Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ITU Aims At 20Mbps Broadband For All By 2020

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the share-the-knowledge dept.

The Internet 154

Mark.JUK writes "Dr Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), has proposed to 'dream big' by setting a new broadband access target for the world. In short, Touré would like to see the United Nations (UN) update its global digital development targets to include a commitment that would require countries around the world to ensure that everybody can access broadband internet speeds of 20Mbps from just $20 by 2020. Easier said than done, especially in poorer countries."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Poorer countries (5, Insightful)

hpa (7948) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210703)

20 Mbps for $20? Easier said than done in the United States of Monopolies.

Re:Poorer countries (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210729)

And never mind the "poorer" countries. Their biggest challenge will be Australia. Not because they cannot deliver a quality service, but because they will not.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210741)

And never mind the "poorer" countries. Their biggest challenge will be Australia. Not because they cannot deliver a quality service, but because they will not.

Hang on, isn't that why Julia is spending 30 odd billion, so we can haz internet?

Re:Poorer countries (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210773)

Please read the opposition policy on national broadband access and get back to us. That's likely what we will get come the September election.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210953)

The Opposition policy is to extend FTTN which will put in place a good speed at each exchange. While I prefer the Labour policy of FTTH, even with a FTTN, my exchange will greatly improve in speed. Currently, at dawn, I can download a file at around 1.5 megabytes a second - however in the afternoon between five and ten, that speed is slashed to around 100 kilobytes at most. That simply means that the exchange is getting smashed and the throughput there is suffering. Again, I would prefer FTTH, but FTTN will still greatly improve my speeds at all times (especially the commonly used ones) of the day.

Re:Poorer countries (2)

GumphMaster (772693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211045)

I, too, would prefer FTTH simply because if they only take fibre to the existing exchanges, or even to new sub-exchanges/street boxes, then I will still have the same 40+ year old copper that can only support 4.5Mbps when it's dry, and routinely drops out in the wet. (It has been wet a lot lately)

I, like most Australians live in an Internet privileged urban setting. My childhood home town of 250 (only 40 km off Highway 1, 3 hours from Brisbane) has just passed the hurdles to get NBN fixed wireless at "up to" 12 Mbps... under the other plan they may get the same but I expect they will get exactly what they have now: ADSL over aging copper with IP-over-avian-carrier [wikipedia.org] backhaul because that will satisfy the "free" market. Makes the ITU 20Mbps look far fetched, the $20 laughable, and this is a first world country without a recession.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211173)

Dude, you've got no idea what you're talking about.

The exchange already has fibre, lots of it. That's what all exchanges have run on since you were in nappies. Fibre on the backbone side and copper on the customer side. FTTN means fiber from the exchange to somewhere closer to the home, e.g. into a cabinet in your neighbourhood. Then you run ADSL2+ a short distance from there to each neighbourhood home and get 24Mbps given that the ADSL2+ run is now quite short.

The reason you are getting slow speeds is because the ISP you are using is being cheap on the amount of backhaul they are purchasing. Either the backhaul out of the exchange to their access point or from their access point to the Internet, probably both. The technology for last mile delivery won't stop that. Your ISP can fix that problem right now my jut paying more money for more backhaul bandwidth.

With FTTN you get to choose how big each neighbourhood is. At one extreme it's one node per exchange (so on change) and the other extreme it's one node per home (which is FTTH). The sweet spot is somewhere between those two extremes.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

inflex (123318) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211209)

We already have FTTN for most of the places around here, and most places even have 12,000/800 or so on ADSL2+, so the coalitions vision of the NBN is just what we essentially have but they get to forfil their promised delivery of "12Mbps" to most locations ( for the record, I'm in a rural zone on ADSL2+ on Dodo[Telstra backhaul] ), it's just a case of waiting a couple of years to push the price down a bit more ($69/mth here) and get more people migrated off ADSL over to ADSL2+.

The rediculous thing is that the maintanence costs on the FTTN/Copper system that we already have will consume more than the FTTH within a couple of years regardless. Sadly, I don't have much hope of FTTH being sufficiently entrenched by the time September comes along, and thus like the the 90's, we'll again be left in the dark-ages of delivery.

Re:Poorer countries (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211931)

It's all in the wording as you note: the Coalitions policy is "upto 12mbps". The Labor policy is a minimum of 12mbps.

And that's to say nothing of upload speeds, which are far more important these days and have been historically neglected: my girlfriend can get 8mbps on her ADSL2, but 162 kbps upstream speed (about 1/5th of what it should be). Which makes using VOIP/Skype etc. on her connection nearly impossible.

That's of course when it's working at all: the copper in her walls or too her building seems to be degrading since we've found corrosion forming on the sockets themselves at times, so they're immersed in water somewhere else. Of course since she can get "upto 12mbps" nothing needs to change apparently!

Re:Poorer countries (1)

enoz (1181117) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210957)

The Coalition policy appears to be keeping the same crusty old ADSL over copper and maybe adding some FttN in major metro areas.

Re:Poorer countries (2)

gargleblast (683147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211529)

Please read the opposition policy on national broadband access and get back to us. That's likely what we will get come the September election.

Here it is. [liberal.org.au]

But it's junk. The Lib/Nat coalition are talking about improving the copper system, maybe going from ADSL2+ to VDSL, so from 20Mbps to 40Mbps.

The Lib/Nat coalition are idiots sometimes. Tony Abbott refused to believe NBNCo when they changed their maximum available data rate from 100Mbps to 1Gbps. But even that is nothing. 100Gbps optical Ethernet is commercially available, and researchers have managed 26 terabits per second with a single laser, and 100 terabits per second with multiple lasers. And that research limit is not in the fibre itself, but in the endpoints. So they are talking about spending $6B over six years on a twofold data rate increase. And pooh-poohing a $40B plan to increase the data rate by 5,000,000. Oh and how often does the national data rate double? About every two years! So they get two years of data growth out of a $6B investment over six years, instead of about 45 years of data growth from a $40B investment.

Read Nick Ross's take. [abc.net.au]

Re:Poorer countries (1)

eksith (2776419) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210763)

This struck me as particularly odd. Surely even while the government is trying desperately to copy the U.S. in things that don't matter, Australia's population would lobby for better service?

Re:Poorer countries (0)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211341)

Not when politics comes into the equation. The conservative opposition have been quite successful in spreading FUD in the minds of the electorate that every major policy initiative is part of a radical socialist agenda designed to bankrupt the country.

Deployment of a 'better service' will be scrapped in 6 months time with a change of government.

Re:Poorer countries (5, Interesting)

sidevans (66118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210827)

Odd you say that, as Telstra (our local telco) has an obligation to provide a "phone" to everyone in Australia, even if it requires them installing a satellite dish or PTSN compatible 3G modem in the house at a total loss to the company.

I worked with them and have personally spend 2-3 days trying to troubleshoot a single customers line problem, it wasn't until we pulled up maps we noticed the 3G modem we were using was 42km from the nearest mobile tower and the issue was weather. The tech who installed the node had modified a Yagi and pointed it a the mobile tower on a nice sunny day, and, defying everything thought possible by the hardware manufacturers, managed to get a stable connection and the longest distance most people had ever seen.

Step outside the CBD and major cities in Australia then say Telstra doesn't provide a quality service, when they are the ONLY provider there... I used to be a Telstra hater until I worked for them in rural areas for a short time, the tech's who get out in the bush and provide communications for people are an amazingly talented group of people who will drive a 4x4 in the outback for 12 hours a day, just to fix someone's phone connection.

I regret moving to vodafone that's for sure.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43212079)

group of people who will drive a 4x4 in the outback for 12 hours a day, just to fix someone's phone connection.

This sounds like a great way to retire after I'm done with my current career!

Re:Poorer countries (4, Informative)

black6host (469985) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210999)

And never mind the "poorer" countries. Their biggest challenge will be Australia. Not because they cannot deliver a quality service, but because they will not.

Look fuckers. I don't care where you live, or what the UN wants. If I can get away with charging $99.00 a month for 5Mbps I'm going to do it. I don't care where you live, what you do, or why you need it. The only thing I care about is how to get you to part with as much cash as possible and give it to me. BTW, way back when, when we first rolled out cable and you all thought it was worth it in order to watch TV without advertising? Priceless! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! See you suckers on the way to the bank!

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211273)

Try NZ, you guys are at least getting your fibre network before the universe dies of entropy. We still pay $100/month or more for DSL connections that can be that bad they top out at a couple of megabits in the middle of a city.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211291)

I thought Kim.com was going to personally pay for super-fast kiwi broadband, as long as the NZ government indemnified him against any mega-related charges?

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211463)

hahaha, that was for a new pacific fibre cable, internal internet is still tied up in the infrastructure monopoly that makes America look full of choice. Chorus, split from Telecom by the government controls 90% of the national capacity and only started investing in the network again after 20 years because the government forced them to, then both paid and forced them to and this will still only get fibre to about 20% of houses by 2016-17. We still have stacks of areas just ten or so kms outside a city that can't get DSL.

Re:Poorer countries (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211581)

My favorite was the Rural Broadband Initiative. There were 2 bids, one for fibre to all the schools and hospitals, and 5 Mbps minimum to convenient places, missing 15% of rural places, 5+ years install. The other bid was for 5 Mbps to every address, install time within 1 year of contract (and fibre to every school, don't remember about hospitals). Of course, they went with the one that would miss hundreds of thousands of rural locations, bid by Vodafone and Chorus (when Chorus was still Telecom).

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211705)

Sounds about right, I'm sure someone in the government got a nice set of golf clubs from it though, kind of like the Novopay thing and most of the governments dealings under either party.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210733)

Easier said than done in Silicon Valley!!!

Re:Poorer countries (1)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211097)

I must simply ask the question....is there any reason save money that we aren't already truly globally connected, at fair speeds for all?

Re:Poorer countries (1)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211119)

Besides politics yikes I opened myself up there. I meant more like if we globally threw X into SATCOM and Y into receivers, how much dinero do we realistically, technologically, need to give fair (5MBPS up/down) globally? Doesn't mean the question is any easier to answer hehe but whatever.

Re:Poorer countries (2)

A NonyMouse CowHerd (545245) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210855)

Yeah - I live in Northern Indiana, and my choices are Verizon Wi-FI with a 4 GB cap at $49.00 a month or dial-up. My dial-up costs $99.00 a year and is unlimited, with a maximum connect time of 8 hours. But no issues if I redial/reconnect immediately.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210983)

A bandwidth cap what is this 1998 ? I thought every western country had fiber coverage even france is mostly fiber.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211177)

A bandwidth cap what is this 1998 ? I thought every western country had fiber coverage even france is mostly fiber.

Well, I guess that Northern Indiana is... well... more northern then it's western.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210893)

Why? I have 20Mbps DSL + phone service for $40/month right now. By 2020, I wouldn't be surprised to see 20Mbps connections for $20 or less.

Re:Poorer countries (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210901)

20 Mbps for $20? Easier said than done in the United States of Monopolies.

How dare you say that, you unamerican, unpatriotic slime ball! You're just feeding into communist propaganda! Capitalism works because capitalism works, dammit. The only monopolies are the ones created by the government, blame them, not the capitalists who are the makers, not the takers. (pukes up on floor) The reason we don't have cheap broadband is because there's no demand! (pukes some more) Supply and demand mean that if enough people wanted it, someone would get up and do it, and it would be priced competitively. (dies of laughter)

Re:Poorer countries (1)

runeghost (2509522) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211051)

Mod parent funny, please.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211325)

No. Way too try-hard to be funny to anyone who isn't mumbling about their torrent speeds to their mother while she picks sticky socks up off the floor.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

six025 (714064) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211365)

No. Way too try-hard to be funny to anyone who isn't mumbling about their torrent speeds to their mother while she picks sticky socks up off the floor.

Your mom is doing a terrible job if the socks get to the point of being sticky - I'd sack her this instant!

Re:Poorer countries (2)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211597)

Capitalism works, and within free market settings where there is actual competition it works to increase everybody's wealth by providing choices.

In absence of free market (as is the case with the United States of Monopolies, as you said), then capitalism is reduced to only a few capital holders that are working closely with the government. The government prints the money, 'insures' deposits and provides other forms of moral hazard. In USA at this point only the largest companies are still in business, they have the power to lobby against the rules, taxes and regulations, they have the power to get government sponsored credit.

You are attacking capitalism implying that capitalism and free market are synonymous, they are not. Capitalism is private ownership and operation of means of production, ability to own and operate private property. Free market ensures that everybody is on an equal ground when it comes to relationship with the government, nobody is the preferred capitalist to anybody else.

What you have today is a government system that picks winners and losers, that sponsors some at the expense of others, that transfers private property in any way it wants from some to others. Under this system capitalism is very limited and skewed. Blaming capitalism, which is a system of wealth generation for the failure of the people to ensure that they provide the same rules for all to work with is disingenuous.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211731)

BS, you lot follow capatilism like a cult, the system is designed to make the most profit at all costs, that is basicly the excuse for exploitation of whatever you nutbars can get your hands on. The government should keep you crazies in check but that got brought out like everything else in your country.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211805)

Ah, the rule of the troll [slashdot.org] . You think you win because your comment is toxic, it contains various logical fallacies and other elements of personal attack.

Well, I don't disagree, it's a powerful way to 'argue'.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

scarboni888 (1122993) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211961)

I think you could have summed this up a lot better by just calling it what it is: fascism.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211795)

The only monopolies are the ones created by the government, blame them, not the capitalists who are the makers, not the takers. (pukes up on floor) The reason we don't have cheap broadband is because there's no demand!

No, the reason we don't have cheaper broadband is because there are government mandated monopolies on both wired and wireless infrastructure. No amount of sarcasm on your part is going to change that.

Supply and demand mean that if enough people wanted it, someone would get up and do it, and it would be priced competitively.

Supply and demand only operate when there is a free market. The US telecoms market is highly regulated.

Having said that, the US is not that different from big European nations anyway, so all your self-righteous indignation is kind of wasted.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#43212073)

I was going to post almost exactly what you said in response.

Mod the parent up. There is no capitalism in American broadband, and its still mostly not that far behind other western countries. There are places with really shitty service/options, there are places with outstanding service/options, and there are places where this target 20mbps for $20 is nearly a reality already (I'm in south eastern connecticut and my ~$40 mid-tier service was bumped to 20mbps several months ago, and no caps or throttling.)

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210939)

Hello, Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, can I haz internet?

50 Mbps for 57.99?

That's a bit more, true, but close enough that I'm not going to be a dick and complain.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211027)

here in Belgium I pay 70€ (100$+/-) for 100Mbps, and bw cap is at 1Tb a month but we are kind of a socialist country and even unemployed I can pay that (my salary for being unemployed here is 1100€)

Re:Poorer countries (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#43212083)

here in Belgium I pay 70€ (100$+/-) for 100Mbps, and bw cap is at 1Tb a month but we are kind of a socialist country and even unemployed I can pay that (my salary for being unemployed here is 1100€)

I probably wouldn't work either if I was getting $1571 a month for doing nothing.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210941)

It's a bullshit statement anyway, you can already get 20Mbps in poor countries for $20.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211059)

It's been like 5 years since they can get 100Mbps for 20€ in france, tho youtube is capped for them :)

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211369)

Only 'Free' (name of the ISP) has poor youtube throughput, all the other ISPs are fine.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211493)

What the fuck are you on, no you can't. NOT EVERYWHERE IS AMERICA

Re:Poorer countries (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211105)

Why do you think the ITU approved that DPI standard [slashdot.org] ? It's not like those prices would be due to proper market pricing and not massive subsidization of user data.

Of course that assumes they didn't actually want their invoice price to be $20/month, so they could raie retail internet prices and do even more deep pocket introspection of their own.

Re:Poorer countries (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211109)

*raise.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211203)

20 Mbps for $20? Easier said than done in the United States of Monopolies.

+1

Re:Poorer countries (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211403)

Obviously, they will redefine what 'Mbps' stands for...job done.

Re:Poorer countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211983)

20Mbps down, 64kbit/sec up.

Someone needs to address upstream.
Anything less than 2Mbit/sec is completely unacceptable.

AHAHAHAhahaha (3, Funny)

tokencode (1952944) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210709)

And I want to stop world hunger and end all wars. We can even feed everyone on this planet and their goal is 20Mbps? I love the Internet and all, but considering the fact that many people still die of hunger and disease, isn't this goal a little lofty?

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210775)

And I want to stop world hunger and end all wars. We can even feed everyone on this planet and their goal is 20Mbps? I love the Internet and all, but considering the fact that many people still die of hunger and disease, isn't this goal a little lofty?

But think of all the food they will be able to order online.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (1)

eksith (2776419) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210809)

High-speed internet would give incentive to businesses (particularly small ones) to setup shop. This will help the local economy, which in turn will help feed the planet, save babies etc... etc... The space program is also a monumental waste of money if you discard how far society has advanced in almost every conceivable way as a result of it.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210871)

Many of them don't even have reliable phone, electricity, water or sewage combined with the problems of war/warlords/racial and religious violence. Until those basics are addressed being able to have 20mbps is going to do nothing to encourage businesses to setup there. It is a nice goal, but it will be a struggle in the rich countries and is completely unachievable in the poor countries in that timeframe. Even Australia which has a current project to have its fibre network rolled out will not be close complete by 2020 and has a base speed of 12mbps and we are one of the countries that is currently making relatively rapid progress.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210915)

Sharing thoughts and ideas and information can very help with all of those.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211337)

Setting such unachievable goals and asking countries to sign up for it can only have one of 2 responses, countries refuse to sign up or they completely fail to meet the target. Having hard to reach stretch goals can be a great motivator for action, having goals you must sign up for that are financially and technically impossible to meet in the timeline is just a recipe for no action and failure. A fundamental test for setting goals is are they achievable, setting a goal that is not achievable means no matter how much progress you make you have failed.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211233)

Good, so it'll be even easier to exploit those people.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211745)

High-speed internet would give incentive to businesses (particularly small ones) to setup shop.

Herbal viagra sales business?

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210841)

i'm sure that's a goal too, but that's not news for nerds now, is it?

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211061)

The UN has set a date of 2040 to end hunger, 2050 to end wars, 2060 to have clean water for everyone, and 2070 to have electricity to power the routers and servers for the 20 Mbps broadband that was installed half a century before.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211075)

Because ITU is the International Telecommunication Union, not the fucking Red Cross.

In addition, better and more internet connectivity will allow people to better help themselves. You can't just keep giving out aid, you have to create an infrastructure that allows those poor and starving people to create better lives for themselves.

For anyone who doesn't want to do that, fuck 'em. Let them starve.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211081)

We can even feed everyone on this planet

You're absolutely right with your typo - we can.

The fact that we don't want to is another matter entirely.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211891)

Even if we want to it just delays things for a while. Without decent education and birth control you will eventually have people dying of hunger and wars, since the population growth will be exponential. Food production will eventually be unable to match that exponential growth.

So what they need is decent education. Giving them food without education just causes their population to grow till you can't afford to feed all of them then you have the problem again, only this time there are even more people starving.

There wouldn't have been the Arab Spring if those governments had managed to maintain the flow of cheap bread. Even democracies would have fallen once the people started getting hungry.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211567)

20 handfuls of rice per person would be a better goal.
Ah, but with 20Mbps they can TRACK everyone on the planet better.
This highlights the priorities...

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211637)

Ethiopia is practically THE poster child of famine stricken countries receiving aid. The population of Ethiopia has tripled since the late 1970's. There is considerable poverty in the US. The US is one of the richest countries in the world. The systemic flaws in our social organization that make poverty and hunger practically undefeatable will have some influence over the ability to meet a 20Mbps goal, but not to the degree that 20Mbps is just tilting at windmills.

Blurting out that we shouldn't try to achieve anything until we succeed at eliminating poverty and hunger is just an action that promotes learned helplessness.

Re:AHAHAHAhahaha (1)

codeButcher (223668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211863)

Ahaaa but we can't stop famine and wars if we do not have total control over the world's population (e.g., knowing where everybody is and what they are doing, you know, for statistical and planning purposes). Do you think that 20Mbps link is unidirectional???

Malaysia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210767)

We have to pay $50 for 8mb broadband(not fiber) internet.. sad

Re:Malaysia (1)

Adriax (746043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211021)

Middle of the US: $50/month for 5meg cable, $60/month for 3meg DSL (clightly better coverage so they can force the people just past city limits to pay extra), or $20/month for 56k dialup (hasn't changed price or capabilities in over 15 years).

I wish I could say this small town atmosphere trades technological opportunity for safety, I really do. But we've had two incidents of crazies shooting at the cops and 3 murders within spitting distance of my house so far this year...

Beware the U.N. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210785)

They seek to usurp the rightful power of the United States Government, and become one World Order. Google UN Agenda 21 if you doubt their insidious plans. We need to withdraw from the UN and kick them off of our soil.

Re:Beware the U.N. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210905)

Great idea, you never pay your bills anyway so the rest of us would be better off without your constant demands and lack of input.

Re:Beware the U.N. (2)

runeghost (2509522) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211077)

Yeah, be afraid of the terrifying organization with an annual budget under $5 billion. And meanwhile, completely ignore the mega-corporations that would like to enslave everyone on the planet who's not a shareholder, that send that much lobbying U.S. government every year.

Re:Beware the U.N. (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43212089)

You're not being even remotely accurate.

Most corporations would like to enslave shareholders too.

Re:Beware the U.N. (2)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211619)

I hear they're run by lizard men and are responsible for 9/11 too!

ITU dead by 2020 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210823)

The ITU can aim anywhere it wants while it continues its downward spiral twoard irrelevance.

Metal theft is problem (3, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210829)

Yes, networks span over fiber optic. But to power the junction points that light up the fiber and distribute over coax and twisted pair is a big problem in many 3rd world nations. Reason being copper theft. It's big deal. It's a big deal here in the US too. But don't expect to sink a large investment into a nation if said investment can't be reasonably protected. South Africa comes to mind.

why copper? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210951)

AFAIK, the norm for outdoor power is aluminum wrapped over a steel core. It's not worth anywhere near as much as copper.

Re:Metal theft is problem (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211009)

wireless power is the solution.

Re:Metal theft is problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211069)

Wireless power over wifi.

Re:Metal theft is problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211527)

Good one, wireless power which is transmitted and recived by big coils of copper wires, just that now it is in a nice easy to steal package.

Re:Metal theft is problem (3, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211079)

I recall reading that telcos in Africa hired guards to protect the cell towers (and their fuel) from getting ripped off.
When this didn't stop the problems, they created a program where the guards could sell minutes as a side business,
which gave them an incentive to keep the service up so they could keep making money.

Re:Metal theft is problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211225)

Yes I sat on a global WAN when you watch 1000's of routers go down and a continent fall off your maps.
You know theft is a real problem.
   

Cheap access is key, not bandwidth (4, Informative)

jma05 (897351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211503)

> Reason being copper theft. It's big deal.

Well. Here in India, Internet and cable TV use wires hanging between buildings, and have done so for decades. Theft is not really a problem.

The cheapest wireless internet we have is 256 kbps at $5 a month. That's quite adequate for everything but video. $10 for 1 mbps wired.

The important thing is for everyone to with the most basic literacy to be able to afford unmetered Internet *access*. Higher bandwidth is much less important. Upper tiers just get used for entertainment and are not critical.

I feel that making basic Internet access at limited bandwidth (256 kbps is fine, 1mbps is better if we are to target online education), available as free as radio waves or water, is a better goal than 20 for 20 by 20.

Mobile phones are already very cheap here. Incoming calls are free. Outgoing call balance can be recharged with cards as low as 50 cents. So a poor family living in a hut with a leaky roof can still afford phones for each of its members for essential use. Internet should be as affordable as that and it will surely get there here without any ITU directives.

No way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210843)

Brazil is out of this.

Please, go sleep.

20 Mpps (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43210863)

20 mega-ponies-per-second.

About as realistic.

Seriously, this is a laudable "target" as long as everyone agrees that we are playing "horseshoe and hand grenades" rules, where close counts. If anyone thinks "we must do this, period, and if even one person on the planet can't get 20 Mbps for $20 by the end of 2020 then we've failed" and expects to "succeed," they are delusional.

Re:20 Mpps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211011)

It is delusional to take the title of a slashdot article serious without even having a quick glimpse over the links provided.

The only new item on the official paper is, that they wish for a gender gap to be closed.

Furthermore the president of that organisation gave a speech where he told about his wish for everyone to have access to a 20MBit connection at 20$ / month

It is yet another misleading Slashdot headline you fell for; An all-year April's prank, so to speak.

Re:20 Mpps (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211147)

Considering most DSL providers in the US think that anything above 128K is "Broadband" we've already gotten there then. Got a load coil on your land line? Tough shit. We're giving you the broadband we promised.

tjrollk;ore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210935)

performing.' Even sure that by the Same worthless shit-filled, sux0Zr status, *BSD guys are usuaaly of OpenBSD. How but it's not a transfer, Netscape need your help!

LOLz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43210949)

talk is cheap, I didn't realize wishful thinking is all you need for one of the top jobs

Re:LOLz (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211621)

Then how do you explain politicians?

Already at 5Mbps for $50... (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211043)

Like telephone service spreading to the developing world, this won't happen with wires.

I've got a 5Mbps wireless broadband connection right now, and that's WiMAX, old tech. Verizon's LTE does close to 10 Mbps. [pcmag.com] .

My connection costs me $50/month; if we imagine opening things up to real competition, $20/mo doesn't seem unreasonable.

If we had the political will to make 20Mbps broadband as accessible as voice communication is today, yes, we could do it in under a decade.

Re:Already at 5Mbps for $50... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#43212029)

Political will is trumped (or, rather, bought) but corporate profits. There will be no $20 high speed internet for the masses. 20Mb service is limited to those in isolated, affluent areas, and bundled with "telephone" and "cable TV" services for $100+/mo, or $100+/mo unbundled (what a bargain!). Want that without caps? Double it.

Most places are either too sparse (or too mountainous) to be worth putting up a tower, or already locked into a monopoly provider agreement with the wired providers. And corporations have already proven that they will sue any municipality (and likely win) who tries to provide broadband as a public service.

cox charges me like 45 bucks for 3 down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211211)

Nice to know price is against the united nations.
Probably a crime against humanity.

Rural Ohio: fuhgeddaboudit. (1)

wordsnyc (956034) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211381)

We get 360 Kbps on a good day with Frontier DSL, the only choice aside from satellite. Frontier bought Verizon's rural operations a few years ago and they refuse to upgrade. You can pay more (~$60-70/mo.) for a "high-speed" tier, but people report that your speed actually drops. Frontier is scum, the poster child for crap internet service.

The magic word "from" (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211561)

ensure that everybody can access broadband internet speeds of 20Mbps from just $20 by 2020.

I'm surprised they didn't make it "up to 20Mbps from just $20," in which case, mission accomplished!

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43211755)

I'd settle for paying for 3mb and actually getting 3mb, instead of something that is pretty much useless for youtube even at 360p for pretty much of the day, and usually takes up to 50 retries to attach a single meg file. And it's not my mail client (gmail) because at this times, FTP upload performs just as nicely.

and a pony (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211781)

Don't forget the pony!

Define "everybody" (2)

kenh (9056) | about a year and a half ago | (#43211967)

Touré would like to see the United Nations (UN) update its global digital development targets to include a commitment that would require countries around the world to ensure that everybody can access broadband internet speeds of 20Mbps from just $20 by 2020.

Please define everybody.

Does this include folks in third-world countries? Does this include all regions of India, Africa, and China (as a few examples)? There are may regions without access to, for example, safe, clean, potable water - is high-speed access to Amazon really a priority in those locations?

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43212031)

I somehow don't think they really care that we should have better internet connection. But how do you want to sell movies (sorry, rent them) via internet if you can't stream them in good quality? How do you want to keep tabs on everyone if their connection is clogged and they might be interested in reducing the traffic they don't benefit from?

I'm not really sure I'm looking forward to these great times.

Nice but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43212139)

how about "ending world hunger by 2020"?

Here's the standard I want by 2020: (2)

MtViewGuy (197597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43212141)

15 mbps for DSL lines, 30 mbps for cable TV lines, and 60 mbps for optical fiber lines. And that's the minimum. For cellular wireless, it should be 15 mbps for HSDPA+ 3G and 40 mbps for 3GPP LTE minimum.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?