Imagine LTE Rural Broadband

TopTec

Goreme wrote: »

Does anyone know the answer to the question of what size of geographical area this 400 household limit applies?

OK. I will have a stab at it using old knowledge and a calculator. I think it is in the region of 315 k squared, or roughly 80,000 acre's.

Please do correct me if I am wrong.


TT

Mr Velo

Anyone using the IP phone with this? If so how has it been going, and what phone would be best?

Goreme

TopTec wrote: »

Goreme wrote: »

Does anyone know the answer to the question of what size of geographical area this 400 household limit applies?

OK. I will have a stab at it using old knowledge and a calculator. I think it is in the region of 315 k squared, or roughly 80,000 acre's.

Please do correct me if I am wrong.


TT

Well its Pi x r squared... 3.1416 x 13 x 13 = approx 531 square kilometers!

ItHurtsWhenIP

ED E wrote: »

9726 did you say it was omni? In that case it'd be 400/entire 20km ring.

I think we established the range was 20KM, but I thought it was done like a Mobile sector with a 120 degree arc. Yes/No?

morgana

Mr Velo wrote: »

Anyone using the IP phone with this? If so how has it been going, and what phone would be best?

No issues at all. Works. Didn't have a number ported as we hadn't had a "land line" for years so using the assigned geographic (021) number. And any phone you still have lying around will do.

Dero

TopTec wrote: »

OK. I will have a stab at it using old knowledge and a calculator. I think it is in the region of 315 k squared, or roughly 80,000 acre's.

Please do correct me if I am wrong.


TT

The actual coverage is never a perfect circle though. Just have a look at any given area on the Imagine site. None of the viewsheds are circular; there's always obstructions/hills/hollows etc. which create shadows and black spots.

Of course, some areas would be far more densely populated than others. However, even if Imagine have signs up in towns, their pricing means that those urban dwellers who have an alternative would be less likely to go for LTE (or any wireless service for that matter).

TopTec

Mr Velo wrote: »

Anyone using the IP phone with this? If so how has it been going, and what phone would be best?

I'm using a phone with a base and an extension which as I have said seems to have gained substantial range. I had my old number ported across and that has been live for a few days.

However, I have found one glitch tonight which is odd. The phone receives incoming calls on my old number but makes outgoing calls using the temporary number given me by Imagine.

TT

momo_32

irishchris wrote: »

joy123 wrote: »

Just sign up for BB with imagine LTE. Does anybody know what router they provide? Thanks.

generally the greenpacket one which is not brilliant or else the gemtek which is really just an ap with the router built into the antenna


Struggling to get ports open here for applications that need it. infairness to tech support they are brilliant but although they have placed my own router ip into the dmz in the antenna it still will not open ports unfortunately

anyone have any joy with port forwarding on imagine?

I'm still in discussion with them about the whole issue of access to the router. Ideally off course I want to bypass theirs and use my own (needs POE, and a non-standard kind too) or at least have them bridge theirs so I can use mine properly. As it stands, they have total control of my internal network - port forwarding, LAN DHCP range allocation, WiFi password (even security type) to name but a few. So my web server doesn't work, I can't SSH into it, my offsite backup system has failed and the security cameras can't be accessed from outside.

I'm sure Tech Support can do all kinds of things if asked but that's hardly the point. 24hour Tech Support if I decide to change my Guest Account on a whim?

After a promising start with my "Account Manager" who sounded very positive and agreeable, I've heard nothing in the last week. And this is supposed to be a "business account", which was an upgrade from their 4Mb/s Breeze service which was well-nigh perfect. Even at that speed!

Dero

momo_32 wrote: »

I'm still in discussion with them about the whole issue of access to the router. Ideally off course I want to bypass theirs and use my own

Interesting and disconcerting. I have no interest in using their "router" I have my network set up the way I want it, and I will insist on continuing to manage that.

All they need to do is provide a PoE injector instead of the router/ATA* (which would be cheaper too) and set up the CPE (modem) as a bridge. It's very simple, and I'm sure (W)ISPs up and down the country do it all the time. Ripplecom certainly had no problem doing it for me.

I have no intention of using anything other than the CPE to get Internet access. I have my own access points, switches, router, DNS, DHCP, proxy, and if they think one cheap "wireless router" can replace that they're in la-la land.

An e-mail to their support indicated that this would be no problem, but it seems from the above that it may actually be a significant issue. :mad:


* And the SIP credentials for an IP phone if the phone service is required.

momo_32

Dero wrote: »

momo_32 wrote: »

I'm still in discussion with them about the whole issue of access to the router. Ideally off course I want to bypass theirs and use my own

Interesting and disconcerting. I have no interest in using their "router" I have my network set up the way I want it, and I will insist on continuing to manage that.

All they need to do is provide a PoE injector instead of the router/ATA* (which would be cheaper too) and set up the CPE (modem) as a bridge. It's very simple, and I'm sure (W)ISPs up and down the country do it all the time. Ripplecom certainly had no problem doing it for me.

I have no intention of using anything other than the CPE to get Internet access. I have my own access points, switches, router, DNS, DHCP, proxy, and if they think one cheap "wireless router" can replace that they're in la-la land.

An e-mail to their support indicated that this would be no problem, but it seems from the above that it may actually be a significant issue. :mad:


* And the SIP credentials for an IP phone if the phone service is required.

Just to add, Tech Support assured me two weeks ago they were "looking into this" but at the moment "bridging isn't possible". My "Account Manager" - who has inexplicably gone silent - assured me they were having several complaints and something would be done. And, two weeks on, I still haven't got a static address despite the request being made verbally twice and in B&W in the order form!

Dero

Well, it'll probably be four or five weeks before I get installed (assuming a good signal), so hopefully they'll get this sorted out by then.

Keep us updated on how you get on.

df_h

Dero wrote: »

Interesting and disconcerting. I have no interest in using their "router" I have my network set up the way I want it, and I will insist on continuing to manage that.

All they need to do is provide a PoE injector instead of the router/ATA* (which would be cheaper too) and set up the CPE (modem) as a bridge. It's very simple, and I'm sure (W)ISPs up and down the country do it all the time. Ripplecom certainly had no problem doing it for me.

I have no intention of using anything other than the CPE to get Internet access. I have my own access points, switches, router, DNS, DHCP, proxy, and if they think one cheap "wireless router" can replace that they're in la-la land.

An e-mail to their support indicated that this would be no problem, but it seems from the above that it may actually be a significant issue. :mad:


* And the SIP credentials for an IP phone if the phone service is required.

I asked them about a business account when signing up was told to contact Digiweb or something (noo mentioned of pricing etc) was told they do residential only, I said fine gimme fast speeds and let accountant sort it out.

Which they did

As for the Greenpacket router and antennae do read my posts earlier in this thread.

To summarized, THEY have remote access to the greenpacket antennae (192.168.1.1), password is not given, was told they can not bridge it as it would cause security implicaitons for their network.

The WN-600 greenpacket router (which is not great) powers the antennae, i was able to power the antennae with a 1A 12V poe adapter but chose not to since if antennae breaks it would cause me disruption due to having to call them out, I would not recommend doing this.
The WN-600 can be set to bridge mode (lets say 192.168.1.254) leaving DHCP to the antennae

They CAN port forward successfully on the antennae, I have CCTV recorder, Linux work dev server, Xbox1 forwarded by them for me, all working great.

It is not optimal but it works and I am happy now, seeing that it is a residential offering and they refused a business connection It was nice of their techs to spend hours with me getting everything to work.

As for phone will wait till their android app is ready to use, they can use me as a tester

edit: attached a doodle of the setup :P

Dero

df_h wrote: »

It is not optimal but it works and I am happy now

This the important bit I suppose, and ultimately, if I get a connection like most here seem to have, it will still be a ~10x improvement.

I'll keep haranguing them though. ;-)

ED E

It was never going to be broadband, but NAT like this puts it squarely in the Midband space.

If its really for security reasons then their network really isn't secure.

Dero

It's probably more like that's a non-standard configuration and we don't want the hassle, and "network security" is a good excuse. However, if it is for security, then yeah, it does not reflect well on their network.

ED E

My moneys on it being a fob off too.

momo_32

df_h wrote: »

To summarized, THEY have remote access to the greenpacket antennae (192.168.1.1), password is not given, was told they can not bridge it as it would cause security implicaitons for their network.
...
The WN-600 can be set to bridge mode (lets say 192.168.1.254) leaving DHCP to the antennae
...
edit: attached a doodle of the setup :P

Thanks for this information df_h. Confused though: your (very artistic!) doodle is clear but shows bridging between the antenna and the WN-600; I understand this is precisely what they cannot/will not do. If bridging the antenna were allowed we could use our own routers with the WN-600 supplying PoE?

In any case, I am glad you now have a solution that works for you and I suppose I could do the same. BUT mine is a business account and as others have said, they have effectively taken control of internal networks.

edit: spelling

morgana

Download between 12 midnight and 7 am now at Imagine's discretion.
I downloaded a large file (around 16/17 gig) Saturday morning, bringing me to the cap during the day and got throttled.
Their T&Cs now read:

8.4
LTE Broadband Package(s) have a monthly data usage allowance, with a daily usage limit. If you reach your
daily limit your service will be restricted until midnight of the same day. At the beginning of the next day, your
service and usage will be reset. We apply these limits to ensure quality of service and a fair and level playing
field for all customers. It?s not the intention to restrict user?s enjoyment of the service including downloading
games as may be required on an occasional basis. At imagines discretion, occasional usage above your
daily limit and during the hours of 12am to 7am will be allowed. If we notice continual, disproportionate
or abnormal download or upload usage patterns, we reserve the right, upon due notice to, terminate the
provision of your LTE Service(s)

From my experience, its seems to be pretty rigid now as this large download (damn B&S!) was the first large one in months and started after midnight. Normally my usage does not come even close to the cap. At least my router log and theirs seemed to tally pretty well. :P

Not particularly pleased about that, as it means I still have to be careful and manage large downloads carefully (as there are two gamers in the household they will need to coordinate large game updates) - luckily it doesn't happen very often. Still, from previous experience (of others) I would have thought a bit more leeway is given.
So far, this is the only restrictive issue I have experienced, and will probably not affect many people. Ofc, course I do understand that network resources like that are finite and some restrictions need to be put in place.

The throttling took the speed right down to about 1 Mbps (ish). Still allowed 2 people simultaneous gaming & browsing, we didn't try Netflix, I'd say that would have been impossible.

Other than that, I can't fault their service and even my mails regarding the throttling were answered quickly.

editorsean

I really think they should either have a clear minimum number of unmetered overnight downloads (e.g. 5 a month) or have the daily usage meter reset at 7am instead of midnight.

Otherwise their policy effectively encourages people to do their downloading in the evening before the meter resets at midnight as it's currently unclear whether people will get the unmetered overnight downloading, like morgana's above post.

For example, let's say someone turned on their games console at 9pm and saw a 15GB update ready to download and barely used the Internet that day. If they are unsure they will get the unmetered download overnight, they likely start the download right now to try and get the update by midnight, hogging the peak time bandwidth. Whereas if the meter resets at 7am or the user knew for certain they get unmetered usage after midnight, they would more likely start the download after midnight without worrying.

Netflix will stream down to 512kbps, but with significantly degraded video quality like YouTube's 240p setting.

morgana

editorsean wrote: »

Otherwise their policy effectively encourages people to do their downloading in the evening before the meter resets at midnight as it's currently unclear whether people will get the unmetered overnight downloading, like morgana's above post.

Yup, that's exactly what I would do now if I know I have a large update/download :P Leave it till 10pm and then let it rip.
Or give us a notification option like say I know I have a major expansion coming up and get an exemption for that day (as those dates are known well in advance) !
I agree more clarification is needed. This is still a grey area and those of us affected need a better idea how this is operated to manage the large downloads. I like the idea of giving a clear number of "free" downloads. I can happily live with that

df_h

momo_32 wrote: »

df_h wrote: »

To summarized, THEY have remote access to the greenpacket antennae (192.168.1.1), password is not given, was told they can not bridge it as it would cause security implicaitons for their network.
...
The WN-600 can be set to bridge mode (lets say 192.168.1.254) leaving DHCP to the antennae
...
edit: attached a doodle of the setup :P

Thanks for this information df_h. Confused though: your (very artistic!) doodle is clear but shows bridging between the antenna and the WN-600; I understand this is precisely what they cannot/will not do. If bridging the antenna were allowed we could use our own routers with the WN-600 supplying PoE?

In any case, I am glad you now have a solution that works for you and I suppose I could do the same. BUT mine is a business account and as others have said, they have effectively taken control of internal networks.

edit: spelling

You can login to the WN-600 (admin/admin) it defaults to being on 192.168.22.1 and under Networks set it to Bridge mode, if that password doesnt work reseting it will get you in BUT you will lose the VOIP capability

The problem is that the antennae on roof which the WN-600 powers ALSO has routing/dhcp/nat/dns capability, and you do not have access to that (one can see a greenpacket login page at 192.168.1.1 and can also ssh prompt if ssh to it)

I asked for business account but was told no, It seems like a case of left hand not knowing what right one is doing. You can pm me and I give you the name of the fella from tech support who was very good in helping.

As I said earlier in thread i powered the antennae directly completely bypassing the WN-600 only to find its turtles all the way down lol and the Antennae itself is a router. I went back to using the WN-600 so as not to cause any physical damage to equipment.

tsue921i8wljb3

It is also a bit ridiculous that they offer no way of tracking usage leaving users guessing where they stand in relation to the cap. I wonder would Comreg have anything to say about an ISP throttling while offering no means of tracking usage? Knowing Comreg though they will probably wash their hands of it.

momo_32

To df_h: PM sent

momo_32

As regards tracking data usage, most modern routers do this. I don't know if the Greenpacket WN-600 supplied does, because I'm not allowed to access it!

tsue921i8wljb3

momo_32 wrote: »

As regards tracking data usage, most modern routers do this. I don't know if the Greenpacket WN-600 supplied does, because I'm not allowed to access it!

As far as I know it does not. The point is it should not be the responsibility of the end user to purchase hardware or software to do Imagine's job for them. They obviously have access to the data, how hard would it be to implement a webpage to allow checking of usage?

ED E

Reyansh Little Bandage wrote: »

As far as I know it does not. The point is it should not be the responsibility of the end user to purchase hardware or software to do Imagine's job for them. They obviously have access to the data, how hard would it be to implement a webpage to allow checking of usage?

Chances are their vendors product includes the API to do it, they just need their web dev to add a few lines to their portal.

tsue921i8wljb3

ED E wrote: »

Chances are their vendors product includes the API to do it, they just need their web dev to add a few lines to their portal.

Exactly. It is just lazy and unacceptable to not provide it.

SpannerMonkey

They day that they limit speeds and dont just cut you off if you go over your daily limit. Does anyone have any examples of before and after to see how much of a reduction there is ?

Wing126

morgana wrote: »

Download between 12 midnight and 7 am now at Imagine's discretion.
I downloaded a large file (around 16/17 gig) Saturday morning, bringing me to the cap during the day and got throttled.
Their T&Cs now read:



From my experience, its seems to be pretty rigid now as this large download (damn B&S!) was the first large one in months and started after midnight. Normally my usage does not come even close to the cap. At least my router log and theirs seemed to tally pretty well. :P

Not particularly pleased about that, as it means I still have to be careful and manage large downloads carefully (as there are two gamers in the household they will need to coordinate large game updates) - luckily it doesn't happen very often. Still, from previous experience (of others) I would have thought a bit more leeway is given.
So far, this is the only restrictive issue I have experienced, and will probably not affect many people. Ofc, course I do understand that network resources like that are finite and some restrictions need to be put in place.

The throttling took the speed right down to about 1 Mbps (ish). Still allowed 2 people simultaneous gaming & browsing, we didn't try Netflix, I'd say that would have been impossible.

Other than that, I can't fault their service and even my mails regarding the throttling were answered quickly.

So basically, no matter what time you download things, you still contribute to the 20Gb limit?

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

They day that they limit speeds and dont just cut you off if you go over your daily limit. Does anyone have any examples of before and after to see how much of a reduction there is ?

Read Morgana's quote above.

jfcunniffe

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

They day that they limit speeds and dont just cut you off if you go over your daily limit. Does anyone have any examples of before and after to see how much of a reduction there is ?

went to 0.85 Mbps download after My son downloaded a game on steam.