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 <na...@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" <khe...@zcorum.com> > To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> > Cc: "Jared Mauch" <ja...@puck.nether.net>, "Corey Petrulich" < > corey_petrul...@cable.comcast.com>, "Kenneth Falkenstein" < > ken_falkenst...@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 < na...@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" < ja...@puck.nether.net > > To: "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > > Cc: "Jason Livingood" < jason_living...@cable.comcast.com >, "Corey > Petrulich" < corey_petrul...@cable.comcast.com >, "Kenneth Falkenstein" < > ken_falkenst...@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 < na...@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 > > > > >
