Slashdot Mirror
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."
Until the government shuts them down because the terrorists are using them.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Not having to pay to install it all those places like they did before is sure to help the new owners...
But, when people say better than Wi-Fi, better for whom? The internet service providers? Or the customers who might one day escape ISPs?
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.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Elan Amir
Tue May 7 18:07:57 PDT 1996
Mirrored on the LARIAT Web site with permission
This report seems a bit outdated, don't you think? A lot of technology has come along since 1996. From what I've heard, the current Ricochet network can go quite a bit faster than 30K/sec.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Richochet bounce back.
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.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
The advantage to systems like Ricochet is that they are designed expressly for the purpose of wide-area deployment - unlike 802.11 solutions, which seem better suited to system-system connections. Wireless networks using WiFi solutions are kind of like using a ton of bandaids to cover an area - where Ricochet seems more like a large roll of gauze.
This research is outdated; It is based on the older Ricochet system that used 900 MHz unlicensed spectrum for both client-to-poletop and poletop-to-poletop backhaul. The newer system puts poletop-to-poletop communications over the unlicensed 2.4GHz ISM band and/or the 2.5 GHz licensed wireless data services spectrum.
The newer system gives the poletops more bandwidth and keeps the poletop-to-poletop backhaul from stepping on the client radio transmissions.
Real-world maximum TCP and UDP throughput on the newer system approached 300kbps by my measurements. (That's going from a client radio directly to a wired poletop w/ no p-t-p backhaul.) More typical speeds were between 128-160kbps.
I found Ricochet generally more than adequate for 64kbps shoutcast/icecast streams. Under good conditions, 96kbps streams were rock steady - not bad! I frequently used Ricochet to listen to my old college radio station (some 3000 miles away) when I lived in Berkeley.
I hope to see the system come back; it worked well, (better than advertised) and provided something like the wireless equivalent of an ISDN line, more or less, for a flat $70/month, which was reasonable to me. At $45 it's a no-brainer.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
One good thing I noticed was that setup and getting online are easier with Aerie's system than they were with Metricom's. There's no need to set up PAP or CHAP authentication or remember passwords; the system authenticates strictly via the modem's built-in serial number.
Unfortunately, I also noticed that the system was half as fast as it used to be. Before Metricom's bankruptcy, speeds of 128 Kbps (not blazingly fast, but comparable to ISDN) were easily achieved if you were close to one of the system's pole-top nodes. But Aerie has apparently throttled the system back to 40-50 Kbps -- about the speed of a V.90 modem. The company may have done this to reduce its upstream bandwidth costs or to compensate for the loss of the licensed spectrum that Metricom used to exchange data between its hubs (called "wired access points" or WAPs) and its pole-top units. (I believe that Metricom auctioned this spectrum off separately from the rest of its system.)
The system also suffers, as before, from its dependency upon being able to "own" the 900 MHz band. It is well known that, in areas served by Ricochet, it is virtually impossible for anyone else to use the 900 MHz unlicensed band (which is supposed to be free for everyone to use) because the hundreds of Ricochet transmitters blot out everything else on the band. (Worse still, they increase their transmit power when they encounter a source of interference, descending in a "swarm" upon anyone else who tries to use the band.) 900 MHz cordless phones will still work indoors (albeit with reduced range), but outdoor networking on that band is exceedingly difficult. And if someone manages to set up a robust enough link (perhaps by using an old Breezecom frequency hopping unit), Ricochet users nearby will experience serious interference.
Ricochet really should run entirely on reserved spectrum and not try to take over the "commons" by virtue of sheer numbers.
When it does work, Ricochet is convenient in fact can be very handy. But unless Aerie can boost the speed to the original 128 Kbps and overcome the problem of trying to monopolize public spectrum (which, to be fair, they inherited from Metricom), I suspect that few people will be buying.
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.
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
The poor performance you cite applies in the South Bay area, where Ricochet was first rolled out using low-speed 900 MHz radios. They later developed 2.4 GHz radios with a higher data rate. Thus the rough speed they were selling went from 28 to 128 kbps, with peak speeds higher.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is probably way off topic, but...
Ricochet provides seamless coverage across an entire city that works even when a user is traveling 70 miles per hour on a highway
Did anyone else get an image of Bill Murray in "Where the Buffalo Roam" driving down the highway at 70 MPH while banging away at a typewriter? Oh yeah, and folks think driving with cel phones are bad!
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
I get a reliable 30-70k. Even works in a car @ 80 mph
... what the ping-rate was?
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?
However, if you're competing with 2.5/3G then you're competing on ubiquity not bandwidth. There's a lot you can do with low bandwidth which really is 'always on' wherever you are - but it will fail if people can't rely on it. For example, internet radio would be a great mobile app, but as soon as the signal starts pausing and hitting blackspots you'll turn it off.
It can't compete with WiFi on bandwidth. The question is can it compete with 2.5/3G on coverage?
Because its not owned by anyone! Its not propietary. What we don't need is another carrier. Its time we move beyond centralized distribution. Its time we adopted decentralized wi-fi, becuause it empowers anyone with a connection to become a node in the network. See Mesh Networks to see how this is possible.
Its time for a communications revolution that has an infrastructure that is built from the bottom-up from individual users. Its time to have a network that is now owned by anyone, but available FREE to everyone.
Richochet does none of these things.
Planet P Weblog - Liberty with Technology.
www.enthea.org
Pricing may improve, coverage may expand, but Ricochet will still fail for one simple reason at the core of its architecture: Latency.
I was a Ricochet customer for three years. I had one of their original modems, and one of the 'ISDN-speed' modems, and ping to *any* site was consistantly over 250ms. That might not sound like a lot, but as ping times have come down across the net, more and more applications rely on a low-latency connection. Even looking at a web page requires 4-8 handshaking traverses to initiate, process, and complete the transaction. This amounts to 1-2 seconds, on a good day, on top of transfer time.
It also makes networked games and other 'realtime' interactive applications nearly impossible.
The reason for the latency is simple: Ricochet gets its coverage by deploying arrays of transcievers that do double-duty: They talk to the end-user modems, and they also route date from transciever to transciever until they hit a landlined base station. This relay race usually means a signal has hopped from 1 to 8 transcievers before it even gets to the net, and the return trip is just as bad.
The alternative is wiring up each base station to a DSL or other landline, a topology that places Ricochet in the same realm as, but in between, Wi-Fi and 3G systems. If that's the case, costs will likely be higher than they were before, because each 1/4-mile cell requires its own pipe, and there's no strong difference why Ricochet should succeed, especially when it's playing catch-up in the client hardware deployment game.
No. Look for longer-range add-ons to the 802.11 protocol to fill the gap, if it needs to be filled at all.
Kevin Fox
Using unlicenced spectrum space in such a way really should be illegal. Just because the FCC doesn't require a license to user those frequencies doesn't mean you have the right to do whatever you want with it.
A lot of mod'ed WiFi setups tend to be illegal. Yeah, there are laws Pringles-can setup, they're just not enforced because you're not bothering anybody. What's illegal about it? There's a limit on how much signal power a single device can send in any given direction on the unlicensed bands. That law is there to prevent their from being 900MHz headphones with a signal strong enough to be heard a mile away... that would mean that people a mile away or more would have to deal with the interference this one device puts out, and it'd likely put out an unsafe ammount of cancer-causing RF signal into the immedate area too.
Covering the area with a carrier signal, even when there are no active users in the immediate area, is nothing short than wasting bandwidth that could and should be used by other things.
- Costs involved in "re-lighting" the network are high, so Aerie must take the fiscally conservative approach of matching deployment to customer growth. This will take time. Too much time. 3G networks from the national wireless providers will leapfrog Ricochet.
- Since the technology is proprietary and the penetration is low, hardware costs will remain high. The main reason 802.11b is so dang popular is because it's so cheap. And it's cheap because it's so popular. Ricochet won't benefit from scale.
- Like another poster pointed out, that kind of latency (250ms) is a killer, especially for a service that costs so much.
I disagree with the author of the article: wireless carriers aren't staying away because Ricochet is a "loser," they're staying away from an unattractive business that in no way integrates with the platforms in which they've already invested billions.
I don't believe Ricochet can grow fast enough to matter. It'll remain a niche player, generating small returns for a short while. Without money to spend on R&D, it'll simply hang on until it's surpassed, stranding its customers with slow, proprietary modems. Too little, too late.
Wi-Fi's limited range, combined with its susceptibility to interference from garage-door openers and baby monitors, means it would take thousands upon thousands of "hot spots" to blanket a city, to say nothing of a more rural or suburban area. Even if a company managed to set up a citywide Wi-Fi network, low-cost transmitters are readily available to the public at Best Buy or Circuit City, which has enabled volunteers to build small, gratis public-access networks in New York, Seattle, and Portland. It's hard to compete with free.
Ricochet isn't as vulnerable to competition from such civic-minded projects since its technology is proprietary and thus unlikely to wind up on retail shelves anytime soon. And people will fork over for Ricochet instead of settling for free Wi-Fi primarily because of its greater range.
He would not imagine people sharing and setting things up for each other, now would he? While he's bussy planning for you to "fork over money" others are building the next internet with 802.11b repeaters. Who wants or needs central control? Sorry, money dude, you can't really compete with free after all.
Until that happens, his $45/month service does not look so bad. It can't hurt to stay connected while we cook up the future that excludes him.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
... 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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Dude, the whole idea with the Pringles-can's is that you DON'T use more power, rather you use a bigger antenna. Everyone I know doing the Pringles can setup is staying below the 1w power limit.
The nice thing about using better antenna's (particularly directional) is that you are in not impacting everyone else's available bandwidth.
sigs are a waste of space
1) Aerie bought all remaining Ricochet assets for well under $5M - all the existing hardware, and patent rights. They have hundreds of semi's (trucks) full of Ricochet hardware sitting in a warehouse yard (in Denver, I think). That equipment, and Ricochet's IP, along with some clever attepmts to re-leverage this service back into a commercial arena is all that Ricochet really is. Read on...
2)Aerie *did not* get rights to the municipal utility poles that the Ricochet hardware is mounted on. They are renegotaiting rights to those poles at rates far below what Ricochet was able to extract (this will not be as easy as it sounds, and will be enormously time consuming - Aerie doesn't have a lot of time. Ricochet *did* pay too much for these rights, but again, it will take too much time for Aerie to renegotiate with municipalities. (see #3)
3. Aerie has just so much cash to burn. They were doing another network play that was failing when the Ricochet 'oppotunity' came along. They used some of the cash from their last funded venture to secure the Ricochet assets. Here's the rub: that money will run out within a year - maybe sooner. Aerie needs to procure 'x' subscribers by the end of the year to continue. (I've forgetten the exact number, but it was in the tens-of-thousands - around 50-60 thousand within the year, I think, maybe a few ten-thousand more).
Why do they need that number? Because they have to be able to manufacture additional modems and other equipment when their current stored supply runs out. This is a highly leveraged play in an environment that has very substantial new players coming forward.
Ricochet is now just a leveraged asset play compared to others efforts that are doing R&D, have product, a brand that didn't fail, etc. Thus, it's all but almost over for Ricochet. This is a 'last gasp' leveraged play they will garner some nominal level of excitement and buzz because Ricochet was popular in the press when it was operating. Futher, Aerie announced a lot of this many months ago, but in the near-long-term it will not be enough, time and money are disappearing.
4)They're signing up regional 'rights-holders'to sell sevices into their respective regions - they've done this in LA and Denver - I know they're working on a few more. (btw, they're keeping the SF Bay area to themselves, because they think they can generate enough subscriptions themselves to real estate, medical, and municipal groups to make their subscriber requirement in the region [byw, the Bay area loved Ricochet]))
5)If they (Aerie) don't achieve critical mass sufficient to be able to continue to manufacture additional equipment *or* they run out of money (and I wouldn't count on them getting additional rounds if they don't meet very critical milestones), then they're toast (even if they do meet milestones, their VC(s) will be sweating). I think Aerie had about $8M left when they did the Ricochet purchase. (btw, I don't quite remember what the *exact* purchase price of the Ricochet assets was - it could have been way under $5M, the number I stated earlier...however, that doesn't change the fact that Aerie is running on borrowed time).
Aerie is - with due respect - a bottom feeder - trying to leverage a once good business idea and technology who's time has come and almost gone.
Again, what's crucial here is that for those buying into Ricochet a second time, there is no guarantee that they won't get stranded again. Frankly, I think they will get stranded.
Frankly, if I were Aerie, I would find a partner willing to aggressively do something with the patents, look for regional providers who were community based (even not-for-profits, or non-profits) and license what they've got to already enabled communities for reasonable rates. In other words, open this thing up. It won't happen though, because this is all about a limited leveraged play that is already hanging by a thread.
Aerie doesn't have the *time* to build out, because they have a venture funder breathing down their back. Good money is not chasing bad these days - it's all but over. There are many community wireless-based ways they could go with this, but it probably won't happen, as they have a very tunnel vision view of what's possible in this domain.
Bottom line: there are commercial (e.g. real estate)professionals who will re-up with Ricochet *in already enabled communities* as soon as it becomes available. Ricochet will get some subscribers; however, it won't be enough to sustain Aerie long term, and the whole thing will either get re-sold (probably just the IP), fold altogether, or get parceled out to the already enabled municipalities as a cool emergency backup wireless system.
If Aerie does manage to survive, Ricochet has little promise of long-term continuance because again, this is a highly leveraged play controlled by a company (Aerie) that is simply tryiong to re-distribute a service - that's all. Even if they succeed short term, it will take a large miracle to get the additional cash to build out new communities, improve their technology, and meet hard charging, better-funded competition.
I live in San Diego, California. Just within the last few weeks, Ricochet Wireless has been advertising here, hard. I hadn't seen anything from them in even the newspapers for many, many months.
The deal they are offering in San Diego starts with what you need:
A Ricochet External Modem or Internal PC Card Modem available for $99.95*.(free if you sign up for 6 mos) A Ricochet service account at $44.95* per month, with no activation or per minute fees. A desktop computer, laptop computer or PDA meeting minimal system requirements of the External Modem or Internal PC Card Modem. A service address in a live coverage area. *Plus applicable fees and taxes
And this is what you get:
A Ricochet Modem A Ricochet software CD Up to 10 email addresses 10 Mb of personal web space An out-of-coverage, national dial up service plan No service contract is required Download Ricochet SoftwareSystems: Windows®, Mac® and Pocket PC® Compatible. Speed: Typical speeds of 176 Kbps, with bursts to 400 kbps. Access: Unlimited Internet access within the coverage area. Support: 24x7 toll-free 1-888-RICOCHETIt's not too bad a deal. Free modem with a 6 month contract for whatever platform you use, you're mobil and on the net @ 170+Kbps, go out of coverage area you have dial-up access still, and no service call from your neighborhood cable guy or phone dude.
"It is essential that justice be done
There are really only two rules in networking - Ethernet always wins, and IP always wins. In fact, that's just one rule - open, standard technology always wins.
The reason is of course that innovation and competition is maximised when there is a common standard on which the market is based - wired Ethernet has gone from 3 meg, via 10/100/1000 to 10 Gig, and changed media from thick coax to thin coax to UTP to fibre, and expanded its range to WANs (in the 10G incarnation).
WiFi is going the same way, and since Ricochet is proprietary there is no way it can keep up - early WiFi was LAN only and 2 meg, and is now 11 meg, 22 meg or 54 meg. There are now point-to-point long range implementations of WiFi, and point-to-multipoint to cover a few square miles (like DSL). Some companies are producing QoS-enabled versions of WiFi, and using it for VoIP service. Arraycomm is doing smart antennas that track individual users with a narrow beam as they move around, improving bandwidth. Mesh networks companies are adapting WiFi to Ricochet style deployments where packets bounce between poletop radios, or other customers' nodes, before hitting a wire.
None of this is happening for Ricochet, because the technology is proprietary, hence there's no competition and little innovation going on. It probably is better at covering a whole city than WiFi, but it doesn't matter, because WiFi will evolve to solve these problems - probably via mesh network technology, which is highly efficient since it can route around foliage or building blockage, and very scalable since crowds bring their own capacity with them.
Roaming and billing are happening as well, which are essential so that increased usage of popular hotspots can drive more investment in better kit to support more users. As much as people dislike bandwidth caps and time-based billing, this is one reason why mobile/cellular operators are still in business and Metricom isn't. It should still be possible for heavy users to get reasonable-cost packages that enable them to use a lot of bandwidth, and of course when they are at home or work they can use the same kit on a no-billing basis to access local WiFi networks.
Applications are coming along as well, due to this flexibility, including drive-by downloading, location-based apps (where's the closest Italian restaurant?), etc - whereas Ricochet was tied to the short-hop between poles model, providing very high latency that prevents VoIP, WiFi can be implemented in different ways, allowing someone to make VoIP calls when in a conventional hotspot. Although it's debatable if VoIP will be a real application for public WiFi, it is very useful for people with smart PDA/phone kit in a large retailer - just carry one device to check stock and make phone calls in-store.
The only question in my mind is how all this works with 3G, GPRS and so on - probably they will co-exist, with WiFi as the high-bandwidth option when in range and 3G/GPRS as the low-bandwidth option. Wireless kit will tend to support both WiFi and mobile/cellular standards (Nokia and others already sell WiFi/GPRS PC Cards), with seamless roaming and a single bill (which all the vendors are working on).
I'm sure the execs are looking at this hard. But with the cellphone companies already blanketing this market, Ricochet is going to have to be better/faster/cheaper than 2.5G to survive.