Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

eppur_se_muova

(41,665 posts)

2. They also need communications, and cell phone use is already heavy there.

Reply to Blue_Tires (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 23, 2014, 04:13 PM

Feb 2014

It turns out that installing cell networks is actually less resource-intensive than setting up landlines, and much of the developing world may actually never need landlines. I'm sure some Repugs will consider them "rich" because they have CELL PHONES OMG!!1! but the modern reality is that cellular is the most cost-effective way to expand communications.

We can work on more than one thing at a time. It is not an either/or world.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mozilla plans '$25 smartphone' for emerging markets (BBC) [View all] eppur_se_muova Feb 2014 OP

Isn't the developing world more concerned about clean drinking water, medical care, Blue_Tires Feb 2014 #1

They also need communications, and cell phone use is already heavy there. eppur_se_muova Feb 2014 #2

That's the case in some very rural parts of the US too. LeftyMom Feb 2014 #3

Sure, but that doesn't mean they don't need phones and information. Cal Carpenter Feb 2014 #4