[156604] in North American Network Operators' Group
the economies of scale of a Worldcon,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jo Rhett)
Thu Sep 20 15:04:12 2012
From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:03:24 -0700
In-Reply-To: <32613517.25574.1348159966261.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In a message Jay had apparently forwarded from offlist (or I missed the =
original) Rick said:
> From: "Rick Alfvin" <ralfvin@verilan.com>
> Verilan is the exclusive network services provider for NANOG, IEEE
> 802, IETF, ICANN, ZigBee Alliance, MAAWG, OIF, GENIVI, Tizen and many
> other technical organizations. We deploy large temporary networks to
> provide high density WI-Fi for meetings, events and conferences all
> over the world where Internet connectivity is mission critical to the
> success of the event.
This points out another significant facter to why network isn't part of =
what's negotiated here. Internet is *not* considered mission critical by =
most attendees. Cheaper hotel rooms, adequate facilities, and =
inexpensive food nearby are the top three items Worldcon attendees =
complain about. So it's not going to be on the top of things to focus =
on. (and why this topic as it is being discussed is not relevant to =
this list)
Those of us who feel Internet access is mission critical carry LTE =
network devices or make other arrangements. Obviously the growth of =
smartphones and tablets is starting to change that equation, but at the =
moment none of the Worldcons have done a very good job of providing =
useful online interaction so there's no actual use for onsite data =
related to the conference itself. Obviously I would love to see this =
change.
For those who care about the economics of Worldcons, the following post =
is from a person deeply involved in the organization which holds the =
rights and trademarks for Worldcon. (Think Olympic Site Selection =
Committee, except they don't select the locations -- the members do) He =
covers a lot of the topics about why Worldcons are so very, very =
different from any of the conferences listed above, and why the =
economics of scale these conventions have don't work:
http://kevin-standlee.livejournal.com/1166167.html
Now, if we want to make this topic relevant to Nanog, the operative =
question is the feasability of a data provider putting good wireless =
gear near these facilities and selling data access to attendees. For a =
useful comparison, the 2010 Worldcon in Melbourne had an expensive wifi =
service in the building that kept falling over. A cell provider across =
the street put up banners advertising cheap data service, and put people =
on the sidewalk in from of the convention selling pay as you go SIM =
cards with data service. They made brisk business. *THIS* is where us =
network operators can provide good networking service to a large =
facility, and pretty much kill the expensive data plans operated by the =
facility.
Instead of building up and tearing down a network for each convention, =
put an LTE tower near the facility and sell to every group that uses the =
convention center.
--=20
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet =
projects.
