wizdum
join:2006-11-17
Bangor, ME | [ME] New wireless broadband provider in Maine 25mbit/25mbit! Trying to get the word out about Redzone Wireless's new service "Redrocket". Redzone will be offering 25mbit down/ 25mbit up wireless internet connections to residential and business users in Maine. Residential connections are $65/month. The service is ready to roll out, but they want to make sure there is sufficient interest in an area before they commit to providing service there. They are asking people to sign up at »www.getredrocket.com. I do not know too much about the hardware involved, but I know they are using Ubiquiti Networks wireless gear, which give good range and low latency.
I am not associated with the company in any way, i'm just a consumer that is ecstatic about the idea of finally seeing some competition in this state. This is the closest forum I could find to post it in, let me know if this shouldn't be here.
»www.getredrocket.com |
|
 DominokatR.I.P CalliePremium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2 | Okay I bit. Filled out the questioner. |
|
|
|
wizdum
join:2006-11-17
Bangor, ME | Hey, as of right now you have close to a 1 in 6 shot in winning that Roku box, lol. They're having some problems advertising this service. They ran some ads in the Bangor Daily News and got very few responses. |
|
 swintecPremium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:4
 ·RapidVPS
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
 ·VoicePulse
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to wizdum
Are you sure you arent connected to this service somehow?  No big deal if you are. I am confused, is this service actually available anywhere yet? The Roku box thing confuses me...we need to buy it on our own and then submit a receipt for credit on our bill?
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts |
|
wizdum
join:2006-11-17
Bangor, ME | Yep, sure i'm not connected, lol. They have very good customer service, so if you have any questions send them an email at info@redzonewireless.com
The service isn't actually available anywhere yet. Although Redzone does have 3 normal tiers that match DSL speeds with way better uploads (see »www.redzonewireless.com) The reason I was given is that they are using new radios made by Ubiquity that are not compatible with their existing network, so they will need a substantial investment in each area that they offer this new service. They plan to roll out the service in areas where they see the demand, which is why I am trying to get as many people to sign up as possible, I really want to see this happen. You would have to ask them about the Roku box, looking at the fine print next to the form, it looks like you have to sign up, then if you purchase a Roku box after you have your service set up at your home, they will mail you a refund for the price of the Roku. |
|
 sashwaPixie Cat Crunchin' n Foldin'Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-29
Alcatraz
kudos:15 | reply to wizdum
Re: [ME] New wireless broadband provider in Maine 25mbit/25mbit! Moved in from the New England Forum. |
|
| reply to wizdum
said by wizdum: Redzone will be offering 25mbit down/ 25mbit up wireless internet connections to residential and business users in Maine. Residential connections are $65/month. » www.getredrocket.com There's no magic in wireless. Only so many bits per second per Hz of RF channel bandwidth. And the latter is really expensive in the FCC auctions. In unlicensed bands, the bandwidth is there but the user and infrastructure power is very restricted, by design.
They may provide 10-20Mbps if they can get 10MHz channels - and in Maine's low population density, spectrum would be cheaper. But that 10-20 is shared among n users. Cable modems have a huge advantage in the number of and size of the channels on the cable, for data. Just the laws of physics here. |
|
wizdum
join:2006-11-17
Bangor, ME | Cable modems may have a huge advantage, but with only 1 ISP in Maine that offers more than 2000kbits/s, the cable company doesn't really have any incentive to build out their network.
I never implied that this was magic. Since this is the wireless forum, you must be familiar the the radios made by Ubiquti networks. They seem to be doing an alright business for themselves, so this can't be too big of a problem. Going from the prices I have been told, they will most likely be using either the rocketdish M5s, or the powerstation 5. They operate on 5.8ghz, with selectable channels between 5mhz, 10mhz, 20mhz, and 40mhz (I am not sure which, if any, of these are restricted by the FCC). These are directional devices, with a vertical beamwidth of 3 degrees, so interference should be low. There is no sharing between users, each user has a direct link to the station.
This isn't some dude out on a ladder trying to make a wireless network, its a real, profitable, company. I think they know what they are doing.
Also, Bangor, ME now has enough signatures, so the service will be coming there soon. I haven't heard anything about any other areas yet. |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
kudos:1 | said by wizdum:These are directional devices, with a vertical beamwidth of 3 degrees, so interference should be low. There is no sharing between users, each user has a direct link to the station. I'm sure at that price that they won't be doing PtP with dedicated bandwidth. It would be PtMP and the AP (and subsequently, the bandwidth) would be shared amongst the subs. This is "upto" bandwidth, not dedicated.
Also, 5.8 is very LOS so towers may be needed to get above the trees/hills/etc.
--
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it. -- Stephen Vizinczey |
|
wizdum
join:2006-11-17
Bangor, ME | The price actually isn't too bad, $150 per radio. Compare that to the DVR I rent from Dish network that retails for $200, and the HD ones that retail for $400 - $500. The powerstations advertise 50mbit/s, so you could theoretically have two users connect to one powerstation. The Rocket M5 advertises 150mbit/s, so you could theoretically have 6 powerstations connecting to one M5.
They havn't told me anything about towers, but with 5.8ghz, I agree that they will probably need them. I know they have several towers in the area from our old municipal network, not sure if they plan to use them or something different. I was told that the wireless connections will not be shared, and that the amount of users will not have an effect on speeds. Trees, and weather will probably have an effect on the available speed. As for latency, it will be less than 20ms, I was told to expect less than 5ms - 10ms on a decent signal. Considering the best I get from TWC is 35ms, with an average closer to 75ms, that sounds pretty good.
Do you have any information on the FCC regulations for 5.8ghz? From what I have read so far there are none, as you would require an immense amount of power to do any damage. Not related to this topic, but me and a couple friends got some powerstations and are working on a wireless LAN. |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
kudos:1 | said by wizdum:Do you have any information on the FCC regulations for 5.8ghz? From what I have read so far there are none... You read wrong. The FCC regulates it under Part 15. Max EIRP for a PtMP AP is 36dBm.
--
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it. -- Stephen Vizinczey |
|
wizdum
join:2006-11-17
Bangor, ME | I was just going by what other powerstation users said. The powerstation 5 has no external antenna, and has been certified by the FCC according to 15.247, so we should be safe. |
|
1 edit | reply to wizdum
said by wizdum:Do you have any information on the FCC regulations for 5.8ghz? The Part 15 regulations are not about health/safety- they are to enable spectrum sharing for unlicensed systems by limiting the transmitted signals' power.
The 5.8GHz FCC limitations are very similar to 2.4GHz, in terms of restrictions on radiated (inclusive of antenna gain) power for unlicensed. There's an inherent 6dB disadvantage at 5.8 vs. 2.4GHz.
To do point to multipoint in 5.8GHz unlicensed, the coverage will be somewhat less than 2.4GHz. The game played with the FCC regulations is: The radiated power may increase as the beamwidth decreases, i.e., the more directional the antenna is, the more power you may radiate. This is per a philosophy in unlicensed that spectrum needs to be readily SHARED. So the game is that the subscriber (CPE) device uses a high gain, narrow-beam antenna aimed at the base station. The base station uses a sector or omni antenna which, to be legal, must have much lower radiated power, though this is offset by the CPE's antenna gain.
All this aside, we're talking about 10dB or so of difference between the CPE's gain and the base station, whereas the path length loss even line of sight is 80dB or more.
So no, one can't really do much of a broadband service at 5.8GHz unless there are lots of base stations and you chop down most trees and put the CPEs on the rooftops. The economics of this don't work, as compared to the cost of DSL/cable or even EV-DO. |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
kudos:1 | said by stevech0:The game played with the FCC regulations is: The radiated power may increase as the beamwidth decreases, i.e., the more directional the antenna is, the more power you may radiate. The letter of the law has nothing to do with beamwidth and everything to do with whether it is PtP or PtMP. Some people may infer otherwise and you can try telling it to the judge.
There is however an exception whereby the CPE in a PtMP arrangement can use PtP EIRP but the AP regardless of beamwidth must always be limited to 36 dBm.
--
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it. -- Stephen Vizinczey |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
kudos:1 | Oh, I should mention that UBNT will soon release special beamforming technology that should get special dispensation from the FCC for higher EIRP.
--
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it. -- Stephen Vizinczey |
|
wizdum
join:2006-11-17
Bangor, ME | reply to stevech0
You seem to have misunderstood me stevech0, the FCC question wasn't about Redzone. This is just a personal project of mine, connecting my house to my friends house. It will be point to point. I would imagine that Redzone would have different FCC licenses, since they already have extensive 2.4ghz mesh networks.
I would also like to point out what I said in the original post, that I am just assuming the idea that Redzone is using 5.8ghz Powerstation 5s, or rocketdish M5s based on the prices that they told me, this is entirely speculation. The $150 per radio is for the client, you wont be picking this up with your built in laptop nic. All I know is that they are using products made by Ubiquity, and that each user will have 25mbit/25mbit dedicated to them (no sharing). Their website also states that "a small radio will be placed on your roof". |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
kudos:1 | said by wizdum:...each user will have 25mbit/25mbit dedicated to them (no sharing)... Again, I don't know what you are basing that on because everything I read talks about "up to" speeds and subs will be sharing an AP.
--
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it. -- Stephen Vizinczey |
|
| reply to LLigetfa
beamwidth - the FCC regulations if you say are law, do limit your radiated power as a function of antenna gain. And that means less than omnidirectional. Now there are of course antennas that are omnidirectional horizontally but narrow-beamwidth on the vertical - a flattened doughnut pattern. To me, the FCC regulations didn't take this into account, but more assumed a parabolic or yagii, horizontally directional. The high gain vertical is counter to the intent of the regulations - that being to discourage long range and thus interference.
|
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
kudos:1 | said by stevech0:To me, the FCC regulations didn't take this into account, but more assumed a parabolic or yagii, horizontally directional. The high gain vertical is counter to the intent of the regulations - that being to discourage long range and thus interference. You are assuming intent. Directionality is not written into the regs, plain and simple. You can infer whatever intent you want but the letter of the law is all that counts. If you are are using higher EIRP than 36 dBm in a PtMP setup, you are breaking the law.
Tell it to the judge.
--
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it. -- Stephen Vizinczey |
|
