RipNET Wireless Broadband in Wireless Users Chat http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r15718848 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:27:45 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:27:45 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16542900 b_p_smith :
said by LLigetfa See Profile :

said by b_p_smith See Profile :

As 'L' says, they don't put an actual section in concrete, but the four posts.
I wonder what the fourth one does? :p
Just making sure y'all are paying attention. ;)

Brad.
--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 5 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running Win2003 & XP]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16542900 Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:22:51 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16517457 mrgprime : I measured one section, and it looks to be 2.3m. So if it is 9 sections, then 2.3x9=20.7m. That 67.9 ft. So it must be a full 68' tower with no sections missing. He must have had a spare base, and then brought an entire kit over when he did the install, and then left the base piece since he didn't need it. That makes the most since.

Anywho, enough of this tower talk. The internet seems to be pretty fast, and the latency is fantastic considering we were told we didn't have a very strong signal.

Thanks everyone for your help! Time for me to enjoy RipNET :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16517457 Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:16:41 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16517027 LLigetfa :
said by mrgprime See Profile :

It looks like there are 8 sections right now on the tower.
I count 9 sections.

said by b_p_smith See Profile :

As 'L' says, they don't put an actual section in concrete, but the four posts.
I wonder what the fourth one does? :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16517027 Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:22:05 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16516331 mrgprime : I think I'm going to stop talking now, because I have no idea what I'm talking about. I noticed that DMX108 marked on the inside probably just means its a DMX tower and that's section #8.... right?

Hopefully with the picture you guys can tell me what the hell I have :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16516331 Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:51:31 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16516316 mrgprime : OK, I guess I should say at least one section missing. 108' minus 1 section would still be pretty huge.

It looks like there are 8 sections right now on the tower.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16516316 Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:48:52 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16516277 mrgprime : Alright, I'm out here now. Typing on a computer that's using RipNET as we speak. :)

I think I've found out the fact of everything. I went over to the tower and it says DMX-108 on the inside. So it's a DMX-108 without ONE of the sections on the bottom.

And the receipt I have says "90' Tower". So they may have built a larger tower than I thought earlier. So it must be 108 - 1 section + ___ foot mast = 90. Hah, I really should have paid more attention to the things they were telling me ;)

Here's a picture of the tower:



And some pings:

C:\Documents and Settings\Admin>ping cogeco.net

Pinging cogeco.net [216.221.81.80] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.221.81.80: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=246
Reply from 216.221.81.80: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=246
Reply from 216.221.81.80: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=246

Speed test:

Download Speed: 837 kbps (104.6 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 327 kbps (40.9 KB/sec transfer rate)

(I'm paying for 2mbit download / 256kbit upload).

Overall, as long as this tower stays us, I'm pretty happy :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16516277 Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:43:03 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16515811 b_p_smith : If you look on the inside of the section, the section number is stamped in there, I think a bit above the bottom set of bolt holes. The DMX68 is indeed a kit, with the bottom-most section being the DMX-8, then DMX-7, all the way up to DMX-1 (the one with the rotor mounting plate).
As 'L' says, they don't put an actual section in concrete, but the four posts.

Thing is, if you look at the spec sheet I posted earlier, the hole size and concrete amount depends on the bottom section. It sounds like they went for the "good enough for now" approach of putting the DMX-7 on the bottom, and compensated at the top by swapping out the stock mast for a 15ft one to clear the trees. This allows them to get the height needed *now* but keeping the tower part as short as possible to minimize concrete requirements (which is expensive).

As the trees grow over the years, you may end up with a problem again, but hopefully by then they'll have closer towers of their own to point towards.

If it'd been me I'd have insisted on all 8 sections being used, but in your case that's probably not a big deal and a bit too late to do anything about. :-)
--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 5 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running Win2003 & XP]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16515811 Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:28:54 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16515485 LLigetfa : Each section is tapered so I'm not sure what you mean about it being the "same size as the one in the ground". There is no section in the ground per se, only three 4 foot long legs set in concrete. If there are only 7 segments to the erected tower, they screwed up and set the spacing wrong on the legs, starting out with DMX7 instead of DMX8. Measure the spacing at the wide end of the leftover section and compare it with what sticks out of the concrete. If additional height is needed, they can replace the short stock mast with a longer one without needing guys.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16515485 Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:23:08 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16515145 mrgprime : Yes they left out the largest piece.

That is probably a valid point about them using a spare to put in concrete first, because it looked the same size as the one that was already in the ground.

My father asked the guy why it was leftover, he said because it was "part of a kit."

And today is my first chance to try out the internet! I'll take more pictures of the tower and tell you how the internet is for someone at the very very outer range (our signal is so weak that they almost wanted to add another 8 feet (guy-wired), but they said they wouldn't unless we have any problems, since it's my fathers campground and he's not too fussy on the guy-wires ;)).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16515145 Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:23:53 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16512172 LLigetfa : Well... AFAIK only DMX1 has the top plate to mount the mast so unless they left out DMX8, I'm guessing they used a spare DMX8 to mount and plumb up the base stubs. You just need to count the sections since there should be 8 of them each 8 feet long and the stock mast adds 4 feet to make it 68. Tapering (keystone) the base is good practice and helps resist frost jacking which is a real problem in my part of the country.

Around here we won't even set wood fence posts in concrete because they will jack. We put a point on the bottom end and wrap the bases with multiple layers of 6 mil poly and backfill with gravel. Even at that, every few years we have to go around and hammer them back into the ground.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16512172 Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:03:26 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16511533 b_p_smith : The DMX68 is the Delhi tower I mentioned before. Each section is "tapered", so depending on whether the leftover piece is the fat bottom one (DMX-8) or the skinny top one (DMX-1) indicates whether you'll be able to add the top section later.

LLigetfa's comment on frost is valid, but in our parts a 4ft depth will keep it below the frost line, so heaving won't be a concern for you. But there are definitely areas (particular further north) where a 4ft depth might not be enough.
I know a guy who's installed many, many of these towers and forms aren't necessary around here. Ideally though, they undercut at the bottom of the hole (rather than make a perfect cube) for even better stability and heave-resistance.

From what I can see in the pics, it all looks good, but you'll know in a few years. :-)

The underground pipe is a nice touch. Just stuff the ends with something (spray-in foam would be good) to keep the critters out. Don't fill the whole pipe though.

Brad.
--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 5 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running Win2003 & XP]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16511533 Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:38:47 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16510382 mrgprime : And to answer your question about the type of tower, I think the sticker said something like DMX-68. But there was one large section left over, so they might not have built they entire 68' height.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16510382 Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:35:59 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16505170 mrgprime : I just sort of watched, I don't know all the details. They said it was a 65 foot tower, and they added a 15 foot adjustable mast to the top. The hole was 4x4x4 when they were done digging (I measured just to be sure :)).

And oops, you're right, it's concrete. I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying about frost. But this is my father's campground, and it's seasonal. So no one will be out there between October until April (or May?), except my father, who parks somewhere else.

My father sent me an email this morning, so it must be working :) It uses PPPoE apparently. They emailed me the details and I guided him through it over the phone. It's a pretty painless setup. And if you have a router with PPPoE support, you can set it up once and then forget it.

And yes, I will have more pictures of the finished tower sometime this week (I need to find a ride to get me out there :)). ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16505170 Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:30:07 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16504712 LLigetfa : So, what brand of tower is it and what height? Will you post a picture of the end result?

How deep did they go with the hole? I presume you need to go 4 feet in your area to stay below frost. It also doesn't look like they formed it out. That gives it a very rough contact surface with the ground and can promote frost "jacking".

From the picture, it looks like it is close to the driveway. If so, you will need to be careful with snow removal to not let the frost get under it.
[pet peeeve]
It is concrete and it is not supposed to dry but rather cure. Cement is used to make concrete. :p
(sorry, couldn't resist)
[/pet peeeve]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16504712 Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:40:18 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16501854 mrgprime : Day 1 - The hole is dug, but a couple of big rocks are hit. They came back early during day 2 to remove the big ones.


Day 2 - A cement truck came and they filled the fole. The tube under the ground here will feed the coaxial cable underground to the house. They were done before lunch. Nothing else can be done for 48 hours while the cement dries.


Day 3 - Cement still drying today :)

Day 4 - Around noon, they came with the other parts of the tower. Everything was assembled.


I had to leave before they finished it and hooked it up to the internet (this is at my dad's campground).

I don't get to test it out for another couple of days, but it sounds like things went well :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16501854 Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:22:23 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16467782 mrgprime : They said the install will be done Thursday or Friday, but they still have to confirm that date when they come to install Tuesday. I'll take plenty of pictures so you can tell me if I got my moneys worth :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16467782 Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:23:14 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16466934 b_p_smith : You'd be looking at the 64ft Delhi DMS68 (8 x 8ft sections). That's a common tower used by amateur radio operators and is way adequate for your needs. I have one (loaded with a whole whack of amateur radio & scanner antennas, one satellite dish and the RipNet antenna). A very nice tower indeed.

$3k is actually lower than I'd expect. Typical price for just the tower in this area is $1700 (that's Canadian dollars, in case anybody's wondering). You'd be looking at a good $600-$800 worth of concrete. The rest is labor. While I personally would be a little concerned about quality of install workmanship at that labor cost, I tend to be a little pessimistic about that. Mind you, I've seen some installations in my immediate area that make my hair stand on end. Your mileage may vary. :-)

BTW, if the time between concrete pouring and raising the rest of the tower is less than 48 hours, there's a definite problem. Don't rush it. That tower is spec'ed for a minimum 4ftx4ftx4ft cubic hole. You can see the specs at:
»shop.bursmaelectronics.com/items···MX68.pdf
Your base section would be the DMX8.

Maybe after you have the tower up you can think about going for your amateur radio license. :->

Brad.
--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 5 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running Win2003 & XP]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16466934 Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:52:05 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16459640 mrgprime : The install price for the tower is $3000. It is a self-supporting 65 foot (or it could be 64 foot like you said), plus a mast. It definitely is self supporting because someone down the road has one identical to the one we're going to have built. No guy-wires at all. When we drove by, he was actually outside and we spoke to him for a bit about it. They used to have satellite (I forgot to ask which provider), and he said that speeds were decent but latency was just awful. He said that even though install costs for Wireless is much more, it's well worth the money. The guy was pretty polite and seemed honest enough, so we really appreciated his opinion.

So we decided we definitely wanted to go the Wireless route. We were quoted $3000 for the tower, which isn't bad. Since we'll own the tower, we can probably use it for other things as well.

So I told the RIPnet rep that we had a deal. She emailed me some PDFs that I printed out and faxed her back. They start building the tower this Tuesday, and they will probably be finished on Thursday.

I'll let you know how it goes :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16459640 Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:34:45 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16451442 b_p_smith : A guy-less tower is definitely more expensive, and better looking. You *might* get away with the standard 64-foot Delhi and a 15ft mast, but that gives you very little clearance for when the trees grow.

Frankly, once you get to that kind of height requirement, and that kind of install cost, satellite is going to be *way* cheaper. You mentioned a grand to install satellite, but you're definitely looking $5k-plus for that kind of tower install (any cheaper, and I'd be *real* suspicious).

Yes, you can't do gaming or VPN very well across satellite (or at all). But the install price difference will buy you a lot of months, and hopefully there will be a better wireless (or even wired) option in a couple of years.

Brad.
--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 5 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running Win2003 & XP]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16451442 Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:30:16 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16442780 Kamakzie : RIPnet? Sounds like an ominous name :D I think of rest in peace. :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16442780 Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:40:35 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16442006 LLigetfa : 80 feet is a stretch for a self supporting tower or did you mean to say bracketed to the house without guy wires?

A tower looks nicer without guys and if part of the tower can hide alongside a building and be bracketed it might not stand out as bad. Either that or hide it among trees.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16442006 Wed, 05 Jul 2006 21:33:46 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16439184 mrgprime : UPDATE!

They had me sign an authorization form and fax it to them. It cost $100 but I'll get that back if I sign up with them. It was to get them to come with a bucket truck to see if they could get a signal from higher up. They came and said that at 80 feet they get a good signal.

I wasn't there, but my dad was, and they were talking about the tower with guy-wires and my dad talked to them about a self-supporting tower. I'm pretty sure it will be much more expensive, but he thinks it will be well worth the price.

This is just from what my dad said over the phone. They've yet to email me since they just left an hour ago.

Looks like I'm getting me some wireless internet. Woohoo :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16439184 Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:56:15 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16393748 mrgprime : Satellite installation in my area is still over a grand + $55/m for service. There is also a minimum of 1second of latency, making the service pretty laggy. Although, it's decent for downloading large files.

If they can't get a usuable signal, then we'll go the satellite route.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16393748 Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:49:23 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16385848 b_p_smith : $3k is about right for a properly installed Delhi (guy-less) tower. And these *must* be properly installed. Typically you'd be looking at roughly $1500 for the tower itself, and a good $600-$800 for the concrete for the base. If you have the ability to do the actual installation (digging the hole, etc) and understand the proper techniques, you can definitely install yourself.
You can also hire anybody else you want to install the tower. That's totally independant of the wireless installation (you just call them back after).

You can go for the cheaper TV tower approach, which will require guy wires. That saves money but in my opinion looks bloody awful.

I've heard that 2-way satellite pricing has come way down in the past few years. Have you priced them out?
--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 5 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running Win2003 & XP]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16385848 Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:35:35 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16380063 mrgprime : $3k for a 64' tower? That doesn't sound good.

They came by this Friday and did the survey.
They just emailed to tell me that they could not get a usable signal from Lansdowne, Lyndhurst or their Brockville
tower. They think we are too low and too many trees blocking. So they are asking if we'd like a bucket truck to come by in the "next couple of weeks" to see if they can get a signal from higher up. They say they that if we get a tower they will need to install Guy-Wires to hold it up.

Do you think if they get a good signal from high up they'll let us build our own tower? $1300 for hardware is a little rough but an extra $3000 for a tower is simply insane!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16380063 Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:21:13 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16352211 b_p_smith : You'd be best to call them and get the latest specifics. They're constantly messing with the packages so I can't keep them straight.
Also, get them out to do a site survey. That's when you'll confirm availability and, much more importantly, find out how much extra you're going to need to pay for a tower or whatnot. A friend moved in fairly close to me and was rather shocked to learn they needed a 64ft tower, which cost them $3k up front.
Feel free to post the numbers you learn here. :->

Brad.
--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 5 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running Win2003 & XP]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16352211 Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:49:15 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16343160 mrgprime : First of all, sorry to bump such an old thread, but it's the only one on RIPnet I could find.

I'm interested in getting this wireless service in Mallorytown, Ontario. The map on their site shows that I'm in range, but I'm not so sure since we're in the middle of nowhere.

I'm just curious what you paid for installation, hardware, and monthly fees. They hide this information on the website for some reason.

I've been looking into satellite service until I found this.. and it looks pretty promosing (as long as the price is right!).

John]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16343160 Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:32:58 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15771926 WirelessPlz : Thanks for the reply. Those ping times are very nice :)

As an update, the site survey was completed today(ya, took them a whole week to get here :\), and it turns out we have perfect signal to their tower!

So, I should get hooked up sometimes this week. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15771926 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:35:26 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15735449 b_p_smith : How's this:

Pinging www.yahoo.akadns.net [68.142.226.55] with 32 bytes of data:
 
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=53
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=53
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=53
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=53
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=52
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=52
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=53
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=53
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=52
Reply from 68.142.226.55: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=52
 
Ping statistics for 68.142.226.55:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 43ms, Maximum = 57ms, Average = 46ms

--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 5 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running Win2003 & XP]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15735449 Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:44:29 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15733981 WirelessPlz : I would also be quite suprised if I can get LOS.

What's keeping my hopes up, is that they apparently have some Morewood customers(don't ask me how they get LOS, but obviously they do).

I am aware of Storm. They have a tower up in Russell, which is close to my place, but unfortunately for me, I would need to install a tower due to a huge tree in between my house and the Russell water tower(I can see the water tower at this time of year, but when folliage kicks in, it's a different story).

They even have a Point-to-Point connection setup in Morewood that gets feed from the tower in Embrun, but it's only in LOS to closest neighbours. So bummer for me on that one as well.

btw, I do agree about the PITA statement, I did not like their service one bit(being a few calls and a site survey).

RipNET should be at my place either tomorrow or thursday to complete a site survey. Let's keep the hopes up :).

For the ping times, you can try some ping [server name or ip] -n 10.

Once again, thank you for all the precious information.

-Jean]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15733981 Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:47:56 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15733744 b_p_smith : They keep messing around with the plans. They used to have more plan options and the one I'm on is no longer listed. The base plan used to be 1Meg/256k and 10Gig/month. Looks like they went for faster but less download.

Frankly, I'd be *hugely* surprised if you'd get line-of-sight from where you are. There are some hills between you and the tower just south of Kemptville. Unless you're really really lucky, expect talk of a tower. But if you're on top of a hill, that'll help.

I can't really speak to gaming performance, but I use VPN into work regularly and it's solid. I know of some VOIP users who have not complained of any packet loss. That implies reasonable ping times, but if there's a specific test you'd like me to try, lemme know.

You are aware that Storm supposedly has coverage in your area. I thought they had a tower in Winchester now. The company is a PITA to deal with, but you might want to keep that option open.

There's also a new wireless service in the early stages south of Ottawa, but I don't think they're operational yet.

Country living. You gotta love it. :-)
--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 4 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running 98/2003/XP/CE]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15733744 Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:05:12 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15732403 WirelessPlz : I really appreciate the reply Brad , and all the useful information.

Some of the things you said didn't match what I was told when I called them up though(or saw on their Website).

They told me it's 2mb/256k. As far as the transfer limit, I did not ask, but the Website states 5gb(that's a huge bummer for me, I like to download a lot, even on dialup).

I also was not told that the rental option forces you to a 3 year contract. I'll talk to them when they come do the site survey, to clear things up.

As far as my location, I live outside Morewood(in between Morewood and Marionville) way up on a hill :).

oh, last thing, I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I do play games once in a while when I have the time. What kind of ping times should I be expecting ?

thank you again :)

-Jean]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15732403 Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:14:01 EDT Re: RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15721081 b_p_smith : I've been on RipNet wireless pretty much since Day 1.

The bottom line is that it mostly works well, but has issues every now and then. And being a small company they don't exactly have top-talent IT folks on board.
Case in point, early last week they had a mail server problem that caused all incoming/outgoing mail to be stuck in the queue. The "fix" was to nuke the queue, meaning all outgoing mail was lost. That's bad enough, but even when I called them on it they didn't have the courtesy to confess to their customers that 12+ hours of their outgoing e-mail was never going to reach its destination. My wife had sent out a resume for a job posting that day, and if I hadn't figured out what had happened she'd wonder why she never heard back.

For a long time they had serious speed issues, but of late it's been pretty solid, giving me a bandwidth at or slightly over what I'm spec'ed for.

They block ports 80 & 25 in to prevent standard servers. But non-standard ports aren't blocked. Maximum monthly bandwidth depends on the plan you pay for, with the base plan (1Mbit down, 256kbit up) is 10Gig/month. I seem to recall it's $10/Gbit after that.

They use a 3.5GHz licensed frequency, so no interference from anything like the 2.4GHz systems, and the range is pretty good (of course, you need line-of-sight). Hardware is comprised of a specialize antenna (about the size/shape of a personal pan pizza box) which down-converts to standard cable frequencies, so they can use a standard cable modem at the bottom. So if you dump them, you're stuck with a useless antenna but at least the modem can be used on a cable system.

The only thing is that as an amateur radio operator, I set certain minimal standards for antenna installations, and they don't come close. The number of places around here with tripods screwed into roofs with 20ft masts sticking out is scary. Sure the wind-loading of the antennas is low, but it ain't zero. Unless you have *clear* line of sight to the tower, you might want to wait until Spring when the leaves are all out. Most winter installs (including myself originally) are fine until the foliage pops out, and then need a re-visit to move/raise the antenna.

I don't recommend the "rental" option for the hardware because then you need to sign a 3-year contract. I found that over 3 years I didn't really save any money, and had no options if they really pissed me off and I wanted to jump.

Brad.

P.S. PM me your location and I might be able to give specific site advice before you get the survey done.
--
RipNet (wireless) -} WinXP -} WinProxy 4 -} LinkSys BEFSR81 -} about 8 machines running 98/2003/XP/CE]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15721081 Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:05:18 EDT RipNET Wireless Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15718848 WirelessPlz : I live in a rural area, where DSL and Cable isn't available.

I landed on RipNET's website a few days ago, and it looks like they have service in my area.

Their equipment is pretty costly, but it's either that or Sat, and I'd much prefer Wireless for obvious reasons.

I'd like to hear it from some of you guys who currently use RipNET, or have used it in the past(being their Wiresss, DSL or dial-up service).

Are they a reliable company ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15718848 Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:46:50 EDT