Slashdot Mirror
Universal Internet Access Unlikely Until at Least 2050, Experts Say (theguardian.com)
Parts of the world will be excluded from the internet for decades to come without major efforts to boost education, online literacy and broadband infrastructure, experts have warned. From a report: While half the world's population now uses the internet, a desperate lack of skills and stagnant investment mean the UN's goal of universal access, defined as 90% of people being online, may not be reached until 2050 or later, they said. The bleak assessment highlights the dramatic digital divide that has opened up between those who take the internet and its benefits for granted and those who are sidelined because they either lack the skills to be online, cannot afford access or live in a region with no connection. "If there is any kind of faltering in the rate of people coming online, which it appears that there is, then we'll have a real challenge in getting 70%, 80% or 90% connected," said Adrian Lovett, CEO of the World Wide Web Foundation, an organisation set up by the inventor of the web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee.
You pay Verizon $225 a month, you get access.
Sci-Fi doom prediction.
Unlikely though.
Anyway they're just wires why are they so bloody expensive?
What about SpaceX's Starlink? Surely that will be online long before 2050...
We have had a general lack of leadership for the past 50 years, which makes performing large infrastructure projects like this nearly impossible.
In America the biggest problem facing us isn't immigration, guns, abortion, or tax rates. But it is that we are running off generation(s) old infrastructure, for Communication, Power Transmission, Transportation, and Water. In Rural areas of America if you drive down the roads, which are often too twisted and unkempt for a fast enough driving speed, and not wide enough for multi-lane, there are modified telegraph poles, that hold haphazardly Power, Telephone, Cable, and sometime Fiber Optic, which due to the bad roads sometimes will get hit by a car and knock out a good chunk of your infrastructures in one spot. Then we have water supplies which is being polluted from older Industrial activity, or in water manes made while Lincoln was president, which are breaking and needing to be patched up, while chunks of cities need a boil water advisory.
We are living with an infrastructure of the early 20th century, which has been hacked and updated. Our Elected officials havn't been much of leaders taking advice from experts and working the tradeoffs and making a plan of action and pushing it. They have been just putting out fires, and trying to get money for their fixes.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How much is comcast and what speed does it gets you? Even if you don't watch TV it might be worth it. 1.5 Mbps sucks in 2019
Parts of the world will be excluded from the internet
That makes it sound like some evil entity is actively denying these people access. But is anyone actually doing that?
Being too poor to afford something or not being smart enough to do something is not the same thing as being excluded from these activities. I like airplanes and would love to build my own kit plane, but I'm not smart enough or skilled enough to do that. Am I being excluded from aviation by evil priviledged oppressors?
why do we have "second world" internet with these robber-baron ISP monopoly situations that charge double the rate for a quarter the bandwidth?
I think you've answered your own question. In absence of competition, a sole supplier is free to charge whatever the market will bear.
I think perhaps we should work more on 'universal access' to clean water, enough food to eat, and safe countries to live in for everyone, before we worry about 'universal internet access'. It's kinda hard to enjoy watching the box-centric antics of Maru on YouTube when you're dying of dehydration, malnutrition, or the local Warlord or Druglord is kicking in the door of your shack to steal your children, kill you, or both. Google, Facebook, and whoever else, can just wait their turn to monetize the rest of the 7,000,000,000 on this planet whose personal information they haven't been able to monetize yet.
Probably because a lot of folks are waiting for an alternative to Verizon or Comcast.
, maybe 2030.
The sats systems, 1-web and starlink, are coming. At first, they will be expensive, but by 2025, the prices will drop way down. More importantly, knowing the ppl behind both of these, they will likely build earth based transceivers that will simple relay between the sat and 1M signals to phones, laptops, etc for 3rd world nations. Basically, these will be made cheap. Why? Because it will enable lots of IOT.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
AC or not, you don't deserve to be modded -1 for this. However let's review for a moment some examples of what should constitute a 'national emergency':
o Massive natural disaster, like an asteroid hitting the U.S.
o Nation-wide pandemic
o Military forces invading the continental U.S.
o Total collapse of the U.S. economy, worse than the 2008 recession
Now, for contrast, let's review some examples of what should not constitute a 'national emergency':
o Massive wildfires in any given state (state emergency, not national)
o Weather event causing widespread flooding (again, state emergency)
o Magnitude 9 earthquake (scary, but again, state emergency)
o POTUS' favorite baseball team not winning the World Series
o Brown people emigrating from South American countries massing on our southern border
Throwing a hissy-fit because you can't get your gods-be-damned useless-ass billions-of-dollars FENCE built is not a 'national emergency'
Declaring a 'national emergency' so you can STEAL money allocated to legitimate DISASTER RELIEF within the country you were sworn to govern, protect, and defend should be considered a CRIMINAL ACT and Congress should step in and give a resounding "HELL, NO!" to it if tried.
Hope that clears up any ambiguity on the issue.
Universal means not just this planet, or just this star system or even just this galaxy .
First we need to develop a means of FTL communication
..says the privileged white person in their comfy 1st-world-country surroundings who has never been hungry, thirsty, or had their life threatened by anyone their entire life. You wouldn't last one month in some of the 3rd-world countries.
I think the feedback loops for such projects are too large, and hence, prone to "pet projects" and corruption/theft. That said, I think the locals/immediate users should pay for their own stuff - if it's not worth it, then it's not worth it; why invest in waste? To that end, I think having most roads as (automatic, electronic) tolls roads is a good idea; it shrinks the money feedback loops even smaller.
And I respectfully disagree regarding the 1000+ who sneak across our border every day as not being the biggest of our problems.
Refute my point, herp derp /b/ and lurk more.
Fuck off, troll. Go back to
In a few years, governments and their corporate overlords may very well have turned the Internet into something that you may not even want to connect to if it's available in your locale.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The US could lead by example. Compared to other countries the US is unique in having a Large Population, with a low Population Density.
Russia has us beat on that score by a country mile so unique is not the right word. Unusual would be a better choice. Technically so does Brazil though because of the Amazon that is somewhat misleading.
In America the biggest problem facing us isn't immigration, guns, abortion, or tax rates.
Agreed. I would argue it is gerrymandering. Yeah our infrastructure is a problem but I'd argue it is a consequence of other structural problems - gerrymandering not the least among them.
We are living with an infrastructure of the early 20th century, which has been hacked and updated.
Don't know if you've traveled much but we're hardly unique in that regard. Much of western Europe has infrastructure that is similarly dated. Not saying they are better or worse but it's not a problem unique to the US.
The problem with the word "universal", is that it evokes a sense of outer space. The word "global" does a much better job of describing this planet.
It's better because instead of picturing black space and stars and radiation, one pictures water and trees and animals.
I think if one were to look at the cost of internet in any place that currently has internet access, one would discover that the monetary cost of that connection is enough to feed any place that currently does not have internet access.
For example, I pay about $80/month for incredible internet access at home. $80/month, as food, would easily feed a starving family in a third-world country.
But I think we've all watched the save-the-children-fund commercials for decades now. I think we all know that, as a people, they aren't savable by us. It's been decades, and they have more guns than seeds.
I think we, as wealthy societies, simply don't have a way to help them. Basic farming and basic living is a long-lost art to us. We call it "camping", and we bring a million dollars of technology with us -- the trailer, the water bottle, the stove, the match-stick, the roads to get there, and the ranger to call for help.
I'll happily pay to ship them as many seeds as they can plant, and ikea-style instructions on how to plant them. But I think we all know that isn't anywhere near enough. And I don't think we, here, have any clue why that doesn't work.
Bet ipv6 still won't be in common use by then.
He's not wrong though. Throwing up satellite internet that covers the globe is actually a far simpler and cheaper thing to do than providing infrastructure and stable food supply to all. It's not like you could take the money Starlink will cost and solve any of those problems on a global scale. I'm not sure you appreciate the full scope of issues involved, or the degree to which increased access to information and resources on the internet promotes local development.
And since you seem to think it's somehow relevant, I actually have gone without food for weeks (food banks etc aren't helpful when you live far from anything and lack transportation. Sadly, the grocery store wouldn't accept my white privilege card.), and had my life threatened at gunpoint (by another white person, so I didn't try telling him "But I'm white, you can't threaten my life".. should I have tried?). And... er, well I guess I'm just another clueless moron because the ubiquity of free water kept me from being thirsty too.
No, he's completely wrong.
..and if you or anyone else is unclear on the issue: I'm in total agreement with that, and so is the MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY.
Re "1.5 Mbps/.25Mbps connection for $50/month"
When a network cant offer what they said to the city/state then go for community city broadband.
A telco gets a near monopoly for years to make a network then they should keep the speed up for that granted protection from new competition.
Still at that "1.5 Mbps/.25Mbps"? Its time for community broadband to be allowed in. See what some innovative ISP can do when the NN rules are gone.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I'd kill to have 1.5 Mbps down. I think that's too high of a goal right now.
A near monopoly was allowed to ensure fast connections to everyone.
When that near monopoly stops offering the services they said to be protected from competition then its time to let innovative new ISP in.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Using the road analogy for the internet super highway,
I can drive tollway for an extra fee, or on a freeway for a cost, or walk on a road for free.
Go well
Meh, there's a middle ground : We're a first world country supposedly, why do we have "second world" internet with these robber-baron ISP monopoly situations that charge double the rate for a quarter the bandwidth?
100% true. But, you can directly blame the government for these problems. Local / state governments at least.. They have arranged, through law, the exclusion of competing internet services to maintain the monopoly or duopoly of the current system / incumbents.. The United States, today, doesn't really have much that resembles free capitalism. We have crony capitalism at best and an outright oligarchy at worst.
I think you've answered your own question. In absence of competition, a sole supplier is free to charge whatever the market will bear.
It's only the absence of competition through law. In most parts of California, for example, it is illegal for you to hang your own lines on existing telephone poles and you will NEVER get permission to set your own. Oh sure, they claim you can get access to the poles but, in reality, unless you are also a mega-player you won't. It's lip service to keep the peasants quiet.
Are you simple? Do you think any of those things are as easy to supply as free wifi?
Are you simple? You have to be if you think there is such a thing as "free" wifi. Someone is paying for a line. It might not be the end user, but someone is paying someone else. Even at wholesale rates, it's still not cheap. Sure, you can get a residential 100mbit line downtown for under $100/month but you are prohibited from sharing it (contractually). So you have to buy the commercial line, at that will set you back at least $500/month.
..says the privileged white person
And now you can fuck off, you racist asshole. The left.. it's all about race. Has been since day 1.
So? It's not a democracy. It's a republic. The system was set up to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Just because "most people" (insert whatever you want here) doesn't count for shit.
No you're completely dumb! NYAAAH!!!
STFU