WiFI on utility poles

Livingood, Jason Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com
Thu Sep 10 19:24:10 UTC 2015


Always getting blamed for Cogent stuff, no worries. ;-)

- JL



On 9/10/15, 2:23 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Lyon"
<nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of mike.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:

>My apologies, Comcast, I have an itchy trigger finger
>
>A little googling indicates that the mail server that was listed on that
>bounced email is a COGENT email server, not Comcast,
>
>My apologies for that.
>
>-Mike
>
>
>On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Mike Lyon <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_col
>>>>lege_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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Mike Lyon
>408-621-4826
>mike.lyon at gmail.com
>
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon




More information about the NANOG mailing list