[183655] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: WiFI on utility poles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Thu Sep 10 11:06:09 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <2AA17621-E9C8-4E68-B878-656F7DBF1A52@puck.nether.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:00:41 -0400
From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Cc: Corey Petrulich <Corey_Petrulich@cable.comcast.com>,
Kenneth Falkenstein <Ken_Falkenstein@cable.comcast.com>,
NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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@puck.nether.net> wrote=
:
>
> > On Sep 10, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@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 despi=
te
> incentives given by cities and states and the federal government.
>
> The local WISPs are good at coordinating access in these ISM bands amongs=
t
> themselves but when someone appears with a SSID without doing a peek at t=
he
> 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=E2=80=99s just poor practice to show up and break something else becau=
se you
> can=E2=80=99t be bothered to notice the interference or noise floor you c=
reated. I
> suspect the hardware that Comcast is using doesn=E2=80=99t notice this in=
terference
> or adjacent channel issues. With the FCC aiming to let cell carriers als=
o
> clog the 5ghz ISM band it=E2=80=99s only going to get worse.
>
> - Jared
