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

[gotluck]

in many areas, traditional telecommunications utilities are essentially monopolies
I don't really see this story as a negative

 

[lazard]

considering over 3 billion people currently don't have access to high speed internet, I don't see why this is considered a bad thing (by the OP).

 

[Menel]

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.

You are already covered by TV, Communication, and yes, Internet satellites.

Too late.

 

[AT101ET]

This will be great for Google. I think they've looked into the long term benefit of what it can bring them personally. Expanding internet access to the developing world is now what's needed.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

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.

This is easily one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

 

[AppleP59]

This is easily one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Do you care to explain why?

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Do you care to explain why?

Really? You cannot figure out the utility of globe-covering internet access?

"But either the people in those areas actually WANT to avoid such things as internet."

Ignoring the batflap craziness of suggesting everyone in places with no internet access are actively AVOIDING it... Ii's the internet. It's not a herd of buffalo. If you don't want it, it's not going to smash your door down and force its way onto you.

"Or, they have a system in place to provide themselves with internet."

If they have that system in place... THEN THEY AREN'T AVOIDING THE INTERNET OR LIVING SOMEWHERE WHERE IT'S NOT AVAILABLE, NOW ARE THEY?

 

[AppleP59]

Really? You cannot figure out the utility of globe-covering internet access?

"But either the people in those areas actually WANT to avoid such things as internet."

Ignoring the batflap craziness of suggesting everyone in places with no internet access are actively AVOIDING it... Ii's the internet. It's not a herd of buffalo. If you don't want it, it's not going to smash your door down and force its way onto you.

"Or, they have a system in place to provide themselves with internet."

If they have that system in place... THEN THEY AREN'T AVOIDING THE INTERNET OR LIVING SOMEWHERE WHERE IT'S NOT AVAILABLE, NOW ARE THEY?

I admin it wasn't the best thought out. But I think you are talking it out of context, as it was meant as a question. And I was hoping someone could enlighten me.
I forgot that macrumors is overrun with people trying to belittle one another

 

[beosound3200]

google really doesnt know what to do with its money.

it sometimes feels like google is run by teenage geeks and advertisers.

it probably is. they have absolutely no style whatsoever