Facebook Planning to Bring Free Internet to Africa: Good or Bad?

[aelf]

Why is it the first thing Marxists think about is murdering their opponents? I suppose you can't build socialism unless you off all the people that realize it don't work.

Nope, I wouldn't actually advocate murdering you. It would be a waste of time and I'd rather do something more productive.

 

[Agent327]

I was referring to the deceptiveness of the name itself. Not the web content as it currently exists to attract developers and the press to get behind this latest scheme.

If you told me that Facebook was providing free access to the internet to much of the 2/3rds of the population of the world that doesn't yet have it, I would say that is an incredibly noble for them to do.

Where do you get those figures?

This is as much 'on topic' as the following:

Can we assume that the number of Africans someone knows correlates to believing that giving everything away for free is how the world works?

This not even remotely on topic. Try again.

And how many Africans do you know that live in such luxury as to own their own PCs and mobile phones? I'm sure there's plenty, but why exactly do the ones that are already well off need free internet? How is free internet going to be of any help to the penniless and starving Africans living in the worst conditions without access to electricity and without any such luxuries as phones and computers?

To these people - as to most - it matters naught. So why bring this up again? Stick with screwdrivers. Obviously all Africans are in need of those, aren't they...

In normal cases, people pay for their own internet, and facebook generates income from ads. In this situation, you are ignoring that the internet service is being provided for free. Someone has to pay for the service, and if it isn't Africans then its most likely taxpayers.

No taxpayers pay for internet.

As I suspected, the number of Africans you actually know is zero. You are arguing (if we can call it that) from hypothethicals.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Where do you get those figures?.

Perhaps you should try reading the articles already posted in this thread along with visiting "internet.org" yourself, instead of apparently basing your opinions on preconceived notions of what must be occurring. It is all there. You just have to read it if you are actually interested in knowing the facts surrounding this matter.

Thinking critically is usually a choice that is made after careful study, not something that comes naturally to many people.

This is as much 'on topic' as the following:

This not even remotely on topic. Try again.

So now you are judging my own posts, which are clearly "on topic", on those made by someone else?

 

[Agent327]

Well, if you insist on staying off topic:

Perhaps you should try reading the articles already posted in this thread along with visiting "internet.org" yourself, instead of apparently basing your opinions on preconceived notions of what must be occurring. It is all there. You just have to read it if you are actually interested in knowing the facts surrounding this matter.

Thinking critically is usually a choice that is made after careful study, not something that comes naturally to many people.

Actually, no. Critical thinking is something one develops from critical reading. The latter, hopefully, one learns in school. The first is something one has to do oneself.

You didn't answer my question, but evaded it. Not really a sign of critical thinking. I suspected the figure of 2/3 of the world being unconnected to be unsubstantiated. Apparently this is the case, seeing as there are no actual figures to base such a conclusion on.

So now you are judging my own posts, which are clearly "on topic", on those made by someone else?

You haven't shown how your bickering with other posters would be "on topic". But feel free to try. Secondly, I didn't judge anything. I offered a comparison. Critical readers can decide for themselves how similar the compared posts are. They don't need anyone to judge for them.

In short, your response doesn't show much of critical thinking, but does have certain characteristics of what is generally know as a personal comment. The two are not the same.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You didn't answer my question, but evaded it. Not really a sign of critical thinking. I suspected the figure of 2/3 of the world being unconnected to be unsubstantiated. Apparently this is the case, seeing as there are no actual figures to base such a conclusion on.

Nope. I pointed out exactly where you could find out that information. Try it. Type "internet.org" into your browser and see for yourself.



Now, of course you can claim that Facebook is just making it up. But you obviously can't state it is "off topic".

Actually, no. Critical thinking is something one develops from critical reading. The latter, hopefully, one learns in school. The first is something one has to do oneself.

If your school system didn't teach you to think critically, that certainly helps explain that part of the issue.

I generally try to find out some basic facts before forming an opinion about a topic I know nothing about, such as this one. YMMV.

You haven't shown how your bickering with other posters would be "on topic". But feel free to try.

So irony and hypocrisy also apparently mean nothing at all to you as well? Gee, what a surprise.

But I'll wait. Go back and see who actually has been spamming this thread with completely irrelevant comments about how some posts are "off topic", merely because they disagree with your own personal opnions.

In short, your response doesn't show much of critical thinking, but does have certain characteristics of what is generally know as a personal comment. The two are not the same.

"In short", I didn't claim or even insinuate my comment was based on critical thinking instead of what is blatantly obvious from your own posts!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Help, I'm being personally attacked! Ha ha.

Much of the discussion thus far has been focused on the service element if this charity. The hardware side if things has been mostly ignored. Facebook deserves praise for committing to the development of the physical infrastructure of the program and the distribution of devices as well. Few other parties have stepped up to provide similar infrastructure and none on the same scale.

If Facebook merely committed to provide the satellites and devices and asked Africans to pay for the service then it would be praised as being forward thinking. However, some how when we add the free service they turn out to be the devil in disguise. An absurd double standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what they are planning to do on the subscriber-side of providing access but I assume they are going to be giving out modems. On the provider side, they are leasing capacity on pre-existing broadband satellites to provide coverage. Note that this capacity is already there but is too expensive for most people to afford.

OneWeb and SpaceX on the other hand are building entirely new constellations of satellites to provide internet access at higher speed than what the FB effort can provide and are also selling subscriptions so there is no need to subsidize the effort with walled gardens like internet.org.

 

[aelf]

People who have studied international aid (as opposed to pseudo-Randroids who can only make snarky remarks about everything not concerning themselves) would raise the issue of sustainability. This has been the biggest issue plaguing this form of aid.

IIRC, Microsoft has tried giving free computers to improve schools in Africa, but because it was not accompanied by measures to ensure the sustainability of the effort and the benefits that it brings, it didn't do anything. Most of the computers remained sealed and unused, because there was simply not enough expertise on the ground to (confidently) operate and maintain something so expensive.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Or there wasn't an electrical grid reliable enough to warrant unpacking them. (not disagreeing with; just adding to the above sentiment)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

PARIS — Social media giant Facebook and satellite fleet operator Eutelsat have agreed to pay $95 million over about five years to lease the Ka-band spot-beam broadband capacity on a satellite scheduled to launch in mid-2016 and to provide service for Facebook’s Internet.org and a new Eutelsat subsidiary focusing on African businesses.

The lease of all the Ka-band capacity on Israel-based Spacecom Ltd.’s Amos-6 satellite — about 18 gigabits per second of throughput — can be extended for up to two years at a reduced rate, Spacecom said in an Oct. 6 filing with the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

The contract includes a provision that Spacecom purchase, on behalf of Eutelsat and Facebook, an insurance policy covering project-related risks that would not otherwise be covered by Spacecom’s own insurance policy covering the satellite’s launch and first year in orbit.

Eutelsat and Facebook will be taking out a third policy on their own to further reduce their risk exposure.

Amos-6 is tentatively scheduled for launch in mid-2016 aboard a Falcon 9 v1.2 rocket built and operated by SpaceX of Hawthorne, California. A lighter version of that rocket, which is being phased out this year, failed in June. SpaceX hopes to return to flight, with the enhanced-version Falcon 9 Upgrade, in November.

In its filing, Spacecom said that while its customers — Facebook and Eutelsat, even though only Paris-based Eutelsat is named in the filing — are responsible for building three gateway Earth stations, the Israel gateway will revert to Spacecom ownership at the end of the lease at no charge to Spacecom.

It is Spacecom’s responsibility to secure the needed gateway operating licenses in Israel, the filing said.

Amos-6 will operate at 4 degrees west in geostationary orbit. Eutelsat and Facebook are likely to coordinate the purchase of user terminals to save costs but are otherwise developing separate businesses, with Facebook’s Internet.org focusing on its Internet-for-everyone mission.

Facebook and Eutelsat have the right to terminate the contract if the satellite and the gateway are not ready for service by Jan. 1, 2017. The lease extends to September 2021, with an option for a two-year extension. The satellite itself has a contracted orbital service life of 15 years.

Spacecom secured a $105.4 million loan from the U.S. Export-Import Bank covering the satellite’s launch; the U.S. equipment on the satellite itself, whose prime contractor is Israel Aerospace Industries; and the management of the insurance policy by broker Marsh USA.
- See more at: http://spacenews.com/facebook-eutelsat-to-pay-spacecom-95m-for-ka-band-lease/#sthash.Zjcl2zE0.dpuf

http://spacenews.com/facebook-eutelsat-to-pay-spacecom-95m-for-ka-band-lease/
Some things worth noting -

*The satellite to provide FB internet hasn't been launched yet but was already going to be launched. So it's kinda-sorta 'pre-existing' in the sense that FB isn't launching a dedicated satellite for the service, they are just leasing capacity on one that was already going to be put up.

*The article mentions 3 'gateways' which seems to indicate that the way they are going to set this up is instead of selling individual modems to customers, they are going to have people connect to backhaul stations that connect to the satellites. Which means they are probably going to depend on pre-existing 4G mobile networks to deploy the FB internet to end-users.

*The total capacity of the satellite is 18 gigabits/second sounds like a lot, but it will be spread out among all users of the satellite. Plus, the article isn't clear if FB is leasing all of that capacity or just a subset of it.

*The launch is being partially financed by the Import/Export bank which has been essentially de-authorized by the Republicans in Congress. I have read elsewhere that Im/Ex can continue servicing loans that were made prior to the de-authorization but the situation is very tricky and may cause problems.

*The launch is on a full-thrust Falcon 9 which hasn't yet flown and is dependent on SpaceX successfully returning to flight and also proving the new rocket (which may happen together in the same launch if they stick to their plan to debut the full-thrust on their return-to-flight mission). So there's another source of potential scheduling conflict.

*There are no real details in the article on how FB plans on getting internet in the hands of end-users. My comment above on using 4G networks is pure speculation.

 

[bhavv]

This not even remotely on topic. Try again.



To these people - as to most - it matters naught. So why bring this up again? Stick with screwdrivers. Obviously all Africans are in need of those, aren't they...



No taxpayers pay for internet.

As I suspected, the number of Africans you actually know is zero. You are arguing (if we can call it that) from hypothethicals.

So its offtopic for me to answer your direct question of trying to relate this thread to 'But how many Africans do you know???'.

While my point being that such an ignorant rebuttal is invalid to me realizing that nothing actually comes for free, and simply throwing free things at Africa never does anything to help improve conditions there.

Taxpayers are going to be paying for the finding of free services. Taxpayers don't pay for internet usually because each person pays for their own. But when you want to provide a free service to an entire continent, the only way for that to be funded is by tax.

Likewise with free healthcare. In countries like the USA where all healthcare is private, people pay and fund for their own medical plans. In the UK, heathcare is 'free' ... But paid for from every working persons taxes.

You cannot create and maintain a free service without the money to pay for it coming from somewhere, surely you cant be so naive to not understand this.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

and simply throwing free things at Africa never does anything to help improve conditions there

Throwing free HIV/AIDS medicine and condoms at Africa certainly helped the situation there. So there's that.

 

[bhavv]

Except it didn't, because the people still didn't learn what HIV was and how the contraceptives helped to prevent it.

Give a man a condom, and he'll have safer sex for a day. Teach a man about safer sex / STDs, and he'll use condoms for a lifetime.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Throwing free HIV/AIDS medicine and condoms at Africa certainly helped the situation there. So there's that.

You mean the condoms GWB and Congress drastically reduced because they wanted to preach abstinence only to the dying victims, while putting other silly Christian morality strings on their incredibly meager budget?

Bush accused of Aids damage to Africa

A senior United Nations official has accused President George Bush of "doing damage to Africa" by cutting funding for condoms, a move which may jeopardise the successful fight against HIV/Aids in Uganda.

Stephen Lewis, the UN secretary general's special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa, said US cuts in funding for condoms and an emphasis on promoting abstinence had contributed to a shortage of condoms in Uganda, one of the few African countries which has succeeded in reducing its infection rate.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by [US policies]," Mr Lewis said yesterday. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

The condom shortage has developed because both the Ugandan government and the US, which is the main donor for HIV/Aids prevention, have allowed supplies to dwindle, according to an American pressure group, the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (Change).

In 2003, President Bush declared he would spend $15bn on his emergency plan for Aids relief, but receiving aid under the programme has moral strings attached.

Recipient countries have to emphasise abstinence over condoms, and - under a congressional amendment - they must condemn prostitution.

Brazil announced last month that it would refuse to accept $40m (£22m) in American aid rather than stigmatise prostitutes who Brazilian health workers said were essential to their anti-Aids strategy. Senegal was also cut off from US aid because prostitution is legal there.

 

[Flying Pig]

Except it didn't, because the people still didn't learn what HIV was and how the contraceptives helped to prevent it.

Give a man a condom, and he'll have safer sex for a day. Teach a man about safer sex / STDs, and he'll use condoms for a lifetime.

Not if he can't afford them, or can't find them, or cares about them enough to use them when they're lying around at home but not enough to go and buy them. At any rate, I don't think anyone is talking about dropping condoms from an aircraft - people do go around explaining what they are and why they are important.

 

[bhavv]

So the STD rates in Africa have significantly decreased then? No, not really. It barely made any difference.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So the STD rates in Africa have significantly decreased then? No, not really. It barely made any difference.

HIV rates have risen but that's as much an effect of people with AIDS living longer thanks to the free drugs as it does to any increase in transmission rate.

You can argue about the utility of giving condoms all you want but I'm not sure how giving HIV/AIDS medication to relieve suffering is every bad.

 

[El_Machinae]

Except it didn't, because the people still didn't learn what HIV was and how the contraceptives helped to prevent it.

Give a man a condom, and he'll have safer sex for a day. Teach a man about safer sex / STDs, and he'll use condoms for a lifetime.

Actually, in growth conditions, a problem delayed is a profit.

If a person is going to get sick and stop producing, then we look at what he produced before he got sick.

So say, without condoms he gets sick one week earlier than he would have. We then look at that week's output and realized it would then be compounded at about 2-7% for some period of time (since his economic output would have had a local multiplier).

The $1 condom would have created more than a week's wages of wealth. Wealth that improved the community (and even helped the guy who later gets HIV, if he was able to generate any savings or investment during that week).

A local infusion of assets can create a demand-side hit to the economy, and even longterm dependence. But it also creates a resource that can then be utilized in creating a supply-side benefit to the economy.

More free assets is a good thing. But yeah, watch out for the demand-side hit. Rushing grain into a famine region drops the price of grain in its penumbra, and that will hurt the investments of those who we want producing grain in the longrun.

Give-Directly (who gave just straight money, which helps the demand-side of the equation as well as providing 'free' assets to a community) found a nearly 14% return on the money given (in the form of long-term benefits).

 

[Formaldehyde]

You can argue about the utility of giving condoms all you want but I'm not sure how giving HIV/AIDS medication to relieve suffering is every bad.

It is when you only hand it out with such nonsensical far-right religious-based stipulations while intentionally restricting their access to condoms.

They might as well say they are willing to try to save what they consider to be good right-wing Christians who believe in the very same morals as they do. But the rest can go right ahead and die.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It is when you only hand it out with such nonsensical far-right Christian stipulations.

Are you trying to say that only the US gave condoms and HIV medicines out for free to Africa? You keep coming back to that for some reason even though you're the only one who brought it up and continue harping on it like it disproves the entire notion of aid.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Nope. Other European countries tried to make up for this embarrassing nonsense. Yet many Africans still contracted AIDs becaose the US refused to give them free condoms with no stipulations whatsoever, as they had during the Chinton administration.

But go right ahead and apparently try to pretend that GWB and the rest of the hypocritical Republicans were such great humanitarians when the record obviously speaks for itself. $15B spread out over so many years is a joke, especially when it comes with a bunch of pretentious far-right Christian stipulations attached to it.