Reviving Ricochet: Better Than WiFi?

renard writes "Slate is carrying a column by Brendan Koerner arguing that reviving the Ricochet city-wide wireless network infrastructure would be a better idea than blanketing the nation/world with 802.11-ish WiFi. He reviews all the usual silly reasons why Metricom, the original owners, were unable to make a go of it, and makes a good case that things may go better the second time around."

Comments

2nd time is a charm

[carpe_noctem]

Having worked for Ricochet this summer, I can say that they've spent a lot more time really thinking about their business plan and marketing strategies rather than rushing in like the old dot-coms. I've heard that a small subscriber base is starting to develop, and the Ricochet technology is being used (experimentally) by the fire and police departments for roaming internet access.

Hopefully, Ricochet will manage to do at least -somewhat- better than Metricom did, though seeing how they conducted themselves, they feel quite a bit more responsible than the archetypical dot-com business.

Re:2nd time is a charm

[Anonymous Coward]

one problem with the government using Ricochet.. denial of service attacks, 3G style (localized)

How is a nation-wide WiFi possible?

[Proc6]

Isn't the range on 802.11b like a couple hundred feet? I keep hearing about blanketing the country with WiFi, but the last experience with 802.11b I had was horrible. In an apartment building, I could barely maintain a connection 2 feet from the wireless router. Cordless phones, microwaves, even fishtanks can hinder performance. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see 802.11b working for the masses as an ISP service.

Re:How is a nation-wide WiFi possible?

[interiot]

Isn't the range on ethernet only a couple hundred feet? In 1980, did we imagine that a large percentage of the country could have access to cable modem speed lines?

Re:How is a nation-wide WiFi possible?

[isdnip]

Ricochet's best feature is that it is not 802.11. It runs at a slower speed, which allows it to have a longer range. I do find it odd that so many people are trying to blanket the country with Wi-Fi, a local area network technology. Well, of course Wi-Fi has the volume behind it, which makes the kit dirt cheap, but it's not really up to the job. Ricochet's range is nothing great; it needs a lot of lamp poles, but it is better suited to its purpose than Wi-Fi.

Re:How is a nation-wide WiFi possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

2.4GHz is not unlicensed. Anyone with an ametuer radio license can transmit at up to 1500W of power in the 2390-2450MHz band. This includes most 802.11b channels. So someone with an amateur license could modify their devices to transmit at higher power levels to increase range legally.

Of course, amateur radio transmissions must be unencrypted, so you can't use ssh or any other software that encrypts your transmissions.

Re:How is a nation-wide WiFi possible?

[Hidyman]

I work for a wireless internet service provider (WISP). It's pretty straight forward, put up an antenna on a 160' tower and you can cover 80% of a 3 mile radius. Point to MultiPoint. We have a link of over 7 miles at an 11MB rate. All of the equipment is very cheap and interference is not a problem. The only real problem is that it is VERY line of sight, including the fresnel zone, and trees absorb the microwave radiation. Luckily 24dB gain antennas allow cheap off the shelf cards to comunicate great distances, while maintaining FCC compliance. Plus there are 11 channels to choose from.

Re:How is a nation-wide WiFi possible?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Isn't the range on ethernet only a couple hundred feet?

The later variants of ethernet (including gigabit and WiFi) have hacks to expand the range (which was limited in the 10 and 100 Mbit versions by an interaction of packet size, inter-packet gap, and clocking variations).

As for WiFi's radio range (due to power and antenna limits), you can easily get >10 miles in a point-to-point link by using a directional antenna at one or both ends.

This is not STRICTLY legal, because the directional antenna concentrates the power in a tight beam, which is thus more intense, and one of the limits is on the intensity (rather than the overall power). The focussed beam can thus interfere with other stations farther away in the preferred direction.

But the Fed has shown no sign of trying to actually enforce that limit - despite the appearance of commercial operations selling equipment for the purpose and/or setting up commercial ISPs with links based on the hack.

And it's probably appropriate to allow it: While the directional antenna lets you compete with stations farther away in the preferred direction, it does so by weakening your signal (and your reception) in other directions. The two effects approximately balance out, and you're left making significant bandwidth competition in about the same area with a directional antenna as with an omnidirectional.

Even better: Directional antennas tend to be more heavily used in the boonies, where the spaces-between tend to be empty of users, and where wired ISPs are too expensive to be practical.

I used to use Ricochet in Seattle

[Jack William Bell]

And I use 802.11B for home networking now. My take? Ricochet's only really cool feature was they way they used repeaters on light-poles. Other than that it was slower and more expensive (both in terms of equipment costs and connection fees) than WiFi.

If WiFi networks can do repeaters to extend range to an Internet gateway the same as Ricochet did, who needs it? Plus I like the idea of having my local network be my neighborhood, something Ricochet couldn't (or didn't) do. Check Seattle Wireless for one volunteer network that is working on these problems now.

Re:I used to use Ricochet in Seattle

[Stigmata669]

And why can't you put 802.11b repeaters on the top of light poles? That is not unique to Ricochet. The range isn't there without directional antennas, but WiFi basestations are $100 RETAIL with NAT and DHCP routing. Remove those features, and a company should be able to produce repeaters for reasonable costs.

I do believe that large area of coverage is the only way that a company will be able to generate revenue. I think starbucks tried to introduce wireless access in their shops, but $30 a month for coffee and net access is kindof insane. Perhaps if a p2p stlye co-op net company was formed where the access costs were trivial ($5 a month) but the customer would purchase all hardware, and would be required to have a repeater on their property. Now, where to start?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

PCS Vision

[Anonymous Coward]

I get a reliable 30-70k. Even works in a car @ 80 mph

Why bother?

[mveloso]

Do you really want to carry around another modem? If you're wireless, you've got 802.11b already, or will be getting bluetooth so you can hook into your mobile carrier's 3g/2.5g data network. Why in god's name would you want another access device/provider?

Re:Until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorists AKA people with opinions not popular with corporate America or its government. Can't have them organizing, now can we?

WiFi and Ricochet meeting in the middle?

[cheezus_es_lard]

Question; why couldn't Ricochet start transmitting on their own freqs as well as adding the 2.4 and 5ghz frequencies for added bandwidth? I mean, if they can put up repeaters in large enough numbers to satisfy their lower frequencies, they can certainly add 2.4 and 5ghz onto them within the power limits allowed and re-deploy them ONLY in major population centers at first, etc. etc., and offer higher bandwidths using the public spectrums of frequencies available. If they can use their existing RF usage hopping and tracking layer 2 capability (which I'm not very familiar with, admittedly) and apply it to these higher frequencies, wouldn't this be possible? I mean, all 2.4 and 5ghz equipment doesn't HAVE to be WiFi.... and if they've already got the hardware designers for their own gear, they can probably have them redesign for this application easily.

Any thoughts on this? I admit, I don't know much about the technical back end of the Ricochet/Metricom stuff, but I'm guessing the same usage can be applied to the different spectrums.

Oh yeah, if ya'll actually use this idea, like, send me some cash or something. ;-)

-cheez

Re:what would work really well

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... if the cable modem/DSL providers ... [built] secure WiFi routers into all of their cable modems, and offer[ed] wireless access anywhere within their service area.

GREAT idea!

It would also serve as a firewalled wireless hub for the home network, with no additional hardware.

====

Of course that's almost exactly what the volunteers are putting together at this very moment, but without requiring passing users to be subscribers (much to the consternation of the ISPs). B-)

I can imagine a similar volunteer-based system, where a cheap home hub comes stock with a firewall and a traffic shaper, so the owner's machines get their fill and passers-by can use the remainder. Plug it into the DSL or Cable modem, SHTTP to its configuration page and tell it which machines are yours, and you're up.

802.11= More consumer choice

[Anonymous Coward]

While it may be easier and cheaper to implement a system like Richochet, I believe an 802.11 system makes it easier to "implement" (for lack of a better word) consumer choice. IIRC correctly, with Richochet equipment your only choices are Richochet, and, um, Richochet. With 802.11 the various networks show up on your machine, kind of like GSM providers in Europe. 802.11 could also allow for "roaming", as in you sign up for LAWireless, which has an agreement with NYCWireless so you can use it when you visit New York (I know NYCWireless is free, assume it is paid).

-P40