[183663] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: WiFI on utility poles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Luthman)
Thu Sep 10 12:28:05 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <277960960.5247.1441901907681.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
From: Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:27:43 -0400
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
It's backed by large investments rather than CAF. At the same time, it's
well known that millions are spent on lobbying in the government to sway
the decisions.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
> Yeah, Other People's Money.
>
> I highly doubt they got government money, but large corporations are full
> of OPM from the perspective of the guy doing the work. Let's pitch this b=
ig
> science project because it sounds awesome and I can convince these guys t=
o
> pay for it. It's not in any way unique to Comcast.
>
> Contrasting that to a small company where it very much is the head guy's
> money in every decision, so (generally, though certainly not always) more
> judicious caution is exercised.
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>
> Cc: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>, "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 10:50:27 AM
> Subject: Re: WiFI on utility poles
>
>
> 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 mon=
ey.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
