It's either Mike, Comcast or the NANOG list, so it's probably a safe bet. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Livingood, Jason < Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
Odd - I got the email fine. The bound message you got also is in French, which would not seem like something our email servers would do. Are you sure that was from our servers? I¹d love to see the mail headers so I can talk to the enterprise mail team.
Jason
On 9/10/15, 1:37 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Lyon" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:
Really Comcast? Your spam software SUCKS ASS!
For those interested, the word that violated their spam software was "damn"
-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 in 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 d¹en informer immediatement l¹expediteur et de detruire ce message, ainsi que les 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 modulation at all 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 maintain full modulation and that's increasingly difficult when you hear 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 gain 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 really feasible to be without at least one broadband option (the cable MSO) and 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 colleges they're servicing that aren't already getting cable broadband service to approach zero.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150909_Comcast_streams_onto_coll
ege_campuses.html
https://xfinityoncampus.com/login
Having said all of that, I'd agree that a good radio resource management 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 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).
It¹s just poor practice to show up and break something else because you can¹t be bothered to notice the interference or noise floor you created. I suspect the hardware that Comcast is using doesn¹t notice this interference or adjacent channel issues. With the FCC aiming to let cell carriers also clog the 5ghz ISM band it¹s only going to get worse.
- Jared
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com