[183677] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: WiFI on utility poles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Lyon)
Thu Sep 10 14:26:45 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAFFgAjCtzgxiuyCE2LKOtN-hZ_UBL6N8-aXKAdr+F_1bret4=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:23:50 -0700
From: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.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
My apologies, Comcast, I have an itchy trigger finger
A little googling indicates that the mail server that was listed on that
bounced email is a COGENT email server, not Comcast,
My apologies for that.
-Mike
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really Comcast? Your spam software SUCKS ASS!
>
> For those interested, the word that violated their spam software was "dam=
n"
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
>
> This email has violated the PROFANITY.
> and Pass has been taken on 9/10/2015 1:34:19 PM.
> Message details:
> Server: BUPMEXCASHUB2
> Sender: mike.lyon@gmail.com;
> Recipient:
> nanog@ics-il.net;Corey_Petrulich@cable.comcast.com;
> Ken_Falkenstein@cable.comcast.com;nanog@nanog.org;
> Subject: Re: WiFI on utility poles
>
>
> The information in this message, including in all attachments, is
> confidential or privileged. In the event you have received this message i=
n
> error
> and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any use,
> copying
> or reproduction of this document is strictly forbidden. Please notify
> immediately the sender of this error and destroy this message, including
> its
> attachments, as the case may be.
> </P>
> L'information apparaissant dans ce message electronique et dans les
> documents
> qui y sont joints est de nature confidentielle ou privilegiee. Si ce
> message
> vous est parvenu par erreur et que vous n'en etes pas le destinataire
> vise, vous
> etes par les presentes avise que toute utilisation, copie ou distribution
> de ce
> message est strictement interdite. Vous etes donc prie d=E2=80=99en infor=
mer
> immediatement l=E2=80=99expediteur et de detruire ce message, ainsi que l=
es
> documents
> qui y sont joints, le cas echeant.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A few dozen? Damn, you are lucy, Mike!
>>
>> I did an install the other day, a good 60-70 XfinityWifi SSIDs popped up=
.
>>
>> Reminds me of the Good 'Ole CB days back in the 80's where everyone
>> talked over each other and played background music and such...
>>
>> That's a big 10-4 and I got a Smokey on my trail!
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 modulat=
ion
>>> at all times for optimal use of spectrum and dollars, the ever increasi=
ng
>>> noise from the cable APs makes this a challenge. You need 25 to 30 dB t=
o
>>> maintain full modulation and that's increasingly difficult when you hea=
r
>>> cable APs everywhere at -70.
>>>
>>> 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 gai=
n
>>> sector antenna will pick up those cable radios from pretty far away.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> 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: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>
>>> Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.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 10:00:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: WiFI on utility poles
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 rea=
lly
>>> feasible to be without at least one broadband option (the cable MSO) an=
d 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 colle=
ges
>>> they're servicing that aren't already getting cable broadband service t=
o
>>> approach zero.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150909_Comcast_streams_onto_col=
lege_campuses.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://xfinityoncampus.com/login
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Having said all of that, I'd agree that a good radio resource managemen=
t
>>> 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 des=
pite
>>> incentives given by cities and states and the federal government.
>>>
>>> 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 cl=
ient
>>> 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 bec=
ause you
>>> can=E2=80=99t be bothered to notice the interference or noise floor you=
created. I
>>> suspect the hardware that Comcast is using doesn=E2=80=99t notice this =
interference
>>> or adjacent channel issues. With the FCC aiming to let cell carriers al=
so
>>> clog the 5ghz ISM band it=E2=80=99s only going to get worse.
>>>
>>> - Jared
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Lyon
>> 408-621-4826
>> mike.lyon@gmail.com
>>
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Mike Lyon
> 408-621-4826
> mike.lyon@gmail.com
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
>
>
>
>
--=20
Mike Lyon
408-621-4826
mike.lyon@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
