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!

O3b Launches Four More Satellites To Bring Internet To 'Other 3 Billion'

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the from-above dept.

Space 80

An anonymous reader writes "O3b Networks is aiming to provide internet access through satellite, to the "other three billion" people in under-served equatorial regions (Africa, the Pacific, South America). O3b launched four more satellites [Thursday], to add to the four they already have in orbit. This is a very international effort; a Russian Soyuz rocket went up from South America, carrying satellites built in France. There's a video of the rocket and payloads coming together and a video of the rocket launch. There's also an academic paper describing using the O3b system from the Cook Islands in the Pacific, giving an idea of what it does and those all-important ping times."

cancel ×

80 comments

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

Ping (1)

Lije Baley (88936) | about 2 months ago | (#47435837)

Please put ping time in summary when posting satellite internet stories. I'm not here to RTFA.

Re:Ping (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435873)

.15s between ground nodes, or 150ms. So a traditional ping would be about 300ms round trip.

Throughput? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435923)

After RTFA I couldnt locate any technical details re throughput / capacity of the network when providing internet to 3 billion people. Can anyone shed some light on it?

Re:Throughput? (3, Informative)

dhj (110274) | about 2 months ago | (#47436053)

Good question. According to their FAQ [o3bnetworks.com] their satellites will be capable of delivering "gigabytes of capacity". Obviously that would be split among individual beams, and sliced up into smaller pieces for individual service providers and again for individual people. It is based on the Ka-Band which currently supports about 500 megabits per beam (with multiple beams).

Re:Throughput? (3, Informative)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 2 months ago | (#47437355)

Wikipedia says 12Gbit total per satellite: O3b (satellite) [wikipedia.org]

Not enough for 3 billion people.

Re:Throughput? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47438491)

Just the start, once they start bring in the dough, they will put more up, though I don't know how much they can charge to people who don't have money to begin with though.

Re:Throughput? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47438997)

Well with 8 satellites they are already at 2.6Mb per person per day; not excatly broadband but could already be life changing. For instance it is very hard to read that much text (2 times War and Peace) in a day.

Re:Throughput? (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 2 months ago | (#47441813)

2.6Mb = 325KB = half a web page, not very useful.

100Gb/s / 3 billion = 33b/s or 4 Bytes per second each.

100Gb / 10Mibt = 10,000, factor in 250/1 contention ratio and there's maybe enough bandwidth for 2.5million people, not bad but 99.9% short of 3 billion.

Re:Ping (4, Informative)

dhj (110274) | about 2 months ago | (#47435957)

The 150 ms / 300 ms round trip was the "simulated" ping time. They ran real ping tests over 24 hours to the most remote coverage location at the Cook Islands. [wikipedia.org]

One was from Surrey, England to the Cook Islands and averaged 570-800ms round trip -- the other was from California, US to the Cook Islands and averaged 420-620ms round trip. These were performed once per second for 24 hours and can be found in Figure 5 of the research paper. [arxiv.org]

Re:Ping (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436081)

If anyone is curious about this it is in the article.
The article mentions 150ms mean for one-way ground-satellite-ground simulated communications between the Cook Island and the US.
Although Figure 3 and 5 are more concise.
Figure 3 shows:
Ground to satellite communications between 60 and 80 ms, dependent on distance to the nearest satellite.
Ground-satellite-ground communications between 135 and 155 ms, dependent on distance to the nearest satellite.
Figure 5 shows:
A sample data plot shows path delays from the Cook Islands to the United States between 430 and 1100 ms, weighted below 500 ms.
A sample data plot shows path delays from the Cook Islands to the United Kingdoms between 580 and 1060 ms, weighted below 640 ms.

Once satellite is mentioned (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47436461)

Once satellite is mentioned there is no need to mention ping times, if you went to high school you probably already know about the speed of light and that it's a long way up to geostationary orbit. Other stuff is lower but lag is expected whenever satellite is mentioned.
So while you are correct there is probably not a single reader here that needed to be corrected.

Re:Once satellite is mentioned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436713)

Not all satellites are geostationary. Those are not and that's the whole point of the project: they are much closer to earth in order to reduce the ping time.

Work on that attention span (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47436767)

Second sentence FFS: "Other stuff is lower but lag is expected"

Re:Once satellite is mentioned (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47436783)

Once satellite is mentioned there is no need to mention ping times

Oh ? You don't need to know the orbit, even ?

Ranges from bad to terrible ping times (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47437261)

Oh ? You don't need to know the orbit, even ?

Nice try at whatever you are attempting to do there, but it is always going to vastly exceed the time going via the much tighter curve of the Earth's surface even if it's as low as Iridium which is about as low as you get for a long term circularish orbit. (Spy sats get lower for short periods but have very elliptical orbits and don't last long).

So to sum up ping times are going to vary from bad (Iridium) to very bad (nearly half way the the moon for geostationary), thus if ping times are a criteria at all it's always going to look bad.

Re:Ranges from bad to terrible ping times (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 months ago | (#47437285)

ping times are going to vary from bad (Iridium) to very bad (nearly half way the the moon for geostationary),

Two things:

Iridium orbit is ~780 km. Which means worst case ping times (due to the satellites) should be around 75 ms.

Geostationary orbit is 35786 km up. Lunar orbit is 384400 km up. Note that "less than one tenth" is NOT "nearly halfway".

Triangle (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47437711)

Consider geometry then try again.

Re:Triangle (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 months ago | (#47437869)

I did. I assumed an upward leg to a satellite near the horizon, relay through five other satellites to the other side of the planet, then a downward leg. Then back.

Note that I was only discussing speed of light lag, not lag caused by archaic hardware and other problems that apply equally well to links NOT using satellites.

In other words, a satellite link should be ~75 ms worse than a wireless link that doesn't go through a satellite.

Assuming satellites using Iridium's orbits, of course. A geosynchronous satellite would have MUCH worse ping rates, if only because you have ~500 ms for a straight up-down-up-down query-response loop, even without having to relay to other satellites.

Re:Triangle (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47437919)

Note that I was only discussing speed of light lag, not lag caused by archaic hardware and other problems that apply equally well to links NOT using satellites.

Fair enough - still sounds like it's not the full ping though. Did you only count a one way trip up? How about down to the ground then back up and down again which is what it has to do to reply? It looks like you did not but were pretty quick with the criticism about being sloppy just the same.

not lag caused by archaic hardware and other problems that apply equally well to links NOT using satellites.

Except it doesn't apply in most other cases which is why the latency observed is much worse.


My point stands - if you care about ping times at all then satellites are not on the list unless they are the only thing available. If you don't care much about latency then they are worth considering.

Re:Triangle (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47438857)

My point stands - if you care about ping times at all then satellites are not on the list unless they are the only thing available. If you don't care much about latency then they are worth considering.

Or you care about latency, and you still want to sell satellite connections, so you just fix the latency issues by improving current substandard technology.

Re:Triangle (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47440497)

So who is doing that?
Until you have an answer my point stands in all cases. When you have an answer it stands in all cases apart from that one.

Re:Ranges from bad to terrible ping times (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47437757)

Iridium orbit is ~780 km. Which means worst case ping times (due to the satellites) should be around 75 ms

Wikipedia to the rescue! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_Communications)
"Latency for data connections is around 1800 ms round-trip, using small packets"

However half way to the moon for a high orbit was a vast exaggeration on my part so sorry about that.

Re:Ranges from bad to terrible ping times (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 months ago | (#47437881)

Won't argue with actual ping rates through Iridium. Merely pointing out that the lightspeed limits on the ping rate is in the vicinity of 75 ms. The rest of that is hardware issues, not issues with the satellites being so very far away. Note that a straight up-down-up-down query-response using only one Iridium satellite should have a FOUR millisecond round trip at lightspeed.

Re:Ranges from bad to terrible ping times (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47437319)

Distance from me to Iridium satellite is less than distance to most other countries in the world. And yet, I can access international websites without too much discomfort.

Re: Ranges from bad to terrible ping times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437339)

You are within 750km of most other countries in the world? Do you have an ability to curve space, and if so, can you share with the communications companies? I am pretty sure they would happily pay billions.

Re: Ranges from bad to terrible ping times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437461)

Good job getting your less than / greater than wrong there. Next time put your brain in gear before posting.

motive? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435843)

These aren't exaclty lucrative potential customers...
Who's paying for this and why?

Re: motive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435879)

Your tax dollars. Don't you love socialism.

Re: motive? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436117)

The total funding now comprises a US$510m Coface-backed Senior Debt Facility provided by HSBC, ING, CA-CIB and Dexia; a US$115m Senior Debt Facility and a US$145m Mezzanine Facility provided by HSBC Principal Investments, DBSA, AFDB, DEG, Proparco, FMO, IFC and EAIF*; and US$410m in equity financing, of which US$230m is new equity investment.

http://www.o3bnetworks.com/media-centre/press-releases/2010/o3b-networks-raises-total-funding-of-us$12-billion

I do not see governments on that list, those are the people who paid for it. It's more like these groups are taking either an altruistic or long view of the company, that either they think they will be paid back eventually, or that the people(or publicity) are more important than the money.

Re: motive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436153)

Your tax dollars. Don't you love socialism.

BZZZZZT. Wrong, libtard! They cover emerging and insufficiently connected markets with low earth orbit satellites, but they aren't doing it for free. They will gladly sell their services to telcos, maritime, energy companies and governments. They are funded with venture capital from HSBC, Gooogle, North Bridge and others.

Re: motive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436355)

Yeah, but in the end, they will go bankrupt and get a bailout from Obummer or whatever libtard is in power. So ultimately it will be your tax dollars paying for it (US citizens)

Re:motive? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47436113)

A Nigerian prince.

Re:motive? (3, Insightful)

bjwest (14070) | about 2 months ago | (#47436241)

Like all corporate endeavorers, the motive is money. In a year or so when O3b files for bankruptcy, one of the big three (Comcast, AT&T or Verizon) will buy up the infrastructure for pennies on the dollar. The built out fees get eliminated in the bankruptcy, and then the profits start rolling in, just as planed.

Re:motive? (4, Insightful)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 2 months ago | (#47436439)

These aren't exaclty lucrative potential customers...
Who's paying for this and why?

Cruise ships. Especially in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, and South China Sea. Two years from now, fast and semi-affordable shipboard internet will be a selling point and competitive advantage. Five years from now, it will be something every ship needs just to be taken seriously.

JAPAN: Rocked by 8.6 magnitude EARTHQUAKE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435867)

Off-shore. Fuckashima. Again.

Re:JAPAN: Rocked by 6.8 magnitude EARTHQUAKE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436335)

Again. Dyslexia. Go to way, Fucktwit.

Re:JAPAN: Rocked by 6.8 magnitude EARTHQUAKE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436381)

Wow, it was true! I just checked the news. But unfortunately it doesn't seem very exciting this time (no giant tsunami or radioactive power plants destroyed) :(

Pointless anecdote. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435871)

I had satellite internet once. It sucked. The end.

In Shock (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 2 months ago | (#47435951)

Every now and then humanity actually does something good. It is rare enough that I am in shock. I'll bet money that the people who benefit will make important contributions that effect all of us.

Re:In Shock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436083)

Yes, more pr0n. Oh, and learning English and the like. Until you know English or some other "global" language, the internet is of limited use; admittedly, software translation is getting better, but it's not the same, and explanations tend to translate rather badly.

Let's see what happens (5, Funny)

Alopex (1973486) | about 2 months ago | (#47436027)

Maybe the other 3 billion will use a near limitless supply of knowledge for something other than watching cat videos.

Re:Let's see what happens (-1, Troll)

aeschinesthesocratic (1359449) | about 2 months ago | (#47436059)

Well, what happened when they gave the foreign students OLPCs? They just started surfing for porn. Do you really expect them to do anything else?

Re:Let's see what happens (1)

c6gunner (950153) | about 2 months ago | (#47436111)

Maybe the other 3 billion will use a near limitless supply of knowledge for something other than watching cat videos.

Personally I can't wait to hear from the Kazakhstani Prince and the $20 million dollars he's having trouble moving ....

Re:Let's see what happens (2)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 2 months ago | (#47436239)

You're right: porn. Gonna get even more variety, if that's even possible.

Re:Let's see what happens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437315)

And tongue brushes for dogs. Can't forget those for fixing dog breath.

Re:Let's see what happens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47446731)

Can you provide a link to the cat videos?

The web is so desperate to reach these people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436091)

They never stop and think if "the other three billion" actually need the web

Re:The web is so desperate to reach these people (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47436263)

3 billion more faces in front of ads.

The promise is delivered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436181)

The other 3 billion, most without clean drinking water, food, electricity, adequate health-care .... But Hot-Damn, they will be able to search Google!!!!

Jeez!

Re:The promise is delivered (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436333)

most without clean drinking water, food, electricity, adequate health-care .... But Hot-Damn, they will be able to search Google!!!!

Jeez!

But enough about Detroit... what about those people in other countries?

This is the first time I've ever seen my homeland (3, Interesting)

kiatoa (66945) | about 2 months ago | (#47436183)

Yep, I was born and raised in the Cook Islands. How many other Cook islanders are reading Slashdot?

Re:This is the first time I've ever seen my homela (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436391)

I lived there for a year, on Rarotonga. We had the first satellite internet connection there. Cost us something like NZ$3,000 a month, if I recall correctly.

Re:This is the first time I've ever seen my homela (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47456611)

Like from my cave in sub sahara Africa. I have to pay 10 cents of a dollar for an MB bundle. I cant even dream of watching an HD porn

Because of course (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 months ago | (#47436193)

The Other 3 billion all have satellite dishes

Re:Because of course (1)

Shirley Marquez (1753714) | about 2 months ago | (#47447487)

O3b's business plan isn't currently about selling satellite dishes to individual subscribers. They plan to offer their service mostly to local internet providers, who would in turn provide local service using other technologies. I don't think it's likely that the local providers will have much interest in doing wired infrastructure; 3G or 4G wireless, or WiFi for smaller areas, are more likely.

We Give You Porn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436229)

Go bomb our satellites before your next generation discovers what we discovered. Um. Porn.

surveillance for the other 3 billion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436315)

Because economic oppression isn't enough, the NSA has to monitor the private lives of everyone in the world.

Can't eat Internet (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 months ago | (#47436377)

People are living in (comparatively speaking, anyway) shithole ghetto countries with an extremely low standard of living, and you want them to get the Internet? Expensive Internet, at that? What the actual fuck? Only the 1% richest people in these 'equatorial regions' will end up with access, the poor will still be fucking poor and in many places starving. How about you invest that money in getting rid of local warlords, drug cartels, corrupt governments, and other assholes that profit from keeping people down and out so they can live high on the hog? How about you invest that money in helping people to improve their lives? This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you factor in the 'publicity' factor; I'm sure these assholes think it makes them look real humanitarian and all that crap to the rest of the world. I call bullshit on the whole thing.

Re:Can't eat Internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436447)

How about you invest that money in helping people to improve their lives?

That is what they are doing.

the poor will still be fucking poor and in many places starving.

Funny thing about starving, a person can only do it once. The word 'many' indicates the problem will soon solve itself.

Re:Can't eat Internet (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47436451)

and you want them to get the Internet

Substitute "books" or a video of "how to get clean water with scrapped parts" for that last word and you'll see what the big deal is.

If you can't get in their shoes think of Hurricane Katrina and how the big deal in the aftermath is the lack of communications that resulted in food rotting when there were plenty of hungry people but the communications to direct the supply efforts were not there.

How about you invest that money in getting rid of local warlords

By investing the money in giving people the ability to talk about how to get rid of local warlords without having to gather in a public place and get hacked to death by machettes - something like this internet thing perhaps?

Re:Can't eat Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437471)

"Books" don't require a satellite transceiver and a computer to use. It's only in America where "poor" people have cable TV and computers. (because they really aren't poor at all compared to the third world)

Re:Can't eat Internet (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 months ago | (#47438677)

You can't compare any disaster like Katrina in this country (a 1st world country) to the everyday conditions in a 3rd world country where people are starving; there is no food to distribute so what does it matter if there is commication to help distribute what doesn't exist?

You're ignoring my point about the local warlords. They already have money to spend because they take it from whoever they want. The warlords will be the one with the internet, not the civilians who, again, have nothing and will continue to have nothing so long as there is a para-military around to keep taking everything from them and killing them, so all you're really doing is creating a wide-area communications system for the warlords and their troops.

Re:Can't eat Internet (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47440509)

You can't compare any disaster like Katrina in this country

Yes you can and it's an extremely useful analogy to use when attempting to communicate with people with very low empathy or understanding of anywhere beyond their shores.

there is no food to distribute

Read a book or go back to school before attempting to inflict such ignorance on others.

Re:Can't eat Internet (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 months ago | (#47442197)

Do you have Aspergers? Or some heretofore undiscovered textual version of Turret's Syndrome? Reading just the first screenful or two of your recent comments leads me to believe that you do. Either that or you're just some shitty troll refugee from 4chan who couldn't cut it in that particular jungle. I'm honestly surprised that you're not posting as an Anonymous Coward. Oh, and before you protest my attacking you personally? You're the one that insulted me, so go fuck yourself, OK?

Why continue babying you along? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47442293)

Sometimes a fucking stupid and insulting comment should be called something stronger than "not quite right" after the first polite attempt, especially if it's as inaccurate and downright offensive as "there is no food to distribute".
You had your first polite reply, which was ignored, so why complain about someone being blunt enough to get a message across if that's what it takes?

The USA - land of the 1930s dust bowl, obviously no food to distribute so no need for internet - or is it not obvious at all and a fucking stupid suggestion way out of touch by decades? Yours is equivalent.

Re:Why continue babying you along? (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 months ago | (#47448583)

'Not agreeing/liking with what I'm saying' and 'being wrong' are two different things. Now please fuck off.

Re:Why continue babying you along? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47452287)

Clearly not the case here and rather disgusting of you to pretend so.

Re:Can't eat Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47456741)

Dear highhorse rider, well maybe they cant eat internet but sure internet comes with knowledge and knowledge can improve communication marke access farming methods and knowlegde dissemination. not everyone on the internet is here for the game of thrones and weird porn. next time you want to talk down the shittole ghettos may be you should try to find out just alittle bit info

Global control (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 months ago | (#47436399)

You're running out of places to hide.

Another bright point to the story (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47436433)

This is a very international effort; a Russian Soyuz rocket went up from South America, carrying satellites built in France.

And the launch vehicle burnt up quite spectacularly over the south of Australia recently after it had done it's job.

Re:Another bright point to the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436959)

This is a very international effort; a Russian Soyuz rocket went up from South America, carrying satellites built in France.

And the launch vehicle burnt up quite spectacularly over the south of Australia recently after it had done it's job.

No, that was the launch vehicle for the appropriately-named Meteor-M2, launched into a polar orbit earlier in the week. Also a Soyuz, but a different model, launched from Baikonur, not South America.

Thanks - two this week! Who would have thought (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47437251)

Thanks. When I heard it was a Soyuz launched this week I assumed it was the South American launch and didn't check to see if there were any others. I was too far north to see it but apparently it was very bright.

please confirm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436577)

so I did some rtfm. it seems that this is different from geo stationary satellite. geo's need to be 68k km from a point on earth surface to fall in sync to this point. this means that a light speed signal needs to travel rather far (and back). the plus point is that its easy to setup. just point the surface parabolic dish at some point in the sky and voila.
with this new meo satellite constellation you need 2 (two) parabolic dishes AND they have to move and track the satellites flying by.
also this new meo sats seem to have the newest and greatest "wifi" tech on board and can do > 1 gbits/sec (per access point). looking at the satellite photo it looks like they have 12 ap's pointed at earth per satellite.
now what I dont understand is this: can each satellite talk to the one in front (or back) without having to send the signal to a ground based relay?
that would be awesome. it would mean there's a internet backbone ring floating around the earth!

Re:please confirm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436759)

geo's need to be 68k km from a point on earth surface to fall in sync to this point.

Why can't metric users be consistent? It's 68 Mm, not 68 k-km.

Re: please confirm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437189)

no intersatellite links. the paper discusses that.

Not for home users... (3, Insightful)

pavera (320634) | about 2 months ago | (#47436791)

From rtfs, it seems o3b is aimed at the ISP market. I think this could be quite neat, they are aiming at being a backbone provider for say a local wireless ISP on a tropical island, this ISP sets up their terrestrial wifi equipment, and sets up a link to o3b for backhaul.

This could transform the competitive landscape in a lot of these places where either a) becoming an ISP means signing a multi-thousands/mo deal with the 1 company that has pulled fiber under the sea for thousands of miles, or b) having no option, because the terrestrial land lines are all owned by the government run telco who has no interest in providing an upstart with bandwidth

Of course, for this utopia of competition to break out, it assumes that o3b will be charging significantly less than whoever has pulled fiber under the sea, and that government regulation in all these countries doesn't simply preclude the business model by granting unlimited monopoly power to the government run telco. I know in the 2 south american countries I've visited this second hurdle is much larger than the first... The government owns the telco, thats the only way to get internet, period.

But assuming I'm wrong about the regulatory landscape, and assuming o3b will have reasonable pricing, it almost becomes interesting to attempt to setup a wifi based ISP in some underserved country...

This is a very international effort: Nope (1)

phayes (202222) | about 2 months ago | (#47436925)

It's barely more an international effort than when the US launches a US built sat from the Cape on an Atlas V (using Russian RD180s): French Guyana is as much of France as Hawaii is of the US so both the sats & the launch location are French.

But this is a post from Timothy so we all know that accuracy and absence of bias in the extract are too much to expect...

Re:This is a very international effort: Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437489)

And aren't all Three Worlds well-covered by Inmarsat's BGAN already?

Re:This is a very international effort: Nope (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 2 months ago | (#47439997)

And aren't all Three Worlds well-covered by Inmarsat's BGAN already?

If by "well-covered" you mean, "100mb of data transfer at speeds comparable to pre-56k dialup for about $450.

Saying "all Three Worlds are well-covered by Inmarsat's BGAN" is kind of like saying, "T-Mobile has excellent coverage in rural America, because GPRS works just about everywhere".

The 'other 3 billion' who can't seem to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47440141)

...look after themselves, nor create their OWN satellites...

Could genetics be anything to do with it? I just can't imagine...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>