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."
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This report seems a bit outdated, don't you think?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
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This research is outdated; It is based on the older Ricochet system that used 900 MHz unlicensed spectrum for both client-to-poletop and poletop-to-poletop backhaul.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?
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?
You can't "license" your wifi station and get permission to use more power. You are operating in the 2.4 GHz band, which is unlicensed; thus, you cannot operate at any more power than the FCC permits for that band. And buying spectrum in another band, assuming your equipment can even operate there, is much more complex and expensive than you think.
Wifi is a wireless LOCAL area network technology. Any attempts to make it into a WAN are pointless, as it is not designed for that. It won't work well, and it would be too expensive. In any case, you would have to have a $500 repeater every 50 meters. Sounds pretty expensive to me.
If anyone creates viable wireless networks in the near future, that would be the cellphone companies. They already have most of the infrastructure deployed, and are the only ones who have expertise in that field. Cellular networks are pretty much the only good way to deploy cheap, scalable wireless data services.
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
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
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).