[183665] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: WiFI on utility poles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Thu Sep 10 13:15:39 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:15:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRwEhuUBtExX70-GV8vfeDnNzLSN+dWNs8gP-e+mvGU7kA@mail.gmail.com>
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
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 a=
ll 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 maintai=
n full modulation and that's increasingly difficult when you hear cable APs=
everywhere at -70.=20
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 a=
ntenna will pick up those cable radios from pretty far away.=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>=20
To: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>=20
Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "Corey Petrulich" <Corey_Petrulich@c=
able.comcast.com>, "Kenneth Falkenstein" <Ken_Falkenstein@cable.comcast.com=
>, "NANOG mailing list" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 10:00:41 AM=20
Subject: Re: WiFI on utility poles=20
This sounds like a hypothetical complaint, AFAIK none of the members of the=
CableWiFi consortium are deploying APs outside of their footprint. Since m=
ost of the APs use a cable modem for their backhaul it's not really feasibl=
e to be without at least one broadband option (the cable MSO) and be impair=
ed by the CableWiFi APs.=20
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.=20
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150909_Comcast_streams_onto_college=
_campuses.html=20
https://xfinityoncampus.com/login=20
Having said all of that, I'd agree that a good radio resource management ap=
proach would benefit all of us, including the CableWiFi guys.=20
http://www.cablelabs.com/wi-fi-radio-resource-management-rrm/=20
Scott Helms=20
Vice President of Technology=20
ZCorum=20
(678) 507-5000=20
--------------------------------=20
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms=20
--------------------------------=20
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Jared Mauch < jared@puck.nether.net > wro=
te:=20
> On Sep 10, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote:=20
>=20
> 5 GHz noise levels affecting people whose primary means of Internet acces=
s is via fixed wireless .=20
>=20
This is a huge deal for those people like myself that depend on fixed wirel=
ess for access at home because there is no broadband available despite ince=
ntives given by cities and states and the federal government.=20
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 c=
onfigured for, not al the 10, 15, 8, 30mhz wide variants).=20
It=E2=80=99s just poor practice to show up and break something else because=
you can=E2=80=99t be bothered to notice the interference or noise floor yo=
u created. I suspect the hardware that Comcast is using doesn=E2=80=99t not=
ice this interference or adjacent channel issues. With the FCC aiming to le=
t cell carriers also clog the 5ghz ISM band it=E2=80=99s only going to get =
worse.=20
- Jared=20
