In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Simpkins t
yped:
>>Valdis, I agree with you a hundred percent. The most
>>expensive part of infrastructure is pulling the
>>cables/fiber necessary to build the infrastrucuture.
thats why intelsat and a cosortium of telcos has a charity that built
a box that is solar powered and provides n gsm phones access + 1
64kbps uplink/downlink to geostatinary atellites
actualyl, a LOT of places that are really poor in the world dont even
have electricty- but they can get batteries and if they use sms (e.g.
for calling emergency service/flying doctors/vets etc), they
can make them last quite a long time
>>
>>--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:41:37 +0200, Anthony
>>> Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> > If they are that lacking in mere wires, they
>>> probably aren't in a position
>>> > to profit from access to the Internet in the first
>>> place. That is, if they
>>> > lack telephones (and that's all they need for
>>> broadband, or at least it's
>>> > the better part of the battle), why would they be
>>> surfing the Web? First
>>> > things first.
>>>
>>> The fact that they lack wires doesn't mean they lack
>>> telephones.
>>>
>>> Remember that wires are expensive to pull,
>>> especially for those 3 houses
>>> out on the far side of the mountain down the dirt
>>> road.
>>>
>>> > Countries without landlines are not going to be a
>>> part of the global economy
>>> > unless they upgrade in a major way very soon.
>>>
>>> You got this wrong. Countries without
>>> *connectivity* will be screwed. There's
>>> no *obvious* requirement that there be a landline
>>> involved.
>>>
>>> Having said that, I'm *not* a WAP proponent. ;)
>>> --
>>> Valdis Kletnieks
>>> Operating Systems Analyst
>>> Virginia Tech
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature
>>
>>
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
>>http://mail.yahoo.com/
>>
cheers
jon
