4 ms·

I feel like 30,000 concurrent users is woefully underestimated. The article says "During the Super Bowl, the network will be able to handle up to 30,000 simult

I feel like 30,000 concurrent users is woefully underestimated. The article says "During the Super Bowl, the network will be able to handle up to 30,000 simultaneous connections, which should be enough." but I wonder where that estimate came from. I would double that, in my estimates, given the kinds of people even capable of securing Super Bowl tickets. W're not talking about a fair sample of the US population here, we're talking about 80k at-least middle class fans, which I'd imagine raises the likelihood of a wireless-capable device being in their pockets significantly. Again from the article: "As long as 100 percent of the people in there don't take out their cellular device and switch it to the Wi-Fi network, it should be fine." Given the fact that it's an open network, why do these people even need to take out their device at all? Many phone will jump onto an open network if at all possible, won't they? I'd be interested in a post-mortem after the event to determine the effectiveness of the Wi-Fi plan.

anigbrowl 14y ago
I think the majority of people will be absorbed in the game and entertainment. When I go to a sports game it has to be a poor match for me to start laying with my phone. I might check it while waiting in line for a hot dog or something, but the number of people wandering around << the number of people in their seats.
- TsiCClawOfLight 14y ago
  what game? you mean the downtime between the rare actions? I enjoy football, but the way it's monetized by the NFL is simply sickening.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    True, but irrelevant.
- klinquist 14y ago
  You will essentially have zero cell coverage in the stadium.. iphone / imessage users can use the wifi to send/receive texts... "hey need another beer?"
dangrossman 14y ago
> Many phone will jump onto an open network if at all possible, won't they? I've never seen a phone that will do that by default. You have to manually join a network at least once before it'll be added to the list to auto-reconnect.
- Wilya 14y ago
  I believe it is (or was at some point) an option for the iPhone, and a few other phones. I've always found it silly, because in my experience, "Open network" never means "just connect and it will work". At best, you have to agree to a few terms of service (which requires action from me), at worst, you have to authenticate and/or pay or there is another security measure preventing access (MAC whitelist, etc).
  - necubi 14y ago
    I rather doubt that, as it would be a big security problem. If phones auto-connected to open APs, anybody could run a rogue one and collect passwords, sessions, etc.
    - diminoten 14y ago
      It is, and people do, from what I understood. I might be wrong, though, or it might have been something that's since been rectified. I use a "feature" phone now, so I don't actually know what the most current phones do.
    - shurane 14y ago
      Autoconnecting to an open wireless network and then to a VPN afterwards would circumvent that problem. It'd be nice and convenient.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Definitely not on the iPhone. The closes it comes is automatically displaying a list of available networks if there are any and you aren't connected to wifi, and letting you connect to one if you explicitly ask for it.
Zikes 14y ago
By default, my Nexus S will notify me when an open network is available but it will not connect automatically unless the wifi SSID matches an SSID I've previously connected to. I would be surprised if any device would be set up to just connect to any available open network, it would be terribly insecure. As it is, I'm disappointed that I can't configure my device to only automatically connect to SSIDs with certain matching MAC addresses. I consider it fairly insecure that it will simply assume that "linksys" is trustworthy anywhere in the world just because my ex girlfriend lived out on a farm where wifi security wasn't worth the hassle.
- alanh 14y ago
  > it will simply assume that "linksys" is trustworthy anywhere … just because … on a farm, wifi security wasn't worth the hassle. Amusing anecdote and yet another argument for much more intelligent defaults (I’m thinking of network names).
themckman 14y ago
From the article: At last year's Super Bowl in Indianapolis, Wi-Fi from 604 access points supported 8,260 simultaneous connections at its peak, while 12,946 attendees were on the Wi-Fi at some point during the game. Seems like support for 30,000 simultaneous connections should be ample.
GigabyteCoin 14y ago
Just because 100% of the audience is capable of using wifi doesn't mean that 100% of them will be using it simultaneously. Tickets cost a minimum of $2,000 on stubhub.com for nosebleed seats. This event only happens once a year. People really want to see this thing live. With a drink in one hand, popcorn in the other, and a smile on their face, I would be surprised if more than 10% of the audience was glued to their phone at any one given time.
- e40 14y ago
  Depends on the age of the audience. I'm guessing it would be skewed to an older crowd, but I wouldn't put it past young people (under 30?) to want to connect to wifi and use their phone all through the game. I am continually amazed how many people use cell phones in situations where they shouldn't need them (movies, dates, etc).
- CrazedGeek 14y ago
  Although, I'd imagine there'd be a deluge of connections any time there's an interruption in the game. Which, given that this is football, seems like it'd happen pretty frequently.
- nicw 14y ago
  The article points out that during the 3 hours of the Superbowl, only an average of 11 minutes is actual playing time. That's a lot of downtime where fans in those $2,000 seats will be watching replay videos, uploading their own, and checking stats.
ismarc 14y ago
From past experience, planning for 30,000 simultaneous connections is in the right range. What they don't cover is peak association rate (how many people per second can associate to the APs and have the LWAPS/controllers not fall over. They also don't cover the connection rate (number of devices per second pulling and clicking through the AUP/whatever page). Simultaneous users is actually less of a problem than the rate at which those simultaneous users connect.

anigbrowl 14y ago

I think the majority of people will be absorbed in the game and entertainment. When I go to a sports game it has to be a poor match for me to start laying with my phone. I might check it while waiting in line for a hot dog or something, but the number of people wandering around << the number of people in their seats.

TsiCClawOfLight 14y ago
what game? you mean the downtime between the rare actions? I enjoy football, but the way it's monetized by the NFL is simply sickening.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  True, but irrelevant.
klinquist 14y ago
You will essentially have zero cell coverage in the stadium.. iphone / imessage users can use the wifi to send/receive texts... "hey need another beer?"

dangrossman 14y ago

> Many phone will jump onto an open network if at all possible, won't they? I've never seen a phone that will do that by default. You have to manually join a network at least once before it'll be added to the list to auto-reconnect.

Wilya 14y ago
I believe it is (or was at some point) an option for the iPhone, and a few other phones. I've always found it silly, because in my experience, "Open network" never means "just connect and it will work". At best, you have to agree to a few terms of service (which requires action from me), at worst, you have to authenticate and/or pay or there is another security measure preventing access (MAC whitelist, etc).
- necubi 14y ago
  I rather doubt that, as it would be a big security problem. If phones auto-connected to open APs, anybody could run a rogue one and collect passwords, sessions, etc.
  - diminoten 14y ago
    It is, and people do, from what I understood. I might be wrong, though, or it might have been something that's since been rectified. I use a "feature" phone now, so I don't actually know what the most current phones do.
  - shurane 14y ago
    Autoconnecting to an open wireless network and then to a VPN afterwards would circumvent that problem. It'd be nice and convenient.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- mikeash 14y ago
  Definitely not on the iPhone. The closes it comes is automatically displaying a list of available networks if there are any and you aren't connected to wifi, and letting you connect to one if you explicitly ask for it.

Zikes 14y ago

By default, my Nexus S will notify me when an open network is available but it will not connect automatically unless the wifi SSID matches an SSID I've previously connected to. I would be surprised if any device would be set up to just connect to any available open network, it would be terribly insecure. As it is, I'm disappointed that I can't configure my device to only automatically connect to SSIDs with certain matching MAC addresses. I consider it fairly insecure that it will simply assume that "linksys" is trustworthy anywhere in the world just because my ex girlfriend lived out on a farm where wifi security wasn't worth the hassle.

alanh 14y ago
> it will simply assume that "linksys" is trustworthy anywhere … just because … on a farm, wifi security wasn't worth the hassle. Amusing anecdote and yet another argument for much more intelligent defaults (I’m thinking of network names).

themckman 14y ago

From the article: At last year's Super Bowl in Indianapolis, Wi-Fi from 604 access points supported 8,260 simultaneous connections at its peak, while 12,946 attendees were on the Wi-Fi at some point during the game. Seems like support for 30,000 simultaneous connections should be ample.

GigabyteCoin 14y ago

Just because 100% of the audience is capable of using wifi doesn't mean that 100% of them will be using it simultaneously. Tickets cost a minimum of $2,000 on stubhub.com for nosebleed seats. This event only happens once a year. People really want to see this thing live. With a drink in one hand, popcorn in the other, and a smile on their face, I would be surprised if more than 10% of the audience was glued to their phone at any one given time.

e40 14y ago
Depends on the age of the audience. I'm guessing it would be skewed to an older crowd, but I wouldn't put it past young people (under 30?) to want to connect to wifi and use their phone all through the game. I am continually amazed how many people use cell phones in situations where they shouldn't need them (movies, dates, etc).
CrazedGeek 14y ago
Although, I'd imagine there'd be a deluge of connections any time there's an interruption in the game. Which, given that this is football, seems like it'd happen pretty frequently.
nicw 14y ago
The article points out that during the 3 hours of the Superbowl, only an average of 11 minutes is actual playing time. That's a lot of downtime where fans in those $2,000 seats will be watching replay videos, uploading their own, and checking stats.

ismarc 14y ago

From past experience, planning for 30,000 simultaneous connections is in the right range. What they don't cover is peak association rate (how many people per second can associate to the APs and have the LWAPS/controllers not fall over. They also don't cover the connection rate (number of devices per second pulling and clicking through the AUP/whatever page). Simultaneous users is actually less of a problem than the rate at which those simultaneous users connect.