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" <[email protected]> To: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> Cc: "Jason Livingood" <[email protected]>, "Corey Petrulich" <[email protected]>, "Kenneth Falkenstein" <[email protected]>, "NANOG mailing list" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
