Comments on: Disconnected Conferences.. http://cimota.com/blog/2008/12/10/disconnected-conferences/ Matt Johnston's Blog About Tech, Innovation, Startups, Opportunity ... and Sailing Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:54:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: test http://cimota.com/blog/2008/12/10/disconnected-conferences/comment-page-1/#comment-30790 test Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:12:07 +0000 http://cimota.com/blog/?p=1369#comment-30790 test test

]]> By: mj http://cimota.com/blog/2008/12/10/disconnected-conferences/comment-page-1/#comment-30779 mj Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:02:42 +0000 http://cimota.com/blog/?p=1369#comment-30779 They don't care and they don't need to know. But someone who designs networks needs to know the difference. Again, every IT conference I've ever been to has had shit WiFi. Coincidence? No. They don’t care and they don’t need to know. But someone who designs networks needs to know the difference.

Again, every IT conference I’ve ever been to has had shit WiFi.

Coincidence? No.

]]> By: Evert Bopp http://cimota.com/blog/2008/12/10/disconnected-conferences/comment-page-1/#comment-30778 Evert Bopp Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:29:16 +0000 http://cimota.com/blog/?p=1369#comment-30778 I was looking at it from a users perspective. Users don't give a damn if it is packet switched or something else. But yes, you are right in saying that multiple users reduce the amount of bandwidth available per users and also that a single 802.11b user on an 802.11g router will bring all users down to 802.11b speeds. But only on a bog standard ap/router. If you implement bandwidth management you can make sure that every user gets the same amount of bandwidth irrespective if they are the only user or number 20. Intelligent/mananged AP's can also handle p2p traffic perfectly by only allowing a certain amount of available bandwidth to p2p traffic. I do NOT believe in blocking certain services. As for your experience with wifi at conferences; you're absolutely right and it confirms my statement in my blogpost. However the problem is not in wifi hardware in general. It lies squarely with badly managed wifi using unsuitable equipment. I was looking at it from a users perspective. Users don’t give a damn if it is packet switched or something else.
But yes, you are right in saying that multiple users reduce the amount of bandwidth available per users and also that a single 802.11b user on an 802.11g router will bring all users down to 802.11b speeds.
But only on a bog standard ap/router. If you implement bandwidth management you can make sure that every user gets the same amount of bandwidth irrespective if they are the only user or number 20. Intelligent/mananged AP’s can also handle p2p traffic perfectly by only allowing a certain amount of available bandwidth to p2p traffic. I do NOT believe in blocking certain services.

As for your experience with wifi at conferences; you’re absolutely right and it confirms my statement in my blogpost. However the problem is not in wifi hardware in general. It lies squarely with badly managed wifi using unsuitable equipment.

]]> By: mj http://cimota.com/blog/2008/12/10/disconnected-conferences/comment-page-1/#comment-30772 mj Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:32:28 +0000 http://cimota.com/blog/?p=1369#comment-30772 The CDMA I refer to is Collision Detect, Multiple Access (I admit I should have used CSMA/CD). This means the number of users drastically reduces bandwidth and it only gets worse when you permit backward compatibility. This is not the same as switched IP networks which are used in a backbone - you can't compare packet switched networks with multiple users at the bank end of a router. I've been going to commercial conferences for IT and networking with WiFi since 1999 and never found a conference that did it well. Coincidence? I think not. WiFi: great for home. The CDMA I refer to is Collision Detect, Multiple Access (I admit I should have used CSMA/CD). This means the number of users drastically reduces bandwidth and it only gets worse when you permit backward compatibility. This is not the same as switched IP networks which are used in a backbone – you can’t compare packet switched networks with multiple users at the bank end of a router.

I’ve been going to commercial conferences for IT and networking with WiFi since 1999 and never found a conference that did it well. Coincidence? I think not.

WiFi: great for home.

]]> By: Evert Bopp http://cimota.com/blog/2008/12/10/disconnected-conferences/comment-page-1/#comment-30769 Evert Bopp Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:55:27 +0000 http://cimota.com/blog/?p=1369#comment-30769 Matt, I was not referring to CDMA and neither were you in my opinion. What I was referring to is that the available bandwidth on wifi is shared between all users similar to contention on wired Internet access. Also wifi uses "single carrier direct sequence spread spectrum" or "multi-carrier Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing" while CDMA is similar to DSSS it is not the same. Lastly while 1998 vintage wifi hardware was not able to scale past 10 or so users quite a bit of the current hardware is. The main limitation is that the available bandwidth decreases as the number of users increases. radio chipsets and wifi operating systems are well able to handle up to 100 concurrent users in some cases. Matt, I was not referring to CDMA and neither were you in my opinion. What I was referring to is that the available bandwidth on wifi is shared between all users similar to contention on wired Internet access.
Also wifi uses “single carrier direct sequence spread spectrum” or “multi-carrier Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing” while CDMA is similar to DSSS it is not the same.

Lastly while 1998 vintage wifi hardware was not able to scale past 10 or so users quite a bit of the current hardware is. The main limitation is that the available bandwidth decreases as the number of users increases. radio chipsets and wifi operating systems are well able to handle up to 100 concurrent users in some cases.

]]> By: mj http://cimota.com/blog/2008/12/10/disconnected-conferences/comment-page-1/#comment-30767 mj Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:04:14 +0000 http://cimota.com/blog/?p=1369#comment-30767 Oh dear. The Internet is 'not' CDMA. It's also not 'shared' in the networking sense Mobile phone networks are also different, much more economic with spectrum, much higher power and in many cases switched. You're comparing elephants to oranges. The point being that wifi doesn't scale, it's not designed for many users. A decade of tech conferences (my first WiFi kit I bought for about a grand in 1998) have convinced me that it's consumer technology. Not designed fir more than 10 users per AP. Oh dear.

The Internet is ‘not’ CDMA. It’s also not ‘shared’ in the networking sense Mobile phone networks are also different, much more economic with spectrum, much higher power and in many cases switched. You’re comparing elephants to oranges.

The point being that wifi doesn’t scale, it’s not designed for many users.

A decade of tech conferences (my first WiFi kit I bought for about a grand in 1998) have convinced me that it’s consumer technology. Not designed fir more than 10 users per AP.

]]> By: Evert Bopp http://cimota.com/blog/2008/12/10/disconnected-conferences/comment-page-1/#comment-30765 Evert Bopp Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:42:17 +0000 http://cimota.com/blog/?p=1369#comment-30765 Matt, first of all you're comparing apples with oranges. 1) The OCC BBQ was a free event. There was no 1500 euro ticket charge. 2) The wifi at the OCC BBQ was fine in and around the Derg Inn and was only spotty in the hall where the presentations were held. Fully my fault but I ran out of time while setting it up. Being the sole organiser these things tend to happen. Apart from that area there were no complaint about the wifi. (and yes, I am ashamed for that one cock-up). Apart from that area there was 3Mbps solid wifi access. 3) The OCC BBQ was held out in the sticks where we had to put a wireless backhaul in place from 10 miles away. Considering all that we did a lot whole lot better than Le Web or quite a few other conferences. As for the wifi at the BizSpark launch; I was asked at the last moment if I could help out there as the "public" wifi was 22 euro a pop. I asked for an "open" ethernet connection so that I could run a wifi hotspot from it. As it turns out the wired ethernet was also routed via a Wayport captive portal asking for 22 euro a pop. The result was that the wifi worked but there was no backhaul so I switched it of. Also it was another free event. My gripe (if you want to call it that) is with overpriced, overhyped tech conferences that cannot even take care of a simple thing as wifi access. It's not like they don't have the time and budget to do so. There is no point in comparing these type of conferences with grassroot events such as Open Coffee Clubs or Barcamps and the likes.. Your comments about wifi as a standard/technology are without foundation. Not all wifi equipment is shit. Ruckus makes excellent wifi hardware as do Apple, Buffalo Tech, Ubiquity and a lot of other manufacturers. Yes there is shit wifi hardware for sale but that’s not the point. Wifi is not shit. "It's a shared medium"? What is the Internet then? And how about mobile phone networks? Matt, first of all you’re comparing apples with oranges.
1) The OCC BBQ was a free event. There was no 1500 euro ticket charge.
2) The wifi at the OCC BBQ was fine in and around the Derg Inn and was only spotty in the hall where the presentations were held. Fully my fault but I ran out of time while setting it up. Being the sole organiser these things tend to happen. Apart from that area there were no complaint about the wifi. (and yes, I am ashamed for that one cock-up). Apart from that area there was 3Mbps solid wifi access.
3) The OCC BBQ was held out in the sticks where we had to put a wireless backhaul in place from 10 miles away. Considering all that we did a lot whole lot better than Le Web or quite a few other conferences.

As for the wifi at the BizSpark launch; I was asked at the last moment if I could help out there as the “public” wifi was 22 euro a pop. I asked for an “open” ethernet connection so that I could run a wifi hotspot from it. As it turns out the wired ethernet was also routed via a Wayport captive portal asking for 22 euro a pop. The result was that the wifi worked but there was no backhaul so I switched it of. Also it was another free event.

My gripe (if you want to call it that) is with overpriced, overhyped tech conferences that cannot even take care of a simple thing as wifi access. It’s not like they don’t have the time and budget to do so. There is no point in comparing these type of conferences with grassroot events such as Open Coffee Clubs or Barcamps and the likes..

Your comments about wifi as a standard/technology are without foundation. Not all wifi equipment is shit. Ruckus makes excellent wifi hardware as do Apple, Buffalo Tech, Ubiquity and a lot of other manufacturers. Yes there is shit wifi hardware for sale but that’s not the point. Wifi is not shit.
“It’s a shared medium”? What is the Internet then? And how about mobile phone networks?

]]> By: Russell McQuillan http://cimota.com/blog/2008/12/10/disconnected-conferences/comment-page-1/#comment-30761 Russell McQuillan Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:13:14 +0000 http://cimota.com/blog/?p=1369#comment-30761 http://russellmcquillan.com/2008/12/11/wi-fi-at-conferences/ http://russellmcquillan.com/2008/12/11/wi-fi-at-conferences/

]]>