Qualcomm to link people to Internet without computers

That's great. How about people in US rural areas where companies won't even run DSL lines?

That's great. How about people in US rural areas where companies won't even run DSL lines?

I'd say technology like this would be best suited for major population centers. People in rural US are probably still going to have to stick with satellite services.

Regardless of what they call it, the device in question will, like the cell phone itself, STILL BE A COMPUTER.

Division by "language", "heredity", "political bias", "race". "history", "dogma", and that's all in the same country! Leave it alone! We will meet at certain bridges - with interpreters!

Division by "language", "heredity", "political bias", "race". "history", "dogma", and that's all in the same country! Leave it alone! We will meet at certain bridges - with interpreters!

??????

That's great. How about people in US rural areas where companies won't even run DSL lines?

Still requires cell coverage.

And, if you have that, you don't need this "new" device in order to connect to the cloud.

That's great. How about people in US rural areas where companies won't even run DSL lines?

I'd say technology like this would be best suited for major population centers. People in rural US are probably still going to have to stick with satellite services.

Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of consumer satellite i'net uplinks are DIALUP.

Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of consumer satellite i'net uplinks are DIALUP.

Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of consumer internet links are DIALUP.

Most people aren't operating at anything greater than 56k.

I'm using Hughesnet's latest generation of intrenet access. It is two-way (no dialup for uplink) and reasonably responsive (e.g. medium to slow DSL). Not great, but considerably better than all the cellphone-based "broadband" I've tried and given up on. I hate the "fair use" limits that basically prevent video download except from 3-5 AM (free-for-all time), and it is too slow in response time for voice over IP or interative networked video games. But for web browsing, it is the best I've found. ....and now that I posted this I'm beginning to have misgivings because I really want to preserve what responsiveness I do have...
Stay Away! It's MINE! MINE!!! :-)

Another alternative will appear as soon as Analog TV is shutdown after Feb 2009. The FCC has licensed a technology that used the "whitespace" left behind (old Analog TV channels not reassigned plus unused HDTV channels) for use as a wide area internet access service. Various vendors are involved. Expect service starting mid-2009 in limited areas. If you live rural but close enough to receive TV, you may find this a more responsive internet access than satellite based services such as Hughesnet. I live on a mountain ridge with excellent HDTV reception (90 miles with rabbit ears!) but no cell or other terrestrial broadband. I may find, however, that this new technology will not be licensed for sufficient power for me to reach from my mountain the distance necessary to establish a link. I am eager to give it a try, however.

The article is not about USAs lack of internet, but a cheap way of getting internet access without a real computer.
The idea is brilliant and will get millions more online in the 3rd world.

The article is not about USAs lack of internet, but a cheap way of getting internet access without a real computer.
The idea is brilliant and will get millions more online in the 3rd world.

Yes, online with what piece of equipment?

Going to send thin clients out to Rwanda? I'm sure the dictators responsible for those countries will greatly appreciate us educating their people in the ways of free information...

The article is ... about ... a cheap way of getting internet access without a real computer.

To repeat, the device in question IS a REAL COMPUTER. That it may be called something else does not change its function.

Even the cell phone is a computer.

The idea is brilliant and will get millions more online in the 3rd world.

Apparently you are unaware of the fact that much of the "3rd world," having no existing land line telephone infrastructure whose investment costs need to be protected by entrenched ILECs, jumped straight into wireless i'net connectivity.

Vel,
Why wouldn't they? They can just work out the same deal with M$ that China did. it's less likely to result in new information than Ham radio.

And nothing bad has ever resulted from people being able to leapfrog technology.

Vel,
Why wouldn't they? They can just work out the same deal with M$ that China did. it's less likely to result in new information than Ham radio.

And nothing bad has ever resulted from people being able to leapfrog technology.

Roach, because the warlords in those nations keep the people subjugated with a far smaller force through superior technology and access to information. If you were a 3rd world despot would you want your subjects blogging about how poorly they're treated so American media could coerce the public into deposing you?

The device(s) in question is(are) irrelevant to the issue of domestic content control. Such control is effected by way of controlling the transmitting end (DNS servers, routers, etc.) rather than the receiving end.