Sorry, but why would I want my tax dollars going to pay for such an expensive computer in a poor land that may not even be able to take advantage of it? I don't want to sound heartless, but there are only so many tax dollars available, and a $3000 PC is certainly not the way to go. I mean, they sell $300 PCs nowadays, and so these would certainly be preferable. If there's no power or telecom, maybe they shouldn't have PCs connected to an Internet.

After all, such technologies would be used by the Osamas of the world, too.

Sometimes, being remote means being remote. Being online may not really be a good thing as it would destroy the pace and lifestyle and perhaps the culture of such areas.

I see the benefits that might be available with increased communications, to be sure, but there are real costs associated with moving the world toward the U.S.-led land of consumption, immorality, waste, fraud and short attention spans.

What exactly is their need for Internet access? I could see how cheap satellite phones could be of use, but it seems there are a host of other problems in those areas that need to be addressed (if, in fact, those remote communities are asking to be helped) before we connect them to the Internet.

The International Rural Network (and NGO looking at these sort of issues) is one of our clients.

Summary - in most of the third world mobile phones are being rolled out fast, and PCs are getting connected to them. This is normally a mom and pop operation (one phone per village, one PC). India has a massive program - users buy PCs at a discount.

Power - again, in much of the world remot power for domestic use is already being supplied by solar photovoltaics, again a mom and pop instalation/distribution business.

Solar doesn't yet compete in the West because we have an installed infrastructure, but if you don't have that infrastructure the math is often in favour of solar, esp for locations away from population centres.

This is a great idea, all except the part about using the government.

Uncensored, unfiltered Internet access would do wonders for people in many parts of the world. In 1997, before I knew better, I wrote an essay promoting the idea of the US spending $3 billion to wire Bosnia and Herzegovina and give every resident a PC and Internet access. I saw it as a way to attack the fear and hate in that country.

I know better now! To me, government solutions - where you force ALL people to support them with their tax dollars, whether they agree or not, are never the best answer. Almost always you can find a government cause behind the problem. The answer is to look equally to the cause and effect to find a better way that denies them both, not to just apply another 'cause.'

Politicians are clowns! First you let them spend $3000 on a solar computer for North Korea, next they spend $3000 on a toilet seat.

There is a better different way!

Natebetterdifferent.com

On one hand I really like the idealism of this idea. I even remember some Indian company developing some palmtop with linux that was supposed to fill the needs of the third world.

However - The benefits of the 'INTERNET' as the poster put it are debateable. The sad truth is that the internet for most consumer is used to access things like sports scores, celebrity gossip, and of course pornography.

I think the needs of the third world can be better served through the deployment of mobile phone networks.

I think one should take the level of development a country is at into account before coming up with a solution. Thinking all third world countries have the same problem is never the right answer. What about clean water, enough nourishment, basic medical care, basic education, etc? If none of these are met, the Internet means nothing.

Cellphones are the priority in underdeveloped countries. Newer cellphones include internet access. This is the practical approach to improving communications in those areas. Satellite phones are too expensive, even for wealthy nations. Iridium went out of business trying to create a satellite phone business. It's going to have to be terrestrial cellphones.

I think you miss the point, beamer. The Internet is a multiplier. It won't help a whole lot where there's low literacy, but if you now have a network that tells you just how to go about digging a clean well with the tools at hand, or tells you there's a market for your produce five miles away that pays more than the usual place you sell, it could be very handy.

Plus, it could help me get this $5 million out of this Nigerian bank account its stuck in...