WiFI on utility poles

Thu Sep 10 16:15:49 UTC 2015

We should all be complaining, vociferously, about LTE-U.  I've seen the
tests and as it exists today LTE-U completely creams WiFi and is only
usable by someone who owns a LTE license.  WiFi APs will cohabitate fairly
well, even if they share the same channel, because WiFi is a listen before
transmitting protocol.  LTE and LTE-U is a centrally scheduled protocol and
doesn't have a back off mechanism.

Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Yury Shefer <shefys at gmail.com> wrote:

> And the same guys (NCTA) complain about LTE-U - how dangerous it is for
> their s/business/WiFi
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/verizon-and-t-mobile-join-forces-in-fight-for-wi-fi-airwaves/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:
>
>> This sounds like a hypothetical complaint, AFAIK none of the members of
>> the
>> CableWiFi consortium are deploying APs outside of their footprint.  Since
>> most of the APs use a cable modem for their backhaul it's not really
>> feasible to be without at least one broadband option (the cable MSO) and
>> be
>> impaired by the CableWiFi APs.
>>
>> Now, there is one potential exception to this I'm aware of which is
>> Comcast's Xfinity on Campus service, but I'd expect the number of colleges
>> they're servicing that aren't already getting cable broadband service to
>> approach zero.
>>
>>
>> http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150909_Comcast_streams_onto_college_campuses.html
>>
>> https://xfinityoncampus.com/login
>>
>>
>> Having said all of that, I'd agree that a good radio resource management
>> approach would benefit all of us, including the CableWiFi guys.
>>
>> http://www.cablelabs.com/wi-fi-radio-resource-management-rrm/
>>
>>
>> Scott Helms
>> Vice President of Technology
>> ZCorum
>> (678) 507-5000
>> --------------------------------
>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > On Sep 10, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 5 GHz noise levels affecting people whose primary means of Internet
>> > access is via fixed wireless .
>> > >
>> >
>> > This is a huge deal for those people like myself that depend on fixed
>> > wireless for access at home because there is no broadband available
>> despite
>> > incentives given by cities and states and the federal government.
>> >
>> > The local WISPs are good at coordinating access in these ISM bands
>> amongst
>> > themselves but when someone appears with a SSID without doing a peek at
>> the
>> > spectrum (note: not a site survey, but actual spectrum view w/
>> waterfall,
>> > as site survey only checks for the channel width that the client radio
>> is
>> > configured for, not al the 10, 15, 8, 30mhz wide variants).
>> >
>> > It’s just poor practice to show up and break something else because you
>> > can’t be bothered to notice the interference or noise floor you
>> created.  I
>> > suspect the hardware that Comcast is using doesn’t notice this
>> interference
>> > or adjacent channel issues.  With the FCC aiming to let cell carriers
>> also
>> > clog the 5ghz ISM band it’s only going to get worse.
>> >
>> > - Jared
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Yury.
>