[183658] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: WiFI on utility poles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Thu Sep 10 11:50:29 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <598389423.5208.1441900011551.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:50:27 -0400
From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.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.org
OPM, as in Other People's Money? If that's what you meant I don't think
that's an accurate description since AFAIK Comcast didn't get any CAF money=
.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
> I wish IEEE would natively support smaller channels as that's what's
> needed most of the time. Interference would be so much less.
>
> If there's opportunity for Comcast to work with the WISP community on
> channel selection to avoid mutual destruction, then great.
>
> That said, the cable company's efforts scream of OPM.
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>
> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>
> Cc: "Jason Livingood" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>, "Corey
> Petrulich" <Corey_Petrulich@cable.comcast.com>, "Kenneth Falkenstein" <
> Ken_Falkenstein@Cable.Comcast.com>, "NANOG mailing list" <nanog@nanog.org=
>
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:52:59 AM
> Subject: Re: WiFI on utility poles
>
>
> > 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 also
> clog the 5ghz ISM band it=E2=80=99s only going to get worse.
>
> - Jared
>
