Google Spending $1 Billion on Satellites to Cover Earth in Wi-Fi

[AppleP59]

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google plans to spend over $1 billion on a fleet of satellites that will be used to provide internet to parts of the world that currently lack digital connections.
The question is WHY?!
Why would anyone want this? Ok, sure this may provide a number of people in isolated area with welcome wifi. But either the people in those areas actually WANT to avoid such things as internet. Or, they have a system in place to provide themselves with internet.
Is this also intended for populated areas?


http://gizmodo.com/wsj-google-spending-1-billion-on-satellites-to-cover-1584675816

 

[2984839]

Because that's the only way for those people to get the internet. If they want to avoid it, they don't have to use it.

 

[balamw]

This sounds like Iridium reborn for data.

B

 

[MRU]

Because providing internet and being the only provider to million and millions of people is very very very very very very very very profitable .....

A captured audience to deliver your advertising subsidised services to millions of people = $kerching


Likewise your assumption that if your in a part of the world that can't get internet, you did it out of choice is so flawed. Many parts of the world can not get reliable internet from any other provider whether it be due to logistics / finanical constraints or other .... Not as you assume out of choice ....

 

[Dontazemebro]

Isn't satellite Internet slower than molasses? Well I guess those that don't have Internet can't be picky but I don't see this benefiting 1st world countries.

Make Google Fiber world wide and now we're talking.

 

[jamezr]

Isn't satellite Internet slower than molasses? Well I guess those that don't have Internet can't be picky but I don't see this benefiting 1st world countries.

Make Google Fiber world wide and now we're talking.

I wish Google Fiber would come to my city......lets get some competition going!

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Isn't satellite Internet slower than molasses? Well I guess those that don't have Internet can't be picky but I don't see this benefiting 1st world countries.

Make Google Fiber world wide and now we're talking.

Errr, no.... There are no technical reasons why satellite internet has to be slow. It does have a relatively high latency though.

 

[TechGod]

Isn't satellite Internet slower than molasses? Well I guess those that don't have Internet can't be picky but I don't see this benefiting 1st world countries.

Make Google Fiber world wide and now we're talking.

Nope you can buy pretty nice speeds but at massive costs.

----------

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google plans to spend over $1 billion on a fleet of satellites that will be used to provide internet to parts of the world that currently lack digital connections.
The question is WHY?!
Why would anyone want this? Ok, sure this may provide a number of people in isolated area with welcome wifi. But either the people in those areas actually WANT to avoid such things as internet. Or, they have a system in place to provide themselves with internet.
Is this also intended for populated areas?


http://gizmodo.com/wsj-google-spending-1-billion-on-satellites-to-cover-1584675816

Wow you love to assume a lot. I didn't choose to live in semi rural because I didn't want fast internet( such flawed thinking regardless )

Its because I got Glenroy of land for cheap. While we have an OK, could be worse 2.3DSL line if this provides faster speeds with s big data cap I'd jump on it.

 

[kdarling]

Why would anyone want this? Ok, sure this may provide a number of people in isolated area with welcome wifi. But either the people in those areas actually WANT to avoid such things as internet. Or, they have a system in place to provide themselves with internet.

On the contrary, much of the world has no internet access.

For example, here's a map of GSM coverage (gold = 3G, pink = EDGE, cream = none).



Wired and WiFi coverage is even less.

I don't think people in the middle of Africa chose to live there to avoid the internet.

World coverage would enable a lot of things, from remote schooling to family communications to world knowledge to revolutions.

 

[AppleP59]

On the contrary, much of the world has no internet access.

For example, here's a map of GSM coverage (gold = 3G, pink = EDGE, cream = none).

View attachment 474570

Wired and WiFi coverage is even less.

I don't think people in the middle of Africa chose to live there to avoid the internet.

World coverage would enable a lot of things, from remote schooling to family communications to world knowledge to revolutions.

It seems like first world problems.
What percentage of people don't have access to internet simply due to lack of internet? I mean, I assume if one doesn't have access to internet, this is also coupled with not having access other amenity eg a device to access internet on. And are satellites even the best way of providing the people in the middle of Africa with internet?
Is it really just me, or does this article make "covering the earth in wifi" seem negative? I don't know I want earth "covered" in wifi. However, I have recently become very criterial of modern life and consumerism.
Perhaps people in the middle of Africa are better off without wifi.

 

[jamezr]

On the contrary, much of the world has no internet access.

For example, here's a map of GSM coverage (gold = 3G, pink = EDGE, cream = none).

View attachment 474570

Wired and WiFi coverage is even less.

I don't think people in the middle of Africa chose to live there to avoid the internet.

World coverage would enable a lot of things, from remote schooling to family communications to world knowledge to revolutions.

I agree with you on some level.....but then in your example of say Africa.......some parts of Africa that do not have internet access. the people barely have enough to eat (from the media)....so I do not think internet access or BUYING a device to use that new service would be top priority.

 

[Kissaragi]

It seems like first world problems.
What percentage of people don't have access to internet simply due to lack of internet? I mean, I assume if one doesn't have access to internet, this is also coupled with not having access other amenity eg a device to access internet on. And are satellites even the best way of providing the people in the middle of Africa with internet?
Is it really just me, or does this article make "covering the earth in wifi" seem negative? I don't know I want earth "covered" in wifi. However, I have recently become very criterial of modern life and consumerism.
Perhaps people in the middle of Africa are better off without wifi.

Think its you making this story seem negative to be honest...

 

[AppleP59]

Think its you making this story seem negative to be honest...

Ok, thanks for your honesty. Can you expand on that?

 

[Prof.]

Anything to destroy comcast.

 

[AppleP59]

I agree with you on some level.....but then in your example of say Africa.......some parts of Africa that do not have internet access. the people barely have enough to eat (from the media)....so I do not think internet access or BUYING a device to use that new service would be top priority.

Many people in Africa not use a computer, because they cannot afford one and the electricity supply is prone to frequent outages.
However, I guess a mobile phone would basically solve both of these problems.

-There are actually now more mobile phones in the whole of Africa than there are in the US. About 650 million, according to a 2012 report by GSMA, a trade association that represents 800 mobile operators across the world.
-There are 475 million mobile connections in sub-Saharan Africa alone, compared with just 12.3 million fixed line connections.

And although the mobile infrastructure has improved massively – with the continent’s internet bandwidth (its capacity for downloading materials) increasing 20 times over between 2009 and 2012 – this is a continent in which about two-thirds of the population still live without domestic access to electricity (some innovative low-tech solutions are used to overcome this problem, such as using car batteries to recharge mobile phones).

 

[Jspring86]

I wish Google Fiber would come to my city......lets get some competition going!

Google Fiber may be coming to the valley, well a few select cities anyway. At least Tempe is included if they do decide to come.

 

[AppleP59]

Nope you can buy pretty nice speeds but at massive costs.

----------



Wow you love to assume a lot. I didn't choose to live in semi rural because I didn't want fast internet( such flawed thinking regardless )

Its because I got Glenroy of land for cheap. While we have an OK, could be worse 2.3DSL line if this provides faster speeds with s big data cap I'd jump on it.

The fact that your land was cheap is because it lacks utilities. If you had access to all the utilities and amenities of the big city then it wouldn't be so cheap.

But then on the other hand, certain areas of property in "rural" New Zealand have skyrocketed due the very fact that I pointed out. - (Rich) People from the city (Be it, JAFAs or foreigners) head to "rural" areas to "escape"

I was simply raising a question. And I made it clear I was assuming, if anyone can make me see more clearly - then great! There's no need for childish eye-rolling.

 

[AppleP59]

Regardless of whether more people having internet is positive or not.
Google is taking away potential jobs and money from the areas that need it most.
Installing and maintaining telecommunications infrastructure at a local level. Of course this makes internet more open, and provide equal access to everyone with may not be the case due to corruption.
I'm not only talking about Africa, but the whole of the world.

And, of course, the situation varies hugely between and within countries, making it difficult and often unhelpful to consider them as one entity. Internet penetration is estimated at 15.6*per cent across Africa, according to Internet World Statistics (it stands at 83.6*per cent in the UK), but in Somalia it is just 1.2*per cent.

 

[TechGod]

The fact that your land was cheap is because it lacks utilities. If you had access to all the utilities and amenities of the big city then it wouldn't be so cheap.

But then on the other hand, certain areas of property in "rural" New Zealand have skyrocketed due the very fact that I pointed out. - (Rich) People from the city (Be it, JAFAs or foreigners) head to "rural" areas to "escape"

I was simply raising a question. And I made it clear I was assuming, if anyone can make me see more clearly - then great! There's no need for childish eye-rolling.

The utilities have actually improved. We have LTE in my area when we didn't before, and the price of our own land is leaping right up there.

But thanks for calling me a jafa... I really appreciate it.

 

[AppleP59]

The utilities have actually improved. We have LTE in my area when we didn't before, and the price of our own land is leaping right up there.

But thanks for calling me a jafa... I really appreciate it.

Ha, sorry! I thought you would enjoy the jafa reference.

 

[Robster3]

The utilities have actually improved. We have LTE in my area when we didn't before, and the price of our own land is leaping right up there.

But thanks for calling me a jafa... I really appreciate it.

How did you buy land at 16

 

[TechGod]

How did you buy land at 16

Obviously I meant my parents.

----------

Ha, sorry! I thought you would enjoy the jafa reference.

 

[MRU]

Regardless of whether more people having internet is positive or not.
Google is taking away potential jobs and money from the areas that need it most.
Installing and maintaining telecommunications infrastructure at a local level. Of course this makes internet more open, and provide equal access to everyone with may not be the case due to corruption.
I'm not only talking about Africa, but the whole of the world.

Seriously stop ... your making one bad assumption and turning it into a whole plethora of bad assumptions.

How can providing internet to areas that can not get it - take away local jobs from installing and maintaining telecommunications infrastructures ?

If those areas Google are targeting this service at actually had telecommunications infrastructures - then they would not be targeted by Google. Those jobs to service these non existent infrastructures clearly don't exist and because of logistics and financial constraints and a myriad other reasons for one way or another will never ever likely exist, hence the need for someone else to provide the service.

Surely to god, that's the whole point of the article .....


This whole thread is just a complete pugwash of ignorance.

 

[AppleP59]

Seriously stop ... your making one bad assumption and turning it into a whole plethora of bad assumptions.

How can providing internet to areas that can not get it - take away local jobs from installing and maintaining telecommunications infrastructures ?

If those areas Google are targeting this service at actually had telecommunications infrastructures - then they would not be targeted by Google. Those jobs to service these non existent infrastructures clearly don't exist and because of logistics and financial constraints and a myriad other reasons for one way or another will never ever likely exist, hence the need for someone else to provide the service.

Surely to god, that's the whole point of the article .....


This whole thread is just a complete pugwash of ignorance.

Well inform me then.
I'm not saying I have all the answers. I was asking people if they could add their point of view.

If google simply covers the whole world in wifi there would be no chance for companies such as the local equivalent of AT&T (who has 246,740 Employees worldwide) etc to grow whereas google has 49,829 Employees.
In developing countries this competition from google would be impossible for local startup telecommunications providers to compete with.

How can you say google isn't going to take potential jobs?

 

[jamezr]

Google Fiber may be coming to the valley, well a few select cities anyway. At least Tempe is included if they do decide to come.

I thought I read that somewhere too. But hopefully they will come out to east Mesa where I live. We can't even get Prisim TV yet!

----------

Well inform me then.
I'm not saying I have all the answers. I was asking people if they could add their point of view.

If google simply covers the whole world in wifi there would be no chance for companies such as the local equivalent of AT&T (who has 246,740 Employees worldwide) etc to grow whereas google has 49,829 Employees.
In developing countries this competition from google would be impossible for local startup telecommunications providers to compete with.

How can you say google isn't going to take potential jobs?

I think the issue is more that the local providers have had tax and exclusivity deals in place with the local municipalities. Thats is the way it is here in the US anyway. This lets them set back and set high prices with no competition with very little incentive to offer better services. It would be better for consumers if there is competition. If the local providers do not want to lose business....they should offer better services.