is the private ownership of all property with no difference between consumer and producer goods.

You are righ that then we add in all sorts of government. The Nordic countries are very Capitalist. But they also have a relatively large Welfare programs. These are paid for by taxes. This doesn't mean they are socialist. The areas where they start becoming socialist is where they intervene in the market like setting price caps etc. This is also where they experience the shortages typical of public ownership.

Re: The embargo is not why they are poor

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that every left wing socialist country is subject to destabilization programs, state sponsored coup attempts, and general economic sabotage by western capitalist countries and their corporate owners have nothing at all to do with that, right?

Meanwhile, right wing dictatorships are propped up with loans, gifts, arms, whatever it takes so they can keep their people in line and not complaining about multinational corporations stealing their wealth. Or do you not notice the one predicting factor in the US trying to remove an alleged dictator is said dictator not playing economic ball with us. The treatment and living conditions of the people mean nothing to our leaders, and are only ever reported on by the obedient corporate media for left wing countries or right wing ones we're upset with.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[drinkypoo]

Communism is no private ownership of anything.

Then Cuba is not communist. Those in power own things. And by extension, there has never been a communist society larger than a village.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[Blaskowicz]

The idea of living and working in a country like the USSR may be enjoyable (save for those pesky disciplinary transfers to Siberia) but that system raped the environment just as much as the capitalist ones. So I have my reservations about that.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[Blaskowicz]

You can with "big data"? (for lack of easier words to convey the idea quickly). Datamine the hell out of everyone and everything, with "IoT" even (yet another hateful buzzword I have to apologize for), down to every flushing toilet. If we're going to live in a futuristic dystopia, it may as well be a communistic one.
The system may be gamed by facetious people, or lead to stupid fads like the Japanese were known for (Tamagotchi, etc.). Or will plain dysfunction because the data is garbage, useless, ill-weighted. But it's worth trying. Not sure if it's any better that the same capitalistic dystopia.

Re: The embargo is not why they are poor

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't make any sense at all since Obama took over. He wanted to get all buddy-buddy with these left-wing governments. It didn't work. They still hated him and their economies still suck. (Just look at the situation in Honduras. The president there violated the constitution by suggesting his term limits be changed. As a result, he was removed from office with support of the Supreme Court and members of his own party. Obama and various socialist countries sided with him even though the law was against them.)

His diplomatic efforts with Putin's Russia have failed as well. He's been bullying and invading countries that don't to be a part of Russia's sphere-of-influence.

You can't reduce everything bad that happens to a right-wing capitalist conspiracy. Some things happen regardless of the United States' influence.

Re:The embargo is not why they are poor

[trout007]

Sorry but there is no way except a free market with voluntary transaction.

Re: The embargo is not why they are poor

[StarKruzr]

My kingdom for points to mod you up.

Re: The embargo is not why they are poor

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the guy who was caught at WindowsIT Pro by apk lying you're not Jarrett DeAngelis: I remember that. You post at arstechnica as StarKruzr and there on that magazine's site too and it's where apk annihilated your ass and especially Jay Little and Jeremy Reimer too! Little stupidly said "I am an expert on exchange" and when apk proved that memory optimizer tech unhalted exchange servers you all got fried by him. Your lies really did you in there Jarrett. Bad move. You're a known online lying piece of shit!

Can they skip city wifi?

[Kumiorava]

I think real question is if Cubans can skip the wifi and go straight to 4G. City wifi is the worst thing that could happen to them, just give few bucks a month 4G service and nobody misses wifi. Cellular network is better designed to handle handovers, longer range, more users, and easier maintenance. With the population they have cellular data should be the way to go.

For average U.S. person wifi feels better because you get local service (Starbucks) that serves limited number of customers well. The wifi service also appeared to US when there was no cellular alternative that could be fast enough. There is no reason to skip current cellular technologies.

Re:Can they skip city wifi?

[Kyogreex]

For average U.S. person wifi feels better because you get local service (Starbucks) that serves limited number of customers well.

And for the average US person, wifi feels better because they don't have to pay a ridiculous amount per gigabyte if they go over the limit of their data plan because they've watched too many videos.

Maybe the use cases would be different in Cuba, or their government would ensure that such caps wouldn't be an issue. But otherwise, wifi does have significant advantages such that wifi and 4G complement each other.

they're installing twisted pair

[YesIAmAScript]

They're not even skipping copper wires for land service and going straight to fiber.

They aren't going to skip ahead on cell service.

Re:they're installing twisted pair

[Blaskowicz]

It's said they have "939,500 residential phone lines" in the second article there, so boring as it is they'll deploy DSL over existing copper li

http://laredcubana.blogspot.se...

Cuba can leapfrog old tech

[ITRambo]

If Cuba does what China did, put engineers in charge of making and implementing policy instead of lawyers, they will quickly move ahead with advanced cell technology. The people will use it if its available and priced fairly.

Too much money to be made going 3G/4G first

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on earth wait for 5G?

Telcos can install and get 3G/4G up and running, sell that to people (including residents) and when 5G comes along, sell a whole new service.

"Improved" economy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know their economy, when subverted and assumed by the U.S, can be called "improved".

No, it cannot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what you think all of the island of Cuba is like, but there are very much large portions of the island that are pretty much undeveloped. Wifi isn't going to help these people a damn bit on the last mile, you're going to need something using higher power on licensed bands.

You know what I really hate, people who've setup 4 access points in a mesh network and then think they've solved the telecommunications issues for an entire nation!

The Cuban government would never allow it

[tlambert]

They are obviously not thinking this through. I admit that I have only been to Cuba twice but, well, I suspect that is more than most but it does not make me an expert.

First, there are lots of remote people - comparatively. Second, some of them live in some rather extreme terrain. Look at how long Castro was able to hide from Batista's army... Those mountains and jungles are still there. There are still people there.

Cuba is around 42,400 square miles; technically, that'd fit in 205x205 miles, if it was actually square. Kentucky is sitting at 40,409 square miles. Both places are about half the size of Utah, and about a quarter of the size of California.

Could a Google do it? Yes. And they could afford to. A Facebook could do the same, if they wanted to do so; they've been annoying people in India already, and India is 1.27M square miles, which is just over 1100 miles on an edge, were it square. So it's definitely doable.

However... I don't believe the government there would allow it. They're still a relatively oppressive regime, for all that the U.S. appears to be thawing on the normalization of relations, and oppressive regimes require control of communications to survive; they can't tolerate free and open communications, and retain government authority in its present incarnation.

Reporters Without Borders is already reporting that Cuba, Zimbabwe and Belarus have been buying "Golden Shield" technology from China (what China calls what we call "The Great Firewall of China". Here's the article: http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rap...

So it's unlikely that, even 9 years later, that they would take the boot off the neck of their own people (see Cuba's Decree-Law 209 for details on that boot; they must also obtain accreditation from ETEC SA by providing a "valid reason").

Re:The Cuban government would never allow it

[KGIII]

I concur that *IF* it happens it is going to be locked right down - akin to China. However, the speculation was if they would skip cell phones. Cells can be firewalled as easily as anything else. So, if they were to do it then I would expect cell phones to be a part of that changing dynamic.

Raul seems to be, well, better in a lot of ways. He, too, is near passing. There's a slim chance of change with the next in power. I do not see Raul being that person. I believe it is one of his sons that would be next? I am not sure and I do not think they have ever made a public announcement. Hopefully it is not a military takeover.

Their government won't allow it

[acoustix]

Hell, they were just allow toaster ovens a few years ago. You're acting like the people of Cuba have a choice. They don't. They still have a very oppressive communist government. Obama's actions have changed nothing for the Cuban people yet.

Re:Their government won't allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

I fucking hate these low information posts which make an outlandish claim without any support.

I actually didn't believe it, so naturally I looked into it and there is some truth behind your claim but toaster ovens were never outlawed.

What did happen was that the import of certain appliances was banned and it apparently wasn't out of some evil desire to prevent Cubans from making toast either.

I presume this is what you're babbling about: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/21/cuba-lifts-import-ban-appliances

That's shitty enough in and of itself but let's be honest about what it was.

Makes Zero Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuba doesn't have advanced technology and internet access because the don't want it, not because of any embargo. The only country with restrictions on cuba was the United States. They could have done this easily any time over the past few years if they so desired.

Too late.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... in about five years? By then, the US trade embargo will be gone,..."

China, Germany etc don't have any embargo going on, they will have done all the deals when the Americans finally arrive.

Improved? Prove it!

[Anonymous Coward]

my favorite part of the OPs post,

"the Cuban economy will be improved"

Why would this be? Because the U.S. decided to open an embassy in a Communist country? Because this glow of the American flag flying in Cuba will inspire it's leaders to change every aspect of their state controlled system? Doubtful. Your entire premise is that Cuba has an economy that will be improved is flawed. Sure the U.S. Doesn't trade with them, but plenty of other folks do and it's amounted to very little in terms of the welfare and income level of its population. My bet, Hillary just ships them aide in the form of 5G cell phone towers after she wins the election...

Did we just skip over why GSM/LTE are used?

[Captain Linger]

"Phone" network? Modern phone networks are entirely data that yes, happens to carry voice. The reason they're used is some rather involved compensation for the Doppler effect and tower-to-tower handoff as travel happens. Could they use Wifi? Uh, I guess, but I hope you enjoy a severely crowded spectrum and expect to simply stand when making a call.

Wee-todd-did!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they expand this public WiFi and skip 3G and 4G cell infrastructure until 5G equipment is available in about five years?

Of course timmyboy posts this dumb submission. What happens when a MARKET decides? Heck, even if a provider market is a single entity: the Cuban government. If the price to implement exceeds the potential profits from the subscriber market, the system will not be rolled out. Otherwise, there are LOST PROFITS. Five years is a LONG TIME in the electronics and cellular markets. Are you still using the same phone that you were using in 2010? Are you still with the same provider?
 
Some days, I wish that timmyboy had left instead of kdawson. We'd have more dupes and less of this rubbish.

Cuba does have dedicated voice network

[Blaskowicz]

If you read the article carefully (or even just the summary) it is about skipping 3G and 4G. Then the article mentions SIM cards (though not directly about Cuba) and more to the point paying by SMS to receive a log in code. Ergo they do have a GSM network, which is also called 2G.
No idea if it only does bare GSM (that can do expensive 9600 bps data if really wanted), GPRS is considered 2G and is data access, though useless for video.

LTE Advanced, Voice over LTE : that seems nice but GSM is damn everywhere on the planet and on small, cheap, high battery life phones that are have better quality on calls too (dumbphones). I'll go for it when there are VoLTE dumb phones :)

Cuba has already 3G

[fquestie]

As regular (European) Cuba-visitor I can testify that Cuba has 3G since many years. Everywhere where I tested it between Havana and Santa Clara it worked, also outside the cities, albeit slow. There was a time me and my Cuban colleagues thought it didn't exist, but then I just tried (in February 2012?) and to our surprise it just worked. For a long time it was only available on foreign SIM cards (and maybe military and elite Cubans), but since last year I often do see middle class Cubans using it with Cuban SIM cards. Last time I checked, in September, it was mail-only for the Cubans.

So the premise of OP's question is wrong: Cuba doesn't have to skip 3G. That infrastructure is largely there already, at least way more than WiFi infrastructure. Their internet uplink is however rather limited for an overnight opening up to all Cubans.

They definitely can't wait for 5G..

[Anonymous Coward]

since all activities in that area concentrate on making a tech that should complement LTE, and with the frequencies being discussed, no one will build a coverage network with 5G. They can perhaps go wifi only, but that seems sort of silly compared to building an LTE network, which honestly isn't that expensive if you consider the capacity difference with a crappy wifi.

I would rather skip directly to 6G telephone

[ctrl-alt-canc]

A sudden solar generated EMP will probably wipe out everything, so why not adopt a fail safe technology ?!?

Re:What Is Wrong With These Morons?

[HiThere]

WiFi has many good points. But there are definitely bandwidth issues. And you generally want to use much/most of the available bandwidth for something else.

OTOH, there's a lot to be said for a cellular net. If you do it right you can get really fast connections with high bandwidth. This requires lots of fairly small cells, though. But it may well be cheaper that lines, whether copper or fiber, to each house. But you're probably going to want a fairly thick fiber bundle to each node. You could, I suppose, set it (the cell towers) up as a mesh network, but that could get pretty complex, and might well tend to slow things down. Still, if most connections are pretty local it might have some advantages over a hierarchical design.

Googlevoice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they just use handsets with a SIP account through WI-FI?

4G LTE is the way to go, not waiting for magic

[billstewart]

There may be a bit of residual market for 3G (or less likely, GSM), but they'd be much better off doing 4G than waiting five years for some magic 5G, or expecting enough Wifi and internet to be available to replace the cellular-standards market. US carriers are retiring 3G as fast as they can, going to LTE, because they get more efficient use of the bandwidth, as well as faster data and the possibility of VoLTE. The real issue is partly the rate at which cheap phones from China are adopting 4G, plus the fraction of tourists from areas that are still on 3G.

Re:4G LTE is the way to go, not waiting for magic

[lpress]

My concern with LTE is that Cuba is a poor country and, in order to install ubiquitous LTE, they would need a lot of foreign investment in return for control and profits to the investor. I am not a big fan of, say, Verizon or Orange. By 2020, the Cuban economy will be in better shape, there will be newer technology and the US embargo will probably be history. Can they get by with expanded WiFi for mobile access and their current 2G phone system until then? Also, it is not clear that with the current government and economy that they could find an investor.

Re:4G LTE is the way to go, not waiting for magic

[billstewart]

My guess is that (even with everything virtualizing) 5G in 2020 will be at least as expensive as 4G now, probably still much earlier in the development and cost-reduction curve, and limping along with an old system will be more of a drag on their economy than upgrading. Also, a big part of the cost of any of those systems has been spectrum, which is a problem when a US or EU telcos have to be the highest bidder in a government auction that's trying to maximize revenue; a government-run telco in Cuba doesn't have that artificial expense.

This is far too simplistic.

[StarKruzr]

What is the difference between Cuba's "Communism" and Scandinavian "socialism?" What is the difference in these two places' qualities of life? "Markets" are not the whole story here. Cuba is poor because its "leadership" has been abusing its people for decades. Their economic system has to do with that only tangentially.

Re:This is far too simplistic.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the guy who was caught at WindowsIT Pro by apk lying you're not Jarrett DeAngelis: I remember that. You post at arstechnica as StarKruzr and there on that magazine's site too and it's where apk annihilated your ass and especially Jay Little and Jeremy Reimer too. Little said "I am an expert on exchange" and when apk proved that memory optimizer tech unhalted exchange servers you all got fried by him. Your lies really did you in there Jarrett. Bad move. You're a known online lying piece of shit.