WiFI on utility poles

Livingood, Jason Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com
Thu Sep 10 18:02:27 UTC 2015


Odd - I got the email fine. The bound message you got also is in French,
which would not seem like something our email servers would do. Are you
sure that was from our servers? I¹d love to see the mail headers so I can
talk to the enterprise mail team.

Jason



On 9/10/15, 1:37 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Lyon"
<nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of mike.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:

>Really Comcast? Your spam software SUCKS ASS!
>
>For those interested, the word that violated their spam software was
>"damn"
>
>-Mike
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>
>This email has violated the PROFANITY.
>and Pass has been taken on 9/10/2015 1:34:19 PM.
>Message details:
>Server: BUPMEXCASHUB2
>Sender: mike.lyon at gmail.com;
>Recipient:
>nanog at ics-il.net;Corey_Petrulich at cable.comcast.com;
>Ken_Falkenstein at cable.comcast.com;nanog at nanog.org;
>Subject: Re: WiFI on utility poles
>
>
>The information in this message, including in all attachments, is
>confidential or privileged. In the event you have received this message in
>error
>and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any use,
>copying
>or reproduction of this document is strictly forbidden. Please notify
>immediately the sender of this error and destroy this message, including
>its
>attachments, as the case may be.
></P>
>L'information apparaissant dans ce message electronique et dans les
>documents
>qui y sont joints est de nature confidentielle ou privilegiee. Si ce
>message
>vous est parvenu par erreur et que vous n'en etes pas le destinataire
>vise,
>vous
>etes par les presentes avise que toute utilisation, copie ou distribution
>de ce
>message est strictement interdite. Vous etes donc prie d¹en informer
>immediatement l¹expediteur et de detruire ce message, ainsi que les
>documents
>qui y sont joints, le cas echeant.
>
>On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A few dozen? Damn, you are lucy, Mike!
>>
>> I did an install the other day, a good 60-70 XfinityWifi SSIDs popped
>>up.
>>
>> Reminds me of the Good 'Ole CB days back in the 80's where everyone
>>talked
>> over each other and played background music and such...
>>
>> That's a big 10-4 and I got a Smokey on my trail!
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The tower-deployed AP can see the cable wireless APs for miles and can
>>> see a few dozen of them at any one time. Given the goal of full
>>>modulation
>>> at all times for optimal use of spectrum and dollars, the ever
>>>increasing
>>> noise from the cable APs makes this a challenge. You need 25 to 30 dB
>>>to
>>> maintain full modulation and that's increasingly difficult when you
>>>hear
>>> cable APs everywhere at -70.
>>>
>>> The APs can't have narrow radiation patterns given that they need to
>>> cover a roughly 90* area of where the customers are. An 18 to 20 dB
>>>gain
>>> sector antenna will pick up those cable radios from pretty far away.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com>
>>> To: "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net>
>>> Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net>, "Corey Petrulich" <
>>> Corey_Petrulich at cable.comcast.com>, "Kenneth Falkenstein" <
>>> Ken_Falkenstein at cable.comcast.com>, "NANOG mailing list"
>>><nanog at nanog.org
>>> >
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 10:00:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: WiFI on utility poles
>>>
>>>
>>> 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_coll
>>>ege_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).
>>>
>>> It¹s just poor practice to show up and break something else because you
>>> can¹t be bothered to notice the interference or noise floor you
>>>created. I
>>> suspect the hardware that Comcast is using doesn¹t notice this
>>>interference
>>> or adjacent channel issues. With the FCC aiming to let cell carriers
>>>also
>>> clog the 5ghz ISM band it¹s only going to get worse.
>>>
>>> - Jared
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Lyon
>> 408-621-4826
>> mike.lyon at gmail.com
>>
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Mike Lyon
>408-621-4826
>mike.lyon at gmail.com
>
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list