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 big science project because it sounds awesome and I can convince these guys to 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 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 despite 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 client radio is configured for, not al the 10, 15, 8, 30mhz wide variants).
It’s just poor practice to show up and break something else because you can’t be bothered to notice the interference or noise floor you created. I suspect the hardware that Comcast is using doesn’t notice this interference or adjacent channel issues. With the FCC aiming to let cell carriers also clog the 5ghz ISM band it’s only going to get worse.
- Jared