4 ms·

"In Ghana, well-resourced foreign providers came in, did the gritty work of building up infrastructure [...] and genuinely tried hard to win customers from othe

by olgeni 13y ago

"In Ghana, well-resourced foreign providers came in, did the gritty work of building up infrastructure [...] and genuinely tried hard to win customers from other providers." Basically: the free market provided Internet access, but libertarians are stupid.

21echoes 13y ago
those foreign providers provided a service with government regulation, oversight, and pay taxes. the proposed google and facebook solutions do none of those things.
- pjscott 13y ago
  How is this better for people than a company that just moves packets around? I mean, government regulation and oversight are presumably means to an end, rather than goals in themselves, so tell me: in this case, what advantage do they offer? If we were talking about, say, emissions regulations for a factory, or worker safety regulations, or something like that, then I could see the case for it. But for this? Man, I just want my packets to go from one place to another.
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    Packet-moving still comes with a lot of potential issues and possibility for malfeasance, though. Just look at Net Neutrality. Or NSA surveillance.
    - pjscott 13y ago
      I'm not sure that government regulation makes that sort of thing less likely, especially in some of the more corrupt countries in Africa. If I had to pick a method of providing net neutrality and preventing eavesdropping, I wouldn't pick regulation; I'd pick real competition among ISPs, and increased use of TLS, respectively.
    - glenra 13y ago
      "Net Neutrality" is still at this point essentially a hypothetical problem. It's people hyperventilating over how companies might conceivably act, even though the companies have essentially no actual financial incentive to act that way (and to the extent that they do, it'd be pro-consumer to let them do it). "NSA surveillance" is the sort of problem that comes from giving government too much power and money; doing an end-run around governments probably reduces the potential for invasion of privacy - it means you have one fewer actors trying to deliberately undermine reasonable security standards. Any other candidates?
- glenra 13y ago
  FWIW, Somalia developed excellent cellphone coverage - better than many of its neighbors - during a time when it effectively had no government. https://www.hiiraan.com/op4/2007/mar/2432/the_phones_keep_ringing_in_somalia.aspx https://www.hiiraan.com/op4/2007/mar/2432/the_phones_keep_ri...

by olgeni 13y ago

21echoes 13y ago

those foreign providers provided a service with government regulation, oversight, and pay taxes. the proposed google and facebook solutions do none of those things.

pjscott 13y ago
How is this better for people than a company that just moves packets around? I mean, government regulation and oversight are presumably means to an end, rather than goals in themselves, so tell me: in this case, what advantage do they offer? If we were talking about, say, emissions regulations for a factory, or worker safety regulations, or something like that, then I could see the case for it. But for this? Man, I just want my packets to go from one place to another.
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  Packet-moving still comes with a lot of potential issues and possibility for malfeasance, though. Just look at Net Neutrality. Or NSA surveillance.
  - pjscott 13y ago
    I'm not sure that government regulation makes that sort of thing less likely, especially in some of the more corrupt countries in Africa. If I had to pick a method of providing net neutrality and preventing eavesdropping, I wouldn't pick regulation; I'd pick real competition among ISPs, and increased use of TLS, respectively.
  - glenra 13y ago
    "Net Neutrality" is still at this point essentially a hypothetical problem. It's people hyperventilating over how companies might conceivably act, even though the companies have essentially no actual financial incentive to act that way (and to the extent that they do, it'd be pro-consumer to let them do it). "NSA surveillance" is the sort of problem that comes from giving government too much power and money; doing an end-run around governments probably reduces the potential for invasion of privacy - it means you have one fewer actors trying to deliberately undermine reasonable security standards. Any other candidates?
glenra 13y ago
FWIW, Somalia developed excellent cellphone coverage - better than many of its neighbors - during a time when it effectively had no government. https://www.hiiraan.com/op4/2007/mar/2432/the_phones_keep_ringing_in_somalia.aspx https://www.hiiraan.com/op4/2007/mar/2432/the_phones_keep_ri...