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 < [email protected]> 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" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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: [email protected]; > >Recipient: > >[email protected];[email protected]; > >[email protected];[email protected]; > >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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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" <[email protected]> > >>> To: "Jared Mauch" <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]>, "Corey Petrulich" < > >>> [email protected]>, "Kenneth Falkenstein" < > >>> [email protected]>, "NANOG mailing list" > >>><[email protected] > >>> > > >>> 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 < [email protected] > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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). > >>> > >>> 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 > >> [email protected] > >> > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >Mike Lyon > >408-621-4826 > >[email protected] > > > >http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon > > > >
