[176787] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Thu Dec 11 16:16:42 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <8abfcc8eaaaf3a462fc25cfe627e3293.squirrel@66.201.44.180>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:15:19 -0800
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: alh-ietf@tndh.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bob Evans
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:30 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house
>
>
> I think it's more than AC power issue....who knows what strength level
they
> program that SSID to work at ? More wifi signal you are exposed to
without
> your knowledge and more...read on.
>
The CPU would be running the idle loop if it wasn't handling these packets,
so power consumption outside the RF transmitter is irrelevant.
Given it is a part-15 consumer device, you can assume no more than 100mw on
the signal level. Assume someone lights that up 24x7x365.25 ... (an
unrealistic continuous broadcast from a source on the wired side, but for a
worst case back-of-the-envelope calculation it is close enough). The
transmitter is not going to be 100% efficient, so let's pick 33% to make the
calculation easier to follow.
.3 W x 24 hrs = 7.2 Whrs/day
7.2Whrs/day x $.00011/Whr*= $.000792/day
$.000792/day x 365.25 days/yr = $.289278/yr
*YMMV based on the local rate per kWhr.
So for any realistic local kWhr rate in the coverage area, the result is
less than $1/yr. This case is arguing a substantial burden has been imposed
as the result of consuming "vastly more electricity", but any realistic use
of that additional signal over an entire year is less than the cost of a
stamp used to mail in just one month's bill payment.
The lawyers in this case need a substantial fine for abusing the court
system.
Tony
