4 ms·

Internet for All

29 points by vignanv8 11y ago

bobajeff 11y ago
This is the first time I've heard about the SpaceX, OneWeb and Yakiny low orbit small satellite constellation projects. It says they could allow for viable low latency, high bandwidth satellite internet. It sounds to me like the coverage of such constellations would allow for a satilite phone to actually deliver on the promise of working anywhere around the globe.
- pogden 11y ago
  Iridium works anywhere on earth, it's just expensive.
Animats 11y ago
There are 96 cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in the world. Most of those have at least some minimal Internet capability. It's just that not all can view cat videos yet.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  How many of those cell phone subscriptions share the same person?
kirk21 11y ago
Great read! Subreddit dedicated to this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/globalinternet https://www.reddit.com/r/globalinternet
benten10 11y ago
There's something I've been wondering lately. The concept of modern 'social' internet, to me, seems to presume that the majority of the users share at least some core liberal values of acceptance of a diverse set of ideas, and respect for other individuals, as they are, and assumes that the society is at least reasonably peaceful and stable. What happens when the internet comprises mostly of individuals whose don't share those views? What when/if, for example, a vast majority of internet users believes that women shouldn't have sexual choices, that gays are abhorrent? As someone from South Asia, I like to imagine the internet of the Future when most of the internet users are those men who seem to have a pathological hate/fear of women and values seen as 'liberal'/'western'. Men are already aggressively violent against women when they are openly identified. I wonder how the dynamics change when they could get anonymous. Even further, what if a large population of internet users deeply detests any other populations, and wants them dead. I was watching the trailer for this new documentary on the genocide in Cambodia(?), and how people live in peace with their children's murderers as neighbors. With a constant barrage of reminders of terrible events from the internet, and the mutual massaging of strong emotions [REMEMBER what they did to our parents/kids! NEVER FORGET!, etc], I wonder if on the whole, the internet will make things a lot worse in a lot of places/the internet as a whole will significantly change form. You could argue that the same could be said for any communication media. I remember reading about the role that Rwandan FM stations played in the Genocide: they would keep aflame the fires that were burning out, and constantly supply fodder for death and hate. Apparently it was only after the stations were closed that things began to get slightly under control (?). With the possibility of blimp-powered and satellite internet, the kind of communication that cannot be disrupted at all, I wonder how things would be. I like to imagine a scene of outright violence and civil war -- say race riots and race-based violence in the US. Would the easy availability of the internet help or hinder peacekeeping efforts? What would be the right response in such situations?
- StavrosK 11y ago
  How many Chinese people do you come across on the internet right now? How many Japanese? How many Russian? Nations on the internet are segregated by language. Learning the language of a country (or a few countries) usually means that you learn about their culture as well, so communicating won't be such a big shock.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    > How many Chinese people do you come across on the internet right now? How many Japanese? How many Russian? > Nations on the internet are segregated by language. This is true as far as it goes, but I don't really run into British, Australian, or even Canadian people either. Language may not be the primary factor.
    - mrec 11y ago
      > I don't really run into British, Australian, or even Canadian people either How do you know you don't? It's not like we (I'm British) type with an accent.
      - thaumasiotes 11y ago
        You can type with an accent. Brits have various vocabulary, spelling, and idiom differences that might give them away (although to be fair, I probably wouldn't recognize a specifically British idiom if I saw it). There are two points here: (1), I don't interact with very many people on the internet. I certainly don't use it to meet new people. And (2), I don't look for content aimed at (e.g.) an English audience. I read a large number of different bloggers, but it seems to have worked out that they're American. (John Derbyshire is English, but has lived in the US for years, and as far as I know has no intention to leave. Does he count?)
- tzs 11y ago
p1mrx 11y ago
Earth has ~7 billion people, and ~3 billion IPv4 addresses. Unless we can finish this slow-as-molasses transition to IPv6, what we're really talking about is "HTTP clients for all, Internet for those in the right place with enough money."

29 points by vignanv8 11y ago

This is the first time I've heard about the SpaceX, OneWeb and Yakiny low orbit small satellite constellation projects. It says they could allow for viable low latency, high bandwidth satellite internet. It sounds to me like the coverage of such constellations would allow for a satilite phone to actually deliver on the promise of working anywhere around the globe.

pogden 11y ago
Iridium works anywhere on earth, it's just expensive.

Animats 11y ago

There are 96 cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in the world. Most of those have at least some minimal Internet capability. It's just that not all can view cat videos yet.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
How many of those cell phone subscriptions share the same person?

kirk21 11y ago

Great read! Subreddit dedicated to this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/globalinternet https://www.reddit.com/r/globalinternet

benten10 11y ago

There's something I've been wondering lately. The concept of modern 'social' internet, to me, seems to presume that the majority of the users share at least some core liberal values of acceptance of a diverse set of ideas, and respect for other individuals, as they are, and assumes that the society is at least reasonably peaceful and stable. What happens when the internet comprises mostly of individuals whose don't share those views? What when/if, for example, a vast majority of internet users believes that women shouldn't have sexual choices, that gays are abhorrent? As someone from South Asia, I like to imagine the internet of the Future when most of the internet users are those men who seem to have a pathological hate/fear of women and values seen as 'liberal'/'western'. Men are already aggressively violent against women when they are openly identified. I wonder how the dynamics change when they could get anonymous. Even further, what if a large population of internet users deeply detests any other populations, and wants them dead. I was watching the trailer for this new documentary on the genocide in Cambodia(?), and how people live in peace with their children's murderers as neighbors. With a constant barrage of reminders of terrible events from the internet, and the mutual massaging of strong emotions [REMEMBER what they did to our parents/kids! NEVER FORGET!, etc], I wonder if on the whole, the internet will make things a lot worse in a lot of places/the internet as a whole will significantly change form. You could argue that the same could be said for any communication media. I remember reading about the role that Rwandan FM stations played in the Genocide: they would keep aflame the fires that were burning out, and constantly supply fodder for death and hate. Apparently it was only after the stations were closed that things began to get slightly under control (?). With the possibility of blimp-powered and satellite internet, the kind of communication that cannot be disrupted at all, I wonder how things would be. I like to imagine a scene of outright violence and civil war -- say race riots and race-based violence in the US. Would the easy availability of the internet help or hinder peacekeeping efforts? What would be the right response in such situations?

StavrosK 11y ago
How many Chinese people do you come across on the internet right now? How many Japanese? How many Russian? Nations on the internet are segregated by language. Learning the language of a country (or a few countries) usually means that you learn about their culture as well, so communicating won't be such a big shock.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > How many Chinese people do you come across on the internet right now? How many Japanese? How many Russian? > Nations on the internet are segregated by language. This is true as far as it goes, but I don't really run into British, Australian, or even Canadian people either. Language may not be the primary factor.
  - mrec 11y ago
    > I don't really run into British, Australian, or even Canadian people either How do you know you don't? It's not like we (I'm British) type with an accent.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      You can type with an accent. Brits have various vocabulary, spelling, and idiom differences that might give them away (although to be fair, I probably wouldn't recognize a specifically British idiom if I saw it). There are two points here: (1), I don't interact with very many people on the internet. I certainly don't use it to meet new people. And (2), I don't look for content aimed at (e.g.) an English audience. I read a large number of different bloggers, but it seems to have worked out that they're American. (John Derbyshire is English, but has lived in the US for years, and as far as I know has no intention to leave. Does he count?)
tzs 11y ago

p1mrx 11y ago

Earth has ~7 billion people, and ~3 billion IPv4 addresses. Unless we can finish this slow-as-molasses transition to IPv6, what we're really talking about is "HTTP clients for all, Internet for those in the right place with enough money."