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!

Can Google Connect the Unconnected 2/3 To the Internet?

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the if-it-makes-business-sense-sure dept.

The Internet 99

lpress (707742) writes "Google, along with Facebook, is a founding partner of Internet.org, which seeks "affordable internet access for the two thirds of the world not yet connected." Google is trying to pull it off — they have projects or companies working on Internet connectivity using high-altitude platforms and low and medium-earth orbit satellites. These extra-terrestrial approaches to connectivity have been tried before, without success, but Google is revisiting them using modern launch technology (public and private), antennas, solar power, radios and other electronics, as well as tuning of TCP/IP protocols to account for increased latency. For example, they just acquired Skybox Imaging, which has a low-earth orbit satellite for high resolution video imaging. In the short run, Skybox is about data, video and images, but the long range goal may be connectivity in developing nations and rural areas — substituting routers for telescopes. Skybox plans to operate a constellation of low-earth orbit satellites and that sounds a lot like Teledesic's attempt at providing connectivity in the mid 1990s, using the technology of 2014."

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

One damn thing for sure (2)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 4 months ago | (#47242315)

Google wil never ever connect the tinfoil people to the internet. It may be any company in the world, but not Google.

Re:One damn thing for sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243681)

"Google, along with Facebook, is a founding partner of Internet.org, which seeks "affordable internet access for the two thirds of the world not yet connected." Google is trying to pull it off — they have projects or companies working on Internet connectivity using high-altitude platforms and low and medium-earth orbit satellites.

This makes me laugh, because if these companies did do a damn thing to bring internet to the "unconnected 2/3" they would almost monopolize it for nothing but profit, its obvious to /.ers and no secret how these companies keep their monopolies. However with their greed and backstabbing of Americans and Europeans they are quickly losing face, so why not go into other countries that could careless about fundamentals just as long as they copy the defunct Western way of life.

I love how corporations try to pretend as if they are saving the world without any mad scientist notions of dominating to globe.

Re:One damn thing for sure (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#47244921)

If you're thirsty, do you really care if the only organization bringing you water is non-profit or not?

Split up Google (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242321)

Content and distribution in one hand should be illegal.

Re:Split up Google (5, Insightful)

darkain (749283) | about 4 months ago | (#47242387)

How about we focus on Comcast / NBC / Universal / Time / Warner first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Split up Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242481)

first?

its not "first", its "fristy" or "frist" or "fitsy", you insensitive clod!

Re:Split up Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242657)

Exactly, but as much as I know people hate Comcast, I would love to be their customer. Here in Seattle with the fifty+ year-old phone wiring, we can't get DSL everywhere. Comcast has the government-granted monopoly in this city, but the city doesn't force them to offer service to every address that they've been granted exclusive rights to. Forcing Comcast to offer service everywhere they have a monopoly would go a huge way to providing service in many cities. I know using dial-up from near downtown Seattle is ridiculous in 2014, but the people around here mostly just don't care.

Re: Split up Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242717)

Ha. I'm using copper.net in Seattle. It isn't that bad except when downloading Game of Thrones. I have to avoid everyone until usually Thursday before it finished downloading.

Re:Split up Google (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#47244939)

Considering it's Seattle, there's probably a bunch of hipsters somewhere arguing that dial-up has a cleaner, more pure sound than broadband.

Re:Split up Google (1)

DaAdder (124139) | about 4 months ago | (#47244127)

Isn't that exactly what Google Fiber is doing ?

Re:Split up Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244285)

At least those stay in the US, setting an example for the rest of us. Google and Facebook are trying to do that to most of the word.

Re:Split up Google (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#47242435)

What content does Google produce?

Re:Split up Google (1)

lpress (707742) | about 4 months ago | (#47242839)

What content does Google produce?

YouTube

Re:Split up Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243545)

What content does Google produce?

YouTube

Youtube is the pipe. GP was correct with the quetion because YOU are the producer, not Google. Even then, most uploads are copyrighted or derivatives, anyway.

Re:Split up Google (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#47243571)

YouTube is a content distribution service.
Next please.

Re:Split up Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47245455)

Google produces the 'ability' to offer you what they want you to see. then they refine it until you purchase it And then we continue to consume it.

they banned coke from doing this in the 20s or 30s...

Re: Split up Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242521)

Don't forget about the megabanks. Time to dismantle them.

Only if they can make money off 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242335)

Kinda makes the case for treating internet access as a public utility, doesn't it?

Though I fear that kind of regulation would kill innovation. I seriously doubt we'd have smartphones if the old POTS regime were still a monopoly under heavy regulation as a "public utility".

Re:Only if they can make money off 'em (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242463)

I seriously doubt we'd have smartphones if the old POTS regime were still a monopoly under heavy regulation as a "public utility".

Most groundbreaking innovation happens in the public sector. You know AT&T Unix, TCP/IP, that kind of trivial stuff... centralised organisations which make productivity rather than profit their goal always work fastest, just not always friendliest. Here in Blighty, BT was planning to fibre much of the UK before Thatcher stopped that just to give competitors a chance.

Essential services forming natural monopolies are only wrested from democratic control when ideological leeches enter the game.

Does it really matter? (3, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 4 months ago | (#47242349)

From Google's perspective it does of course, because more people online are more people to sell ads to. But what about us, other connected citizens of earth? Will Mbembe's life really be enriched by being able to spend two dollars on special candies in Candy Crush? What about Min Soo-Ah, how will wifi balloons save her from living in a country where hot water doesn't reach above the second floor? How is this not just silicon valley jerking itself off?

Re:Does it really matter? (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47242375)

Uh, people generally get their lives improved by being provided with news, information in general, and means to communicate.

Re:Does it really matter? (1, Interesting)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 4 months ago | (#47242397)

I don't know about you but news makes my life considerably worse than it would be without it, as news is not so much "news" as it is "bads"

Re:Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242519)

That's right. that's right "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH".

Re: Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243561)

You must be really strong if you follow the news.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

greenbird (859670) | about 4 months ago | (#47251135)

I don't know about you but news makes my life considerably worse than it would be without it, as news is not so much "news" as it is "bads"

Yeah, things like weather, traffic, political information, pricing information for goods and services, job information, all that does nothing but make people miserable.

You just have no idea how much access to information enriches your life. I dare you to live a year without any access to any news or information source.

Re:Does it really matter? (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#47242447)

Citation needed.

Re:Does it really matter? (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47242477)

The printing revolution? Or the African farmers who say that now with cell phones, they have an easier time trying to find better markets for their produce? Etc.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

bayankaran (446245) | about 4 months ago | (#47243509)

Or the African farmers who say that now with cell phones, they have an easier time trying to find better markets for their produce? Etc.

I think the above benefit is overrated.
In practical terms if you have produce to sell, especially perishable items you have to worry about shelf life more than a better price at a market far away from you.
For non-perishable items - I am from a state which is the largest producer of rubber - even before internet and smartphones the farmers used to get the market prices from newspapers. And you don't need to check the prices more than once a day, you are not playing high frequency trading with your crop.
Now, powerpoint presentations from clueless MBAs will always show "farmers fetching higher prices from smartphones" as a reason for technology. I think smartphones are a great way to communicate, but you need not add "better prices for poor farmers" to the mix.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 4 months ago | (#47245917)

You just proved yourself wrong. With better communication, it's easier for farmers to find buyers before their perishable goods perish. It's easier to find help for farming, easier to find distribution networks. It's easier to find information on how to more-effectively farm, how to apply for microfinancing, etc. And that's just farmers. Throw education and healthcare in there, and you might begin to understand how important this is.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

bayankaran (446245) | about 4 months ago | (#47252165)

Read what I wrote...I did not say it was "not useful"...I said the benefits as far as finding better prices for produce is hyped up.
Of course, better communication is overall better.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

pnutjam (523990) | about 4 months ago | (#47246219)

Thanks for taking the time to document your lack of understanding how the real world works.

world 1 - brokers set the prices and buy the product, take a large cut of profit.
world 2 - Farmers are able to see offers from multiple brokers without worrying that one has come and gone, or isn't there yet. brokers take a smaller cut and compete for product.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

bayankaran (446245) | about 4 months ago | (#47252177)

Lets not debate on "real world understanding".
The scenario you described is from some text book.
In real life its not usually the above...if there are brokers then they usually collude on price, or fix the price. So any benefit of reaching broker X or broker Y is not there.
The situation will be better if there are no brokers. But that's not going to happen.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

pnutjam (523990) | about 4 months ago | (#47253717)

That's my point, you can circumvent the collusion of local market by having access to other market via your cell phone.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

bayankaran (446245) | about 4 months ago | (#47260695)

In real life scenario, your produce reaching "another market in another city/town" is remote and you making a profit from all that effort is even more remote.
This is why I said you are spouting nonsense from some text book which makes sense in some make belief world.

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 4 months ago | (#47242539)

How about you disconnect and then let us know if it's made your life better or worse?

Oh wait, you couldn't.

Re:Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242507)

> get their lives improved by being provided with news,

Bullshit when all of the news is controlled by CONservatives. They constantly spout their racist garbage and pro-Republican crap. CNN is nonstop worship of those racist Republicans. That is what they do. That is the way of their kind. They want us all dead, and shoving their Faux Knews down our throats does not make us better. Kfucke, you are a Republican asswipe for supporting that. You people are so racist. We are better off without news.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242551)

Uh, people generally get their lives improved by being provided with news, information in general, and means to communicate.

The great news about these low, low prices!

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | about 4 months ago | (#47242567)

Uh, people generally get their lives improved by being provided with food, shelter in general, and means to make a living.

FTFY.

But I guess internet access is more important.

Re:Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244747)

News, accurate and important news are a luxury. Look at how Google and others like it deal with China to see how things will look everywhere else.
They're a for-profit company, nothing more. Alienating governments to bring truth to their electorate, will never.bring any money

Re:Does it really matter? (3, Interesting)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 4 months ago | (#47242517)

What about Min Soo-Ah, how will wifi balloons save her from living in a country where hot water doesn't reach above the second floor?

That ain't such a big problem, if you don't have cold winters. You should name basic santitation or access to clean water first. We would have achieved a lot when there were a toilet and a tap for clean (hot or cold) water in every house in the world.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 4 months ago | (#47242905)

Will Mbembe's life really be enriched by being able to spend two dollars on special candies in Candy Crush?

Well, if he has fun, yes.

But more seriously, I have heard news reports (I think on Planet Money podcasts, but I may be wrong about the source) of many small time farmers in various areas of the world using technology -- just finding info about farming techniques and many other seemingly small things -- and greatly increasing their productivity. Having internet access increases their communication, so that can only be a good thing.

My first reaction though -- what about *affordable* internet access for the 1/3 of us already connected? (ba dum psh!)

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

GenaTrius (3644889) | about 4 months ago | (#47243267)

It's sort of funny that you have very nearly the sum total of human knowledge at your fingertips, the ability to communicate with people over thousands of miles (or hundreds, or dozens) instantly, and all the news about every place in the world you could possibly want to hear about... And the first thing you think about someone else doing with that ability is "play Candy Crush." Yes, it really does matter.

Needs a good name (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47242365)

So, it's like the Internet, but in the sky? Let's call it SkyNet!

Re:Needs a good name (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 4 months ago | (#47242461)

Intehsky.

Re:Needs a good name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242523)

So, it's like the Internet, but in the sky? Let's call it SkyNet!

Hey you can't do that! Channel 4 in Tucson already claimed that name [kvoa.com] !

I hear they plan on adding neural net defense capabilities soon.

"Affordable"? (2, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#47242437)

So what is "Affordable" supposed to mean for subsistence farmers?
What does affordable mean to somewho who cannot even conceive of the concept of money, for someone not even able to conceive of the concept of numbers?

Affordable is not a word that even makes sense to use in the same sentence as 2/3 of the 2/3s.

Re:"Affordable"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242531)

> cannot even conceive of the concept of money

Because I'm from Africa, you lie and claim I don't understand money. Fuck you and your racist kind. I not only understand money, but I make six figures in the Detroit area. I live very well off of my programming job. I have a > 4,000 sq ft house on more than an acre, but your kind claims because I'm black I don't understand money. Fuck you Republicans. No one believes the nonsense you spout. I even did my own taxes this year. I certainly fucking understand money. Maybe you don't understand it. You're probably projecting since you are unable to comprehend it, you think the brown people you look down on can't either. Guess what? We're smarter than you Republicans. That is why you're so afraid of us.

"Republicans"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242747)

Now whose being prejudiced?

"Republicans"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242759)

Now who is being prejudiced?

Re:"Affordable"? (1)

Imrik (148191) | about 4 months ago | (#47242853)

No one said anything about Africa. Now who's projecting?

Re:"Affordable"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244621)

A house bought under the "lend money to any one" act. In other word's paid for by me, Joe Taxpayer

@ AC - Re:"Affordable"? (2)

nukenerd (172703) | about 4 months ago | (#47244819)

Because I'm from Africa, you lie and claim I don't understand money. Fuck you and your racist kind. I not only understand money, but I make six figures in the Detroit area.... because I'm black ... Fuck you Republicans .. [blah blah blah]

Wow, what a post! It's made my day.

I didn't see any mention of "black", "Africa" or "Republican" in the GP, he was talking about subsistence farmers and clearly you are not one. OTOH, you are close to projecting yourself as another stereotype, one I won't describe here but not a very nice one.

Anyway, the GP saying that subsistence farmers don't understand money is nonsense. We get too much of earnest do-good romantic hype giving the impression that everyone in Africa lives in a straw hut, trades with hippo teeth, and wears loincloths. It's bullshit.

Re:"Affordable"? (4, Interesting)

queazocotal (915608) | about 4 months ago | (#47242797)

You really have no clue.
In much of the 'third world' - phones - dumbphones are revolutionizing banking, and doing things to enable farmers to get higher prices for stuff at market, as well as microinvestment.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1011804... [cnbc.com]
Firefox are launching a $25 phone. Is it a good nice internet access device - no.
But it will render wikipedia (for example) and let someone track weather forecasts, and do email and essentially everything the internet was when you had a 9600 modem.
(neglecting for the moment that it won't be able to connect to the above satellites - but in several years it's plausible for the same price).
$25 is a lot of money for someone earning a dollar a day.
But, it is much less expensive than the cost of schooling for a year for a child.

Re:"Affordable"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243547)

$25 is a lot of money for someone earning a dollar a day.

Wouldn't that leave only a few dollars a month for food, housing, and all the rest? That makes no sense at all unless we have been gouged buying rice for 30 cents a pound.

Re:"Affordable"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243861)

You're not really thinking about it. An individual phone would be nice, but they're relatively expensive, as you point out. What tends to happen is one person buys one and sells service for the equivalent of a few cents, or a community chip in and buy one.

captcha: ringing. Nice one.

Re:"Affordable"? (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 4 months ago | (#47246151)

1. The people have a concept of money.
2. Subsistence farmers, with improved access to farming knowledge, and the ability to find workers for their land, second-hand equipment, microfinancing, etc. don't stay subsistence farming for long

Many places in Africa, for example, already use mobile phones for communication, and have seen lots of progress through their use. Adding internet to their communication channels will only increase that progress even more.

This is honestly a good thing, even if the cynics on Slashdot can't see it.

Republicans hate those 2/3rds... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242489)

so expect them to kill this and anyone that refuses to stop. That is the way of their kind. They hate anyone that isn't a rich old white man and want us to die. They will not stop until we are all dead. That is the Republican's goals. The Tea Fuckers are even worse. They're mad the Repukians aren't murdering us fast enough. They are even worse.

Re:Republicans hate those 2/3rds... (-1, Troll)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47242589)

I don't understand those kind of rich people. Having money is not a sign of success and surely not a sign of knowing how to do actual work with your hands, even if it's programming or designing things on a computer.

Take all the rich people in the world, with all their cash, put them all on a deserted island. Come back one year later and I guarantee you that most of them will be dead.

Re:Republicans hate those 2/3rds... (2, Interesting)

Imrik (148191) | about 4 months ago | (#47242873)

However that's true of a lot of people. I don't see why someone who programs or designs things on a computer would have a better chance. A better test would be to take away all their money and connections and see what they can do.

Re:Republicans hate those 2/3rds... (3, Insightful)

nightglider28 (1243916) | about 4 months ago | (#47242989)

I have mod points, but I'd rather simply explain this...

Warren Buffet has actually made this exact analogy before (I believe when he and Bill Gates did a joint Q/A session). He acknowledges that he has no skills that would be of any use if he were on a deserted island. He's even joked that he'd be eaten in a couple of days if he were born while humans were still hunter-gatherers.

What many fail to understand is that there are positions in society. I'm not talking about peasant versus king positions. I'm talking about people who are particularly skilled in a certain area and they can take advantage of those skills to make a living for themselves and/or make others' lives easier. Farmers are necessary, soldiers are necessary, teachers are necessary, and investors are necessary (note, I'm using the term investor as define by Benjamin Graham), etc...

Why is manual labor considered morally superior to allocating one's money where it would do the most good? Why are those who pour hundreds or thousands of dollars into construction companies, mining companies, or wood/metalworking companies demonized for allowing companies in those sectors to expand their business, hire more people, and offer their product in larger markets?

Did the rich build this country? Of course not. However, without the rich, no-one else could afford to.

I would bet that the people who criticize the rich for having money are the same people who criticize those who finance expensive houses, a Mercedes-Benz, and Prada bags with debt for being irresponsible with their money.

Is being poor supposed to be the only moral way to live?

Re:Republicans hate those 2/3rds... (1)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 4 months ago | (#47243179)

man, that went into the weeds fast.

Re:Republicans hate those 2/3rds... (1)

nightglider28 (1243916) | about 4 months ago | (#47243263)

Yes, yes it did. I've tried giving basic points before and allowed people to follow the them to the logical conclusions on their own. Unfortunately, I've found they subconsciously either stop thinking about it or refuse to continue when they realize they're looking from a viewpoint they simply don't agree with. Therefore, I have to not only give them the map but be their guide as well.

Then there are those who claim they welcome a debate, but adamantly refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that they're wrong no matter how many facts you present them with.

Eventually you get tired of hearing the same arguments and the same opinions you've already argued against and debunked, so you simply stop debating. At that point, you're considered closed-minded.

Re:Republicans hate those 2/3rds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47247287)

When you explain why did you cluster food [farmers], which is basic necessity for survival, with investors, who are merely filling a function in an invented by humans [nothing to do with natural law or survival] system, then we can talk.

A system [finance] that has grown to be a global parasite that contributes nothing to humanity, quite the contrary. The worst societal myth is perpetuated by economists - they lead people to believe that the way we do things is "natural", that the "laws" of the economic game are immutable and build-in, like the true Laws of Nature. Dingo's kidneys!!

Are you going to claim that there is no other way to conduct economy? No other ways to build a country? And do me the courtesy not to retort in the lines of "we have tried other systems, this one is the best", because we haven't. The fundamentals of the system are/were the same for quite some time now regardless of political nuances. So we have the opposite of economy, we spill and trash and destroy everything in the name of an invented game that is killing us and we claim the game is natural, part of who we are.

That's the worst fucking nightmare of humanity, our collective insanity, the blind spot, the big obstacle. To believe that our way is the only possible way.

At this moment in time I am so disappointed, I would seriously consider hitching a ride even on a Vogon ship. After all I could probably trick them to torture me with poetry [which does not affect humans since we are subjected to the worst poetry in the Universe, the Vogon's being a distant third worst] and let me go "as a broken man" on the first spaceport. It's worth a try!
I just thought of a better option. Memorize the poetry of Paul Nancy ect...and when asked "what did you think about my poem" fire back! Assume command of the ship while everyone is rolling on the floor in pain..

Re:Republicans hate those 2/3rds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243301)

Did the rich build this country? Of course not. However, without the rich, no-one else could afford to.

I would bet that the people who criticize the rich for having money are the same people who criticize those who finance expensive houses, a Mercedes-Benz, and Prada bags with debt for being irresponsible with their money.

Is being poor supposed to be the only moral way to live?

Wow. There are corporations for profit or not, and all their capital. Then there are individuals, and their personal wealth.
How is society benefited by wealthy INDIVIDUALS?

Feel free to point out examples of successful ventures where personal financing was absolutely necessary, because you haven't yet.

Re:Republicans hate those 2/3rds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242597)

Slashdot's resident troll makes a total fool of himself yet again. Moron.

GOOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242493)

There's still nothing freaking available other than dial-up out at my parents. Not even good cell reception (south eastern ohio).

Re: GOOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242739)

Google need to work with ubnt, Huawei, Motorola and others to create something to make it possible

NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242527)

I hope they won't. The Internet was such a wonderful place as long as it was purely academic network.

Where the elite meet to elite. (2)

westlake (615356) | about 4 months ago | (#47242703)

The Internet was such a wonderful place as long as it was purely academic network.

I don't think it's the primordial academic network that the geek remembers with affection but rather a time when the Internet was his personal playground.

Re:Where the elite meet to elite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242945)

the geek

The word you are looking for is "you".

Just once, I want to see you set off APK's short fuse just so I can see what happens when the two people here with the most infuriating posting style flame each other.

What about the other third of the world? (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47242577)

You know, countries where affordable internet access is not available?

Examples: USA, Canada.

Re:What about the other third of the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242625)

Exactly. I have 1 Mbps DSL at home here in Seattle, and several friends are still stuck with dial-up. We should try to get everyone at least 1 Mbps access in the largest cities here before trying to help others.

Re:What about the other third of the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242669)

If you think Google is doing this to help anyone but themselves, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:What about the other third of the world? (1)

Imrik (148191) | about 4 months ago | (#47242879)

If they're trying to help themselves, they'd get better results in places where people can afford quality internet but it isn't available.

Re:What about the other third of the world? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47242685)

I agree except that a target of 1Mbps is still way too low. I say 5Mbps should be the basic entry-level speed as it allows Netflix at lower bitrate/SD resolution, which Netflix Canada had to add [netflix.com] in order to help Canadian users not bust through their monthly caps.

Re:What about the other third of the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47242911)

We should try to get everyone at least 1 Mbps access in the largest cities here before trying to help others.

Why? What is the benefit? So you can watch video without having to use youtube-dl? Versus a third-world farmer being able to learn how to farm more effectively, or what the market price for crops are, or order supplies and technology from far away, I would say you not being able to jerk it to porn without buffering is hardly a more important cause.

Anyway, you are rich, why don't you setup your own ISP to provide better internet to you and your friends. Getting 5Mbps to several hundred people is a trivial task with 802.11an. Oh, you're a lazy fuck who just wants everything handed to them on a plate. Well good luck with that.

Re:What about the other third of the world? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#47242653)

Canada has perfectly affordable internet, you simply refuse to do any business with Rogers, Telus, Cogeco, Videotron, Bell etc and go with a TPIA(like Start, Teksavvy, Electronicbox, Execulink, etc), and get more for less.

Re:What about the other third of the world? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47242691)

And you simply refuse to believe that any area deserved by Télébec has no other option available.

First things first (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47242755)

You might want to take a look at this [aidwatchers.com] (safe for work and all, don't worry, it's just a map of the night earth).

And then you might ponder whether giving these people internet is going to do them much good.

Hint: Sending a fridge into the middle of the desert doesn't allow the people there to refrigerate their goods. You know why? Same reason why internet won't work!

Re:First things first (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 4 months ago | (#47242829)

Agreed. If you're worried about getting internet to people who don't have clean water, or are worried about the local militia rounding them up, you've got your priorities wrong.

Re:First things first (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 4 months ago | (#47244119)

These people already have or are getting cell phones. A chinese cell tower is vastly cheaper than a wastewater treatment plant, a road or a war.

Re:First things first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244321)

There's probably a reason for that.

People don't care about the plights of others' that aren't shoved in their faces. Most of the developed countries know fairly little of developing nations and their struggles.

You hear 'there's poverty where children starve and a tiny amount of money can build them a well' but that doesn't really mean much to most people.

Give them the internet, with all the information and know how it can provide to help them build stuff and at the same time it will give them a way to communicate with the rest of the world and perhaps then the developed nations can really see what it's like there and might be more motivated to help out.

Information can lead to learning how to make cheaper water filters with materials they can get access too, lead to better health and building practices.

Even social media may benefit them against militia if they manage to get people in developed countries to care. Yes the Kony craze was a bust and was faked supposedly but it is possible. For example even if it's just to get more international exposure and pressure like in the instance of the Boko Harem kidnappings.

Also social media was used as a tool in the Venezuelan protest to spread news that that was able to bypass censored official news sources. Imagine if they somehow managed to drop internet access into North Korea for example.

Information is a really valuable resource.

Re:First things first (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 4 months ago | (#47246171)

They can use this to find or organise clean water, by finding people in suitable areas to pool resources. They can also let the authorities know if any militia are rounding people up, so they can get help. This has already been demonstrated time and time again.

Re:First things first (1)

Imrik (148191) | about 4 months ago | (#47242893)

If you're going to take the trouble to feed internet to the middle of nowhere, you're also going to bring a few solar panels so people can use it.

Re:First things first (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47243065)

Solar panels? Lovely! We could use them to power the water pump so we have clean water! And it would probably be strong enough to power our makeshift welder so we can fix that car we got (you know, the one that you threw away 'cause it didn't make it through the DMV requirements anymore, but it still drives, that's what matters here!). And we could...

Say, any chance we could have more of those panels? You can keep that interthing if we can have more solar panels instead.

Re:First things first (1)

GenaTrius (3644889) | about 4 months ago | (#47243225)

You need a lot fewer solar panels to power an internet-enabled device than you do to power a welder, or even a well. Incidentally, most of the world doesn't worry about DMV regulations. Places that don't have a well for water very often don't. They might worry about gasoline, but it's just as likely that neither thought will even occur to them. On the other hand, the internet contains a lot of useful information, which is often in even shorter supply than water in places like that. It is, after all, a lot more than a repository for cat pictures.

Re:First things first (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47243329)

What they need to know, they do. Information circles freely there, they also don't care too much about DRM or copyright, you see. Or patents for that matter. They have real problems, they don't have the need to create artificial ones.

So, you gonna deliver those panels now or not?

Re:First things first (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 4 months ago | (#47246187)

They also use hand-powered generators for small things like charging mobile phones. Easy access to the rest of the world and the information held within only serves to allow scarce resources to be shared among those who need them, as has already been demonstrated by the areas which got mobile phone access. This will only improve with internet access.

To answer your question: (1)

GenaTrius (3644889) | about 4 months ago | (#47243183)

With as much money as they've got? Probably. At this point, they just sort of make money off of people being on the internet without having to do much else, so they've got every reason to. Hells, they may just up and decide to give everyone on the planet the equivalent of 56k for free with equipment, or something like that.

Re:To answer your question: (1)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 4 months ago | (#47243251)

What would they do with the internet once they got it?

Re:To answer your question: (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 4 months ago | (#47246205)

Find people to trade with, get access to healthcare, find workers/employers, talk with charities, get/provide microfinancing, etc. This has been demonstrated time and time again - it's not a mystery.

Culture Shock (3, Interesting)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 4 months ago | (#47243229)

Nobody has brought up an obvious (to me I guess) consideration.

How would 'other 2/3' perceive the internet / computers in general in their cultural context.

Imagine a refugee camp where war torn peoples flock across a border and are placed into a predesignated area. Now (if it was Turkey*) they'd have all the basic amenities, food, shelter, water, plumbing...tv. What they are lacking (as far as I can tell) is any pervasive computer/internet. Consequently, boredom is one of the biggest problems in these refugee camps.

What if they all had the internet though?

What would they do with something of that magnitude that they've never had before? Would it become self-organizing? Would they require classes? If so, how in-depth? What if the literacy rates were low? Could small pictographic games still provide entertainment? Could MMOs (or whatever) provide a sense of purpose, if only virtual, to somebody's life?


Now take that microcosm and multiply it by 'the other 2/3'.

We need to approach this as a legitimate problem that is capable of being solved through research and refinement.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02... [nytimes.com]

Of course (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 4 months ago | (#47243631)

Of course they'll succeed with this critical mission. After all, the first thought a starving child has when they wake up with no food, parents with no jobs, and wondering if they'll eat today, all that matters nought. Their first thought is "I wish I had high speed internet."

The fact that the first thing these people would do is trade a free smartphone for food is also irrelevent.

After all, we're out to save the world through cat videos and LOLs. Screw rational thought.

Who are the 2/3? (1)

adwalpalkar (3581337) | about 4 months ago | (#47243853)

I wonder if the 2/3 Google is considering are with internet technology or the kinda of people who don't even have access to a pc? Considering the many rural areas in India, where people are significantly technologically backwards.

Just an advertisement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243911)

It's just a commercial to mark Google as the "innovative" company. It won't sell (much), as won't the project Ara phones but it's a nice public advertisement to show Google's potential.

They look for new consumers. (3, Interesting)

Moskit (32486) | about 4 months ago | (#47244107)

Reason Google is behind this drive is that it will allow them (and NSA) to reach more consumers.

Similar to how USA and other countries' corporations were happy to make Iron Curtain fail - not exactly for political/goodwill reasons, but to reach more consumers.

what 2/3? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244693)

Where do you find these 2/3 that is not connected?

Some you find in countries that are connected in general, with other words those not connected do not want to be.

I guess you meen that you find the rest in 3rd world countries, but, I guess you havent realized that they skipped the 'sitting athome at a monitor' they went directly to mobilphones, with access to the net. The phone market in Africa is booooooming, there is small sellers everywhere.

The world has moved on, not everything is where it was 20 years ago, and its time to realize that part.

The real question (0)

kheldan (1460303) | about 4 months ago | (#47245521)

Google may or may not accomplish this goal, but the real question is, how long after that will it be before Comcast does a hostile takeover of Google and fuck it all up for everybody?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?