WiFI on utility poles

Thu Sep 10 18:06:14 UTC 2015

It's either Mike, Comcast or the NANOG list, so it's probably a safe bet.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Livingood, Jason <
Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>