Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

UN Recommends WiFi for Poor Countries 239

Posted by michael from the it-takes-a-village dept.
amerinese writes "UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is now advocating that third-world countries be given funds to implement WiFi technology and 'leapfrog into the future.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UN Recommends WiFi for Poor Countries More

UN Recommends WiFi for Poor Countries

Comments Filter:

  • AlohaNet (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ChaoticPenguin ( 580349 )
    Remember AlohaNet? It is all back to square one...
    • What he means is ubiquous wireless data (and hence phone). 802.11 is not the way to do that. The cell sites are too small.

      AlohaNet and most of the cellular networks are the future of the third world (and even that of small town America). The cell sites are variable size and shape and can be scaled to meet the current AND FUTURE need just as they are in the first world.

      Only the richest places on the planet can even consider copper to the home or small business better yet fiber.

      -- Multics

  • Poor countries... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29, 2003 @06:56AM (#6324238)
    Let's get them food before Internet.

    • Re:Poor countries... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by carm$y$ ( 532675 )
      From the article:
      Some 200 people -- representing technology companies, developing nations, regulators and international agencies -- attended Thursday's conference, organized by the Boston-based Wireless Internet Institute [...]

      Bingo! Food? Forget it! We have stuff to sell, targets to achieve, shareholders to keep happy...

    • Re:Poor countries... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spacelord ( 27899 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @07:17AM (#6324299)
      3rd world countries don't need food, they need an economy where they get fair prices for their goods, so they can take care of themselves and don't have to rely on foreign aid.

      Making internet available to them allows them to be at least somewhat competitive on the global market.
      • "Making internet available to them allows them to be at least somewhat competitive on the global market."

        Overthrowing dictatorships such as that in N. Korea, Iran, etc. would help a lot more than internet access in allowing these people compete in the global market. Also, they need farming technology. A 1st world farmer with proper technology can work half as hard and produce an order of magnitude more food than a 3rd world farmer.
    • We'll give them all the Pringles they can eat!

    • Re:Poor countries... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by damgx ( 132688 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @07:25AM (#6324315)
      In most 'poor' countries the problem in not the amount of food, but the distribution of it.

      These so called poor countries often have large money making industries to buy food, or food is being donated to the country. Perhaps a better way to put it is. Food is being donated to the people, but often does not reach the people, but only the rich. (The seem to own all the weapons).

      Money made from industries, such as diamonds, oile, timber and others goes in the pockets of the few in power, again the army is a prime candidate.

      There are exceptions like North Corea, where stupidity and nature makes up a crule reality.

      Look at your own country. (I asume USA). There _is_ food to go around, yet some goes hungry.

      Distribution of wealth is the real problem.

      • Ok Mr Marx, I was with you right up until the distribution of wealth bit. You hint that these 'poor' countries are under harsh dictitorial rule then blame the rich instead of the corrupt (not necasarily the same thing)
      • "Perhaps a better way to put it is. Food is being donated to the people, but often does not reach the people, but only the rich. (The seem to own all the weapons)."

        You just made a very strong argument for the right of a free people to keep and bear arms. Imagine if everyone in these countries was sufficiently armed to protect themselves and their families. Most of the "bad apples" that those in power use to oppress everyone else would be dead pretty quickly. Innocent people would die as well of course,
        • "You just made a very strong argument for the right of a free people to keep and bear arms. Imagine if everyone in these countries was sufficiently armed to protect themselves and their families. Most of the "bad apples" that those in power use to oppress everyone else would be dead pretty quickly. Innocent people would die as well of course, but then innocent people are dying in these places already."

          Your theory may have worked a 2 centuries ago, but isn't valid anymore. Even if citizens own automatic wea
      • The current distribution of wealth is caused by the current system of capitalism. What we need is a humanitarian system that makes sure all the needs of the individual is taken care of before the excess wealth is distributed between the workers.

        I think the people who do the most work should get the most pay. But I also think every person should be given everything they need and most of the things they want if we're talking about tools, books, supplies, etc. that could be used for something productive and
        • Just take The News as an example.. we publish news that makes people affraid of the world around them and changes their opinions about eachother. This news gets the highest ratings in a capitalist system where metrics are the only thing that matter, which is why it gets so intense. They always go after the murder and violence first.

          If we restructured even just our media system to promote real education and an environment designed for humans to live comfortably in, I bet a lot of things would change. Co
      • "Look at your own country. (I asume USA). There _is_ food to go around, yet some goes hungry. Distribution of wealth is the real problem."

        The reason there is plenty of food to go around in the US is that there is a respect for individual freedoms here. Govt. people with weapons aren't determining who gets what based on need. Instead, people are allowed work and trade freely, allowing motivated people who want to be rich to produce an overabundance of the things others want and need. In communist countries

    • Re:Poor countries... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wobblie ( 191824 )
      They don't need food, they need the goddamn multinationals to stop buying their lands from their corrupt governments and for the IMF to stop telling them what they can and can't grow.

    • Re:Poor countries... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @07:58AM (#6324400) Journal
      "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish..." well, you know the rest.

      Sending food to needy nations accomplishes nothing besides feeding those people for a day or two. That may be all well and good if they're hit by a draught or locusts, but it's not a long term solution. In fact,
      - Food aid helps local warlords, with bribes paid to them to let the shipments pass. Ever wonder why the warlords' jeeps with machine guns are called 'technicals'? Because they are paid for with UN bribe money, the outlay of which is entered into the ledgers as local 'technical assistance'.
      - Food aid sometimes puts local farmers out of business. If the local market is flooded with free food, how are they going to compete with that?

      Does that mean we should stop sending food? No... but we should be more careful about how, where and when we send it. We can just keep sending them food and they'll be in the same mess a hundred years from now.

      The thing to do is help them develop their industry, infrastructure, in other words helping them help themselves. I don't know if Internet infrastructure is on top of the list of things they need, but it sure is a better idea than just sending them more food and going back to sleep.

      As to the idea that the 3rd world doesn't even have an industry and so has no need for an IT infrastructure: look again. There might even be room for their own IT industry, look at India where one region built the infrastructure, education and business climate from the ground up, resulting in thousands of IT firms in a multimillion dollar business. That business helps the rest of the region, creating demand for other goods and services, thereby creating more jobs and improving the overall standard of living there. This might just be what the rest of the 3rd world needs.
      • It furthers American economic terrorism on 3rd world countries.

        The problem is that since we subsidize our farmers to produce food at a higher cost than it sells for, and thus produce more than is needed, they artificially deflate the prices of food on the world market.

        Which means only farmers receiving government subsidies can stay in business. Which insures continued poverty for farmers in countries whose government does not pay a subsidy.

        Farmers in third world countries produce food MUCH less expensiv
      • You really have no clue as to what's going on in the world, do you?

        When the US sets up a puppet government, that government sells the country's land to US companies and multi-nationals. He secures huge IMF loans that specify what the country can grow; they turn from a subsistence economy to an export economy. They go into debt. They grow coffee instead of rice and beans. This is why the third world is fucked and no one can eat. Wake up. This has happened all over South and Central America. This is t
      • Teach him how the fish and the next thing you know the world has been fished free of 90% of its large fish.

        That's the problem with us today, we think our parents were smart. Guess what? They weren't. And neither were their parents. We're so doomed. doomed. DOOOMED!
      • Does that mean we should stop sending food?

        Yes. Stop sending food and tell those sovereign nations that they MUST feed their people if they wish to remain sovereign. If they don't then the UN/US will overthrow their government and feed their people for them.

        If we're willing to do this for Saddam and the Talebon why not expect every country to be humane? Or did we just do this for oil and the economics of the situation?
    • Considering that the EU has convinced every 3rd world despot that genetically modified foods are the devil, that will probably not be happening any time soon.
    • The US has enough agricultural production to feed the world, it also has enough technology to destroy the world many times over. Between these two extremes lies a solution to global problems.

      The problem with food distribution in starving countries is that when food is scarce, it becomes the currency of trade. The powerful warlords then hoard food in order to maintain their power while the rest of the nation starves.

      If we give them internet access, they will be too busy downloading pr0n and playing warcr

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @06:58AM (#6324245)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Wifi uh ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @06:58AM (#6324246)
    How about giving reliable electricity, then computers to poor third world countries first (and also drinkable water and sufficient food, since you're there) ?

    Not everything in your home country looks as shiny as your UN office Mr. Annan ...

    • Re:Wifi uh ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by carm$y$ ( 532675 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @07:03AM (#6324256) Homepage
      Their logic is strange:
      Laptops are rare in the developing world and the money to buy the needed electronic gear is scarce.

      Then
      Wi-Fi allows users of laptop computers and other gadgets to access the Internet without electric cords or phone jacks.

      Ok, i'd like one of those laptops powered over WiFi...
      • Besides solar, which is expensive, there is also wind, which is not (you can use a $20 inverter and a $20 alternator plus another $50 worth of parts to build a wind power system that will certainly run a laptop and some wireless gear on days which are not still) and human power - a human could drive a generator, maybe on an exercise bike or something, as is somewhat stereotypical (but only because it's easy to set up.) I know the article is on crack as you will always need power but there is a very real poi
        • Ok, you have a point: powering your laptop can be done using solar-, wind- or human generated power.

          How about the accesspoints? Routers? And the rest of the infrastructure?
          Satellite links are still insanely expensive and slow; infrastructure is what the poor countries lack - an this was the reason WiFi popped up here. Complete circle?
          • Unless you're doing mesh networking you don't need to run the networking hardware all the time. Only the distribution points need to be up all the time, and they can go in places which already have power. My Linksys WAP11 Wi-Fi AP has a 2 amp power supply, at 5V, I'm guessing it uses more like 1.5A at 5V. In other words, six AA batteries could run the thing for an hour or so. It's got basically no power requirement :P You could get small solar cells that would do .8A at 12V and run the things in any kind of

  • How about real industry first? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by capt.Hij ( 318203 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @06:59AM (#6324249) Homepage Journal
    It would be much more realistic to establish real industries first and then create an environment that would support an information infrastructure. If an high tech infrasture is put in place before industrial, educational, and commercial infrastructures are put in place then it would essential just go to waste. For example, there is no reason to have IT in Africa when they don't even have a textile industry in place that could benefit from more efficient practices.
    • Is it possible that giving these countries access to unlimited information would cause war before it caused the end of farming problems?

      Oh, it's dangerous. Dangerous indeed.

      Send in The Picard.
    • There have been applications talked about, however, that could help people in low-tech industries like agriculture. For instance, someone could check various local markets and decide where to take their produce for the day. I thought there was a recent article in The Economist [economist.com] about this, but I'm having difficulty finding it right now.

      Bottom line, places like Africa need a lot of things to come together to foster self-sustaining economic growth - stronger laws, better access to rich-world markets, etc.
    • why ? because people will be more interested in getting WiFi to these countries before anything else, for a number of different reasons:

      1- you could be the company that "first" brought the "internet" to a country

      2- you will have a HUGE customer in the govt budget of that country

      3- IT ( or wifi for that matter) is not just for supporting brick-and-mortor businesses. here's a hint: it's a *communications* network....
    • I think you're missing the whole point here. The internet is available to them now via Wi-Fi, at least if a certain amount of hardware is donated. How many geeks have old pentium-class machines that could easily run enough Linux to let people easily and reliably surf the web, that they aren't using? I'm guessing LOTS. Add in a little wireless hardware, maybe some coffee can antennae, and you're in business.

      The internet is the greatest research library ever (if only because the next thing hasn't been inven

  • This does not make sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dybdahl ( 80720 ) <(kd.lhadbyd) (ta) (ofni)> on Sunday June 29, 2003 @06:59AM (#6324250) Homepage Journal
    Since when is it cheaper to use wireless than to plug in a wire? Price is very important in 3rd world countries, and I don't think they are willing to pay for the luxury of not having to put a cable into the computer.

    Besides most laptop come with a wired ethernet adaptor, but not with WiFi. Therefore, a wire-based system makes a lot more sense.
    • Since when is it cheaper to use wireless than to plug in a wire?

      I could be wrong but as these many of these contries dont already have any existing wire infastructure it may well be cheaper to start with wireless than with wires.

      Most first world contries already have power poles to hang wire between or cable trenches to lay more wires into.

      I'd expect them to use wireless for the longer links and to join local computers (however many that mat be) together with 'normal' cat5.
    • You take that wired infrastructure you're using right now for granted (and yes, you are using it even if you're on WiFi right now).

      Those wires, put in mostly by telecoms, cost hundreds of billions of dollars to implement over a period of decades.

      These countries have little, if any of that infrastructure. The average household doesn't even have POTS in many of these countries.

      WiFi is a *fraction* of the cost to implement.

      • If people don't have POTS in their households, a computer with wireless internet is probably pretty low on their list of priorities. How about a radio, to start with, and a free press to provide news that isn't sanctioned by the local dictator.
        • Hmmmm...radio, free press...check, check. Yup the Internet's got those, I just checked. ;) Not to mention a means to make money, a means to educate themselves, and a means to see what exists beyond the scope of their little world.

          I'd say those arre pretty important things, wouldn't you?
    • You may not be aware of this but in third world countries, almost no one has cable television, they all have satellite (if they have anything outside of rabbit ears - which don't work well in most areas because there's simply nothing to pick up.) This is because there is no wired infrastructure because you cannot justify paying for it. There are simply too few people with the money to pay for the service, and it can not pay for itself.

      The nice thing about wireless is that if you're willing to accept a low

    • "Since when is it cheaper to use wireless than to plug in a wire?"

      Since the time it takes between copper cable being laid and taken up and stolen is very short.
    • And since everyone else who replied to you thus far seems to disagree, let'em eat cake.

      There's a project in vietnam to run fibre from one side to the other. Note it is NOT a project to string wireless transponders one side to the other. They are paying thousands of workers, in a structure that (of course) has its share of corruption but is, nonetheless, providing jobs to thousands of people who had no work before. Paying them to dig, by hand, a two meter trench from east to west in which to bury a single t

  • Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @07:04AM (#6324261)
    From the article :

    Pat Gelsinger, chief technology officer for Intel Corp, the world's biggest computer chip maker, said Wi-Fi was cost-effective, growing rapidly around the world and particularly appropriate for developing nations because it was neither government-regulated nor licensed and was built using industry-wide and worldwide standards.

    Read : Pat Gelsinger, CTO for Intel Corp, recently visited Kofi Annan to do a sales pitch that went successfully.

    Hey Pat, how about Intel donates some WiFi equipment to third world countries, to jumpstart the market if nothing else ?

  • Technology is not a panacea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @07:06AM (#6324269)
    Why is IT always seen as some sort of miracle fix? Kids aren't learning in schools? Give them all computers to 'learn' on. People are living below the poverty line? Give them WiFi, that'll fix their economy.

    What's that big tall white thing? Oh, it's an ivory tower.

    • Why is IT always seen as some sort of miracle fix?

      First of all, IT is a job, or a department. It has to do with people trying to implement and maintain hardware, networks, and so on. While it plays a part here, you are not using the term properly. It makes it sound like they're advocating training all these people in the poor villages, making mud bricks and field-stripping their AK-47s, to be systems administrators.

      Anyway, I think the following quotation from the article underscores why this is use

    • Hardly ivory tower.

      If you take some time to look at Longhaul Wireless Networks That Really Work(ed) [openict.net] you'll see that they are all ground up projects.

      There's many "impose from above" technology in development, but Wi-Fi doesn't have to be one of them.

      simon
    • who think that every peasant has enough for wifi, because shit they have 3 kids ranging from 10 to 20 and they all have cellphones pc's cars and college educations pending/in effect and their biggest concern is whether or not Sopranos will run another season while half the world starves

      Personally I think we need to take care of our own country first, we have lots and lots of homeless starving people many of them turned out of closed mental institutions who need actual help instead of spending billions on f

  • Italy a poor country ? Italy's silly wi-fi law ! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29, 2003 @07:08AM (#6324275)
    As an italian I understand why Italy is severely technologically underdeveloped compared to the US.

    To protect big Telco monopolies and cellphone companies that have invested billions in UMTS licenses, Italy has made laws that make it illegal to use wi-fi for implementing long distance links or to let private persons or small firms becoming a Wireless ISP.
    You can become a WISP or do long distance wi-fi between your firm's sites but you need to ask for permission (and there is no assurance that the'll grant it to you) and possibly pay a yearly fee.

    When I see communities like Seattle Wireless I'm sad because such things will never be possible in Italy (without a change of the law).

    Italy is composed of many rural areas where there will no DSL for years because of the italian telcos unwilling to upgrade switches and equipement because the low return of investment.
    Imagine many small towns of a few hundred people where only 5-10% will subscribe. It is economically unviable for the telcos to bring DSL in those places.

    With wi-fi and small WISP it would be much easier, use a long distance wi-fi link, a a T1-like leased line or satellite and then give connectivity locally through wi-fi (point to multi-point: omni antenna at the distribution point and yagi/parabolic that the subscriber's home).

    There are a couple of small towns where pilot projects where implemented but the actual regulation hinders small businesses of becoming WISPs.

    sad sad :-(

    any prediction for Italy ?
    Should we just ignore the reglations and start to build community networks ?
    Just like in the filesharing case: you cannot put millions of citizen in jail.
    The 2.4ghz spectrum is unregulated and we want to fully use it (like in the US).

    Thoughts ?
    • Could an italian engineer hack up another kind of packet radio which could be cheaply manufactured in kit form? capture the hobbist movement, and keep the big players out of the loop until its widely installed. Smart Governments would love to be seen supporting local industry.

      Don't break the law unless everyone is going to do it at the same time. You are dealing with hardware and any govt worth its salt is going to be able to interdict importers and couriers of physical objects.

      then again, that kind of re
    • Start by getting rid of your Mussolini-like president to begin with.
  • So we'll have poor contries with WiFi that exceeds that of more developed countries (and as noted by another here, no one will be able to afford to use it), meanwhile the more developed countries will be too busy funding the development elsewhere and their own WiFi will suffer. That way, everyone loses -- what a great idea.
  • Give them wifi, it'll stop the wars, imprison the warlords, plant the seeds, clear the mines, pave the roads and stop the corruption.

    • Well...if the citizenry can communicate on a personal level, without govt involvement and snooping, with the citizenry of the 'opposing' side, then yes, it may well stop or bring an early end to the numerous civil wars.

      How long would East Germany and the wall have lasted if Germans on both sides (sometimes members of the same family) could have talked to each other on a daily basis?

      I'm not saying "Give em WiFi!" is a be all and end all to their problems. But how will it hurt?
      • > How long would East Germany and the wall have lasted if Germans on both sides (sometimes members of the same family) could have talked to each other on a daily basis?

        Most likely, as long as it did. That is, until USSR blew up economically and the Leader_with_Some_Brains (who happened to be Gorbachov at the time) decided that to ensure the survaval of the Party, cash infusions from the West would help, and decided to pay for it with giving abck of East Germany.

        Oh, and the reason USSR's economy blew up
    • But what is bad with helping for chrissakes?

      In many of these countries the media is tigthly controlled. The best way to seed democratic values is to ensure that people can have access to information that tells them different points of view.

      If the internet contributes to that, it is one of the best investments to fight corruption, dictators and despots.

      People could be trained about how to clear landmines via the internet.

      People could learn about agricultural techniques used in 1st world countries, or the
  • I've heard the Cisco Aironet 1400 [cisco.com] tastes quite good with a little Tabasco...
  • Perhaps the U.N. should concentrate more on helping "developing" countries get stable democratic governments than trying to act as some great wealth re-distribution center. The sad fact is that the U.N. is as corrupt as these "developing" countries that only seem to develop new ways of starting civil wars. So we start a new WiFi initiative, I wonder who gets to oversee it? The same accountants who ran Iraq's "Oil for Dollars" program that generated tons of money which was given to the dictatorship so that i
    • As usual, some people talk out of their ass.

      The UN people in charge of the food for oil programme have stated numerous times that the programme was one of the less corrupt they have ever seen.

      The reason?

      If the goverment of Hussein found somebody cheating, the person was unceremonouisly executed.

      If the UN is innefective it is because powerful countries, like the US, are never commited to any serious initiative. The UN does not exist on thin air, if the member countries are not interested in making it wor

  • I've seen a few "what about food before internet?" posts so thought I'd stick my oar in.

    I have a friend involved with a project to provide internet access (WiFi because of the lack of existing infrastructure) and cheap, reliable computers to impoverished rural areas of Asia. My first question was the same as above - is being wired more important than food and other issues?

    No, but one can help the other. Currently rural farmers can usually sell their produce to one buyer in the area because of the distan

  • Why is everybody here always whining about giving poor countries food first, and then IT and stuff?

    I believe in giving them a fishing rod instead of a few fish.

    We can give them food. We can even give them means to grow food by. But they'll never be able to afford them for themselves. They stay dependent on foreign help.

    The other thing we can do is help them make their own money. For that, the most important thing they need is education, the second is something to sell in this global economy.

    The Internet is the best and cheapest way to get to information necessary for an education. Books are too expensive. Also, if they're going to have something to sell apart from bananas, they will need IT infrastructure for it in this day and age.

    Getting good connectivity there is very important. There already is a fast cable running along the West African coast (SAT-3 [worldmarketsanalysis.com]) but it's mostly unused since the land network isn't there. If Wi-Fi can help that (should be easier to setup than cable everywhere), great!

    • Why is everybody here always whining about giving poor countries food first, and then IT and stuff? I believe in giving them a fishing rod instead of a few fish.

      Yes! precisely! let them use the millions of dollars in wifi equipment to make fishing rods! Oh, that is the answer after all! They can use the wires from the wireless equipment as tackle, and perhaps some of the shiny internals as lures! Sily me for not seeing the alternate uses for technology to begin with-- this must be what the UN is really a

    • hmm (Score:2)

      by Trepidity ( 597 )
      And what good exactly is WiFi going to do for countries where electricity is scarce and intermittent and computers are even more scarce?

      If you want to give them a fishing rod, tell the US and EU to repeal their outrageous farm subsidies so the African farmers can actually get reasonable prices for their products.

  • WiFi, or, CONNECTIVITY in general is good. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jlehtira ( 655619 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @07:49AM (#6324381) Journal

    Okay, so you say give them food first, then WiFi or other technology. You are wrong.

    First; in many places most people aren't dying of hunger in their status quo. It's a flood, draught, war or whatever that makes people die in numbers. So, get them food all the time? No. Get them food when disaster strikes? Yes.

    Second: in many places, the poor people are the ones who have no (profitable) profession. In today's world people can farm food much too efficiently to need everybody on the fields. What do the rest do? Drive rikshaws, play (or are) disabled, make themselves (or their kids) disabled, sell themselves (or others), or beg. There's a huge workforce with no skills in the poor countries. And, even if they had the skills, they usually don't have markets.

    Now, tourism is a big player in any poor-and-warm country. To be successful, local guides et cetera will have to speak good english (education!), market their services abroad, do things so that western (or eastern) tourists will want to pay to them. In tourism and other professions innovation will also come in handy.

    So, they need education to succeed. How can WLAN help that? Connectivity. In some places they have e-mail but no telephone, or the telephone is a crappy radio something, and the post office doesn't always work reliably or fast. People want to talk to each other. Second; with a somewhat fast WiFi connection, the good teachers (which are few) can teach students going to other schools. Third, the internet is a vast resource of learning material, especially when there aren't many (or good) books. Imagine volunteers teaching from their western living rooms. Or, far-away places reaching potential tourists over the internet. Or, even, people organizing their work or selling their products [himalayanhandicraft.org] over the internet.

    WiFi is cheaper than cable. I think I paid $2 or something (tourist price) for a 1-litre aluminium can that I turned into an antenna once.. a connector and a piece of rod made it into a nice antenna capable of over 1km. It is used between two villages 1.2km apart in Nepal, in a place where the shortest path (on the ground) between the villages is maybe 5km. WiFi tech is also being used there, to bridge distances of over 40km, with volunteer-made amplifiers.

    There was a story about the place I'm talking about here [slashdot.org]. Also, I've been to the place =).

    So, consider the cost and determination needed to ship useful amounts of food against the cost of helping education etc etc. One day, even the third world can count on electric communication nationwide, and that will benefit them a lot.

  • Ah yes... (Score:2, Funny)

    by iamatlas ( 597477 )
    Let them starve to death while looking at a McDonalds web site... wouldn't that be ironic? [slashdot.org]

  • Odd as it may seem, wireless networking may be the only viable answer for some of these countries. Having just returned from a trip to East Africa, I was struck by the number of mobile phones in use. Most Kenyans who can afford a telephone of any variety will get a mobile phone and/or one of the prepaid phone cards available. The reason is cost - land lines are expensive to lay and expensive to maintain. From our high-density populations in the developed world, it's easy to overlook the problems of communic

  • See topic. 'Nuff said.
  • if they don't have any fricken' computers?

    or fricken' power for the computers?
  • Wifi in every country
    A satellite with very directional antennas and low noise amplifiers
    A parallel computing encryption deciphering supercomputer
    And 75 cents will get you all the remotely gathered intellegence you could want.

    I'd say the US should immediately donate billions of dollars of wireless equipment to every other country in the world.

    Just try to avoid the comparisons to blankets soiled with disease sold to indians thing...

    Honestly, though, except for the security issues, this is a valid

  • Extremely clever ! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Krapangor ( 533950 )
    All they've got to do is to figure out how to create ploughs, tractors and medical devices of WiFi base staions and cards.
    • In underdevelopped countries remote communications would be highly beneficial in order to help patients that otherwise would have no access at all to some medical expertise.

      Ploughs and tractors? For goodness sake, in many cases just basic modern agricultural techniques (thought via the net) would make a world of difference.

      Honestly, whay don't you think out of the fucking box and forget tired cliches?
  • WiFi is so cool when you can buy an AK47 for $150 and hand-grenades for $3 in such lovely spots as Congo DRC, Indonesia's lost islands, the WWI memorial frontier between Ethiopia and Eritrea, etc.

    The the undeveloping nations of the 3rd world desperately need something much simpler: peace. This is beyond the UN's capacity to deliver, but a firm statement that the weapons trade is an evil that must be abolished would be a great start.

    The 3.5 million dead in Congo during the last 5 years is worth something

  • What for? (Score:3, Funny)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @09:19AM (#6324686) Journal
    Let's bomb them instead, God is telling me to bomb the poor countries just like he told Bush to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • I am not worried about the 3rd world. I am worried about me, my family, my area, and then maybe my country and then way down the list, teh 3rd world.

    I do not work so that my government can take, by force, money out of my paycheck to pay for foreign aid that will in no way benefit me or mine.

    If the third world want wifi, or food for that matter, it's their problem to drag their war torn, ethnic cleansed asses out of the septic tank they live in and do something about it.

    BTW - I am not a communist, nor a
    • Mobutu Seseseko.
      Apartheid regime.
      Somoza.
      Pinochet.
      Suharto.
      Sadamm Hussein.

      Do I need to tell you where I am going or are you brilliant enough to infer other uses of your fucking tax dollars?

      BTW I am not communist and socialst, I am a democrat (as somebody that hopes for real democracy). Capitalism is fine as long as it benefits people, otherwise is as perverse as any other economic system. Nothing to be proud about it.

  • Ignorance of the stupid idiots here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29, 2003 @09:38AM (#6324749)
    This fscking shit argument of food for third world countries instead of technology is the most ignorant oppressive crap I see consistently being spouted on slashdot (of all places).

    I am (originally) from a "third world" aka developing country. I grew up in the "third world" let me tell you this with authority. THEY DO NOT NEED DONATIONS OF FOOD. What they need is (in order of importance)

    a) get rid of corruption /serial killer dictators
    c) roads
    b) capital to buy equipment (farming/industry)
    c) cheap communications (internet, cell phones) e) free trade so their people can buy technology cheaper
    d) reforms in education system (no memorization)
    f) health care
    g) security
    h) Snoop Doggy Dogg
    i) food

    Donating food is the worst thing you can do to a country (except when there is an actual emergency/disaster)

    Also what I hate is people running around claiming the govt. donates so much to the third world and now they dont have jobs/medicare etc. here. That's plain BS. The ultra miniscule drop of your tax that goes to "foreign aid" is not having any effect on any economy .. yours or theirs.
    • I agree with the sentiment, but I would put two things first:
      • Education
      • More favorable trade practices
      • An end to US agricultural subsidies

      US agricultural policies, including food donations, extensive domestic subsidies, free trade, and GM, are bad for developing nations because they depress prices and keep nations from developing their own agricultural base. GM foods only worsen this dependence.

      If the US wants to help developing nations, it should unilaterally and unconditionally drop import duties

  • If you were in Ethiopia in the late 1970s you'd have seen wonders - East German agriculture experts helping the locals plant their hybrid wheat. The wheat grew to an amazing height ... and then collapsed because the heads of the plants were too heavy for the root systems that grew in the thin soil. The East Germans went home, the Ethiopians starved.

    Giving aid to third world countries might make you *feel* better, but if it is aid given on a regular basis rather than a one time event in response to som
    • I don't believe that NOT helping is the way to do things. I do believe that it is absolutely wrong for "humanitarians" to hand out food, rather than helping the people achieve a sustainable standard of living. It isn't just overpopulation, it's a matter of corrupt governments, lack of modern technology (not computers, but farming equipment, water filtering, etc.) as well as a lack of education. Help needs to be offered in ways that are much better than what is happening now, but stopping the help is only
  • The internet does not cure disease, end oppression or feed the hungry.

    Starving family: We're hungry feed us.
    UN: Have a WIFI adapter for your computer.
    Starving family: What's a computer?
    UN: It's the reason there is no food in starving land.
    Starving family: Can I have some rice?
    UN: No, we don't have that because it's held in customs, but you can have a gross of condoms and a safe sex video on DVD.
    Starving family: I must return to forraging through the trash now.

    and we wonder why the un doesn"t stop wars?

  • This is bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrseigen ( 518390 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @11:45AM (#6325290) Homepage Journal
    No offense to developing countries, but most of them would rather have clean water, or no civil wars, than the ability to get wireless access anywhere.

    This has little practical value and the UN should be ashamed of promoting something so stupid.

  • It's not just Wi-Fi, it's Open Spectrum (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sbwoodside ( 134679 ) <sbwoodside@yahoo.com> on Sunday June 29, 2003 @01:05PM (#6325710) Homepage
    (I administrate a mailing list/resource site for Open Spectrum here [openict.net] (sign up here [openict.net]). "Discussion and community effort towards the proliferation of open spectrum policy and regulations world-wide (including developing nations).").

    I'm particularly interested in the remarks by Patrick Gelsinger, chief
    technology officer of Intel, quote "focused on the catalyzing role
    lenient regulatory statutes have played in spurring growth in nations
    with advanced wireless infrastructures"

    Patrick said, [quote from infoworld article [infoworld.com]]
    > Wireless services based on Wi-Fi cost less to deliver than do services
    > offered through other broadband technologies such as DSL and 3G
    > (third-generation) wireless, Gelsinger said, making Wi-Fi "the only
    > way to build a broadband infrastructure" in developing nations. Wi-Fi
    > is an interoperability specification for wireless LAN technology based
    > on the IEEE 802.11 standards, but is often used loosely as a synonym
    > for wireless LAN technology in general.
    >
    > However, many of those nations are taking actions that are detrimental
    > to Wi-Fi development, he argued.
    >
    > "We're seeing developing nations be the slowest and the most
    > conservative in terms of making unregulated, unlicensed spectrum
    > available," he said. "We see this idea of a scarcity mentality, this
    > 'We have this spectrum, we're holding onto it and maybe getting a few
    > dollars from licensing it.' "
    >
    > Gelsinger later clarified his remarks, saying that by "unregulated" he
    > doesn't mean governments should take an entirely hands-off approach
    > toward overseeing spectrum allocation, but rather that governments
    > should set aside spectrum bands with no end-user licensing
    > requirements for wireless device use, as the Federal Communications
    > Commission has done in the U.S.
    I think he's absolutely right that a lot of nations governments are
    basically not well-educated about Open Spectrum. They see spectrum
    still as something that they get cash from licensing. How do we
    convince them that they can benefit even more from adopting open
    spectrum policy?

    His remark "unregulated, unlicensed spectrum" though is bad. Open
    Spectrum is NOT unregulated. It is REGULATED to be OPEN. That includes
    the very important aspect of power-level restriction and the rule "thou
    shalt accept interference from other sources".

    Also, I'm very concerned when I hear from government people in the
    developing world that the 2.4 GHz band is not Open Spectrum but 'ISM'
    which is an old USA-ism. The original ISM didn't allow any telephony to
    be done. But that's ancient history. Unfortunately the old language
    seems to have somehow propagated itself into the minds of some people
    so that they think that ISM and Open Spectrum are the same.

    simon

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close