I may be wrong, but I believe all the high-altitude-wind-energy thingies work by having the flying bit tethered to the ground, while this baloons seem to fly much higher, making the two seem incompatible to me.
It's not hard to imagine some political tensions if these things are supposed to do a full circuit of the Earth on a given latitude. It's true that balloons in the stratosphere have a lot in common with satellites in orbit, but that may not be enough to stop people getting annoyed.
I am impressed with both the ambitiousness and nobleness of the project that Google is pursuing here. It's true: most of the world's population is not actually online despite how it might feel otherwise to most people who are already online.
I am glad that they are working on important issues like this and I hope the project is successful in bringing more of the world's people online.
Oh no, a company is building out a network of Internet-connected balloons, but I might have to look at some text advertising links. The horror. You see ads everywhere, t-shirts, bus stops, billboards, your friends/family, etc. It's a trade-off I'll take.
We're living in 2013, and this is a tech forum, so let's get real: advertising is about tracking, about total surveillance, not sticking a logo on a bus.
That's what Google does, that's what Google's motives are. Every damn time, so there is no reason to assume this is any different.
That's not a "trade-off", that is surrendering.
If the government would set up a balloon network to track everyone you would be screaming bloody murder, but it's Google and people get internet access in exchange it's okay?
It's okay if I agree to it. I'd rather see ads than pay for all the services Google provides to me free of charge (money). I don't and I'd never agree that a government tracks me. For me, that's a big difference.
If a company uses their profit (e.g. from ads) to provide and finance something as extremely useful and important as free internet access to developing countries - then yes, that's totally fine for me.
Yes this is a forum, people have their own personal opinion.
+If a company uses their profit (e.g. from ads) to provide and finance something as extremely useful and important as free internet access to developing countries - then yes, that's totally fine for me.
Depends how they make that profit and at what expense to competitors, users, society... Would you have felt the same about Microsoft's profit in the 1990's?
A more extreme example: What if Blackwater, Pablo Escobar, Al Capone, Booz Allen etc fund soup kitchen's for the poor?
That's the typical fallacy. If Chinese factory worker agrees to be exploited in conditions close to slavery doesn't mean that that kind of exploitation is "okay".
Tempting people for whom the price of these services is too high to surrender their basic right to privacy is ethically questionable at best, and in my personal opinion should be made illegal.
What if Google asked people to give up their right to vote, would you think that was okay? Were do you draw the line?
The protection of civil liberties includes the protection of those who don't care about them, because if they can sell out their rights to greedy corporations, it affects all of us.
It's not just about your personal choice. A world in which corporations yield such power affects everyone.
A normative statement that you disagree with is not a "fallacy".
Also, seeing as there is no legally enforceable way that Google could ask anyone to surrender their right to vote, it's an odd hypothetical to base an argument on. Especially an argument for restricting people's freedoms.
It would likely not use the Iridium satellites, they are bandwidth constrained, quite slow (due to roundtrip distance) and very expensive. It also wouldn't be offering much advantage over connecting to the satellite directly asides from that I guess you could connect via normal wi-fi perhaps as opposed to needing a satellite receiver on the ground. Perhaps they could be using one of their products though. At least, that's what my experience working with Iridium satellite systems would lead me to believe.
Iridium is the ultimate backup connectivity (for balloon control, not for data). It's very slow and very expensive, but works everywhere and requires a small antenna.
I think it would be nice for there to be some reserved places on the Earth's surface which can remain undisturbed by the internet. Soon, you're going to need a boat just to escape its corrupting influence.
PS If I was a Cantabrian farmer and I saw one of these above my property I'd have my shotgun out, quick as.
You'd probably need a missile to shoot it down. The balloons are probably 80,000ft above ground. I'm not sure if there's anything that can shoot a bullet that high. Maybe a high powered railgun?
There are probably many ways to shoot down the balloon, but it's probably out of the technological reach of a farmer. I don't think there's anything off the shelf that could shoot something down from 80,000ft.
Obviously very cool (but not without precedent). The things I'm wondering about is cost and resilience. What do they cost? And could bad actors bring them down with lasers?
As long as they cost less than putting up cell phone towers in the middle of nowhere, its all good. Idk but I don't imagine cell phone towers cover a 40km radius. Telco's have no great incentive to do this so kudos to Google.
And as Larry Page said, stop already with the obvious negativity. Bad actors can bring down cell phone towers too. And who cares about precedents.
There's reason why they extended it (Enhanced Extended Range). It was only technical limit due TDMA timing advance. It had nothing to do with the actual signal reception strength / transmission power required. So in 800 MHz range 120 kilometers should be well achievable with 2 W transmitter.
"GSM has a fixed maximum cell site range of 120 km, which is imposed by technical limitations. This is expanded from the old limit of 35 km."
If there ever was any justification of using up our limited helium is this one.
However, I wish for these types of projects they would use hydrogen instead. I understand the safety concern, but a century after Hindenburg, we should be able to make these safer. At least for non-human flights. Not to mention Hydrogen is a bit better in creating lift.
We need a cheaper way to move freight between the Earth and the Moon first. I believe here is what Filligree is talking about if anyone else is curious.
> Materials on the Moon's surface contain helium-3 at concentrations on the order of between 1.4 and 15 ppb in sunlit areas, and may contain concentrations as much as 50 ppb in permanently shadowed regions. A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986, have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and use the helium-3 for fusion. Recently, companies as Planetary Resources have also stated to be interested in mining helium-3 on the moon. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 150 million tonnes of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3), and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.
You know what would be awesome? If they'd open-source the technology behind these balloons - so that we could build and launch our own!
My relatives live in a tiny village on the south coast of India and whenever I visit them I have to use the extremely slow 2G network. I tether my Android phone and basically setup a little WLAN hotspot there. The next bigger city with fast internet connectivity and 3G coverage is almost an hour bus drive away.
Every student in the village now possesses a laptop with WLAN capabilities. They got them for free - basically as a bribe so that the villagers stop protesting against the construction of a nuclear power plant the government is building nearby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koodankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant
But that's another issue.
I would love to build a wireless mesh network using cheap routers with an open-source firmware like OpenWRT for these kids. Internet connectivity could be achieved by using a single uplink antenna to Project Loon.
Speaking for myself, I had the privilege - unlike most of my family - to grow up in Europe and believe me, having access to the Internet completely changed my life. I’ve had access to free resources, taught myself how to program and I am now making a living out of it.
I want anyone on this planet to have full, free, uncensored and fast access to the Internet.
Thank you Google for doing such a project! I really hope it will work as planned and I wish you all the best on this journey.
I would guess not. They're on a different frequency and their cross-section is almost nothing. It's probably no worse than a large bird flying in front of your dish.
This is, without any doubt, the most incredible thing I've seen for the past 15 years I'm the citizen of the internet. The scope of this plan and its possibilities are just amazing.
Sadly, my enthusiasm is quite clouded in the light of recent events involing the whole NSA/PRISM thing but then... it's governments that are the problem, not Google.
I sincerely hope that this will change the world for the better and not the worse.
Another cool part about this is the balloons will be floating at twice the height of commercial flights. That would mean commercial flights could get internet through these as well.
Commercial airliners travel at 30-40k feet. Twice that would be very high. Won't the service be sluggish and slow because of that?
(80 000 feet) / the speed of light = 81.336269 microseconds
So no, that's not a very big amount of latency. Not to be confused with the latency you get to satellites, which is much much larger due to them being way further out.
I find this to be really clever and it kind of reminds me of The Pirate Bay's plans to build servers that actually float above the ocean to prevent being taken down. People laughed at The Pirate Bay for the ridiculousness of the idea, but here Google is essentially proving it's not a pipe-dream and bandwidth capable balloons can one day be a reality.
Anyone know (and able to tell) what radios, frequencies, and antennas are being used for the experiments? The antenna balls on the houses are interesting - I'm guessing there is an actively pointed directional antenna inside.
Why don't they focus their energy on making satellite access more affordable? Looks like Google is trying to make its own emerging niche demographic to profit from. You've got to be kidding yourself if you think a floating balloon has anything to do with sustainable, lasting infrastructure. Balloons are cheap, and that's the end of the story.
50 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] thread[1] http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/22/google-x-acquires-makani-po...
but, there previously wasn't much value to Makani in exploring untethered solutions; they needed transmission lines going back to the surface, anyway.
I don't believe Google intends to use the two technologies together directly. there's just more synergy here than it may appear, on the surface.
I am glad that they are working on important issues like this and I hope the project is successful in bringing more of the world's people online.
That's what Google does, that's what Google's motives are. Every damn time, so there is no reason to assume this is any different.
That's not a "trade-off", that is surrendering.
If the government would set up a balloon network to track everyone you would be screaming bloody murder, but it's Google and people get internet access in exchange it's okay?
If a company uses their profit (e.g. from ads) to provide and finance something as extremely useful and important as free internet access to developing countries - then yes, that's totally fine for me.
Yes this is a forum, people have their own personal opinion.
Depends how they make that profit and at what expense to competitors, users, society... Would you have felt the same about Microsoft's profit in the 1990's?
A more extreme example: What if Blackwater, Pablo Escobar, Al Capone, Booz Allen etc fund soup kitchen's for the poor?
That's the typical fallacy. If Chinese factory worker agrees to be exploited in conditions close to slavery doesn't mean that that kind of exploitation is "okay".
Tempting people for whom the price of these services is too high to surrender their basic right to privacy is ethically questionable at best, and in my personal opinion should be made illegal.
What if Google asked people to give up their right to vote, would you think that was okay? Were do you draw the line?
The protection of civil liberties includes the protection of those who don't care about them, because if they can sell out their rights to greedy corporations, it affects all of us.
It's not just about your personal choice. A world in which corporations yield such power affects everyone.
Also, seeing as there is no legally enforceable way that Google could ask anyone to surrender their right to vote, it's an odd hypothetical to base an argument on. Especially an argument for restricting people's freedoms.
Perhaps Iridium refers to the Iridium satellite constellation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellatio...) (Edit: or maybe one of their products http://www.iridium.com/Products.aspx) and "SBD service" refers to something like this: http://www.iridium.com/products/IridiumSBD.aspx?section=supp... ?
Edit 2: Perhaps they were tracking the balloon?
Would these balloons still work during the night? Would they need to stay in the day? Would that even be possible, given the speed of the wind?
PS If I was a Cantabrian farmer and I saw one of these above my property I'd have my shotgun out, quick as.
And as Larry Page said, stop already with the obvious negativity. Bad actors can bring down cell phone towers too. And who cares about precedents.
"GSM has a fixed maximum cell site range of 120 km, which is imposed by technical limitations. This is expanded from the old limit of 35 km."
That doesn't mean there aren't relevant lines of debate about the ease of bringing them down.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
> Materials on the Moon's surface contain helium-3 at concentrations on the order of between 1.4 and 15 ppb in sunlit areas, and may contain concentrations as much as 50 ppb in permanently shadowed regions. A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986, have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and use the helium-3 for fusion. Recently, companies as Planetary Resources have also stated to be interested in mining helium-3 on the moon. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 150 million tonnes of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3), and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.
(removed citation notes for readability)
My relatives live in a tiny village on the south coast of India and whenever I visit them I have to use the extremely slow 2G network. I tether my Android phone and basically setup a little WLAN hotspot there. The next bigger city with fast internet connectivity and 3G coverage is almost an hour bus drive away.
Every student in the village now possesses a laptop with WLAN capabilities. They got them for free - basically as a bribe so that the villagers stop protesting against the construction of a nuclear power plant the government is building nearby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koodankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant
But that's another issue.
I would love to build a wireless mesh network using cheap routers with an open-source firmware like OpenWRT for these kids. Internet connectivity could be achieved by using a single uplink antenna to Project Loon.
Speaking for myself, I had the privilege - unlike most of my family - to grow up in Europe and believe me, having access to the Internet completely changed my life. I’ve had access to free resources, taught myself how to program and I am now making a living out of it.
I want anyone on this planet to have full, free, uncensored and fast access to the Internet.
Thank you Google for doing such a project! I really hope it will work as planned and I wish you all the best on this journey.
Sadly, my enthusiasm is quite clouded in the light of recent events involing the whole NSA/PRISM thing but then... it's governments that are the problem, not Google.
I sincerely hope that this will change the world for the better and not the worse.
Commercial airliners travel at 30-40k feet. Twice that would be very high. Won't the service be sluggish and slow because of that?
(80 000 feet) / the speed of light = 81.336269 microseconds
So no, that's not a very big amount of latency. Not to be confused with the latency you get to satellites, which is much much larger due to them being way further out.
Another thing: satellites don’t pop.