improving the wi-fi in the carrier dome feasibility report

Improving the Carrier Dome’s Wi-Fi Network Performance

By Kunal Sharma

Senior, School of Information Studies

Syracuse University

December 10, 2015

Feasibility Report on Improving the Carrier Dome’s Wi-Fi Network Performance

Table of ContentsIntroduction.........................................................................................................................................................................................3

Present State:.................................................................................................................................................................................3

Problem:.........................................................................................................................................................................................3

Stakeholders:.................................................................................................................................................................................4

Options................................................................................................................................................................................................5

Introduction to the Options...........................................................................................................................................................5

Restructuring the Current Wi-Fi Setup........................................................................................................................................5

Incorporating Data Limits on Video Content...............................................................................................................................5

Install a New Wi-Fi Network..........................................................................................................................................................5

Criteria.................................................................................................................................................................................................6

Introduction to Criteria..................................................................................................................................................................6

Cost.................................................................................................................................................................................................6

Time................................................................................................................................................................................................6

Human Resources.........................................................................................................................................................................6

Scope of Work................................................................................................................................................................................6

Communication..............................................................................................................................................................................7

Quality............................................................................................................................................................................................7

Risk.................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Longevity........................................................................................................................................................................................7

Methods and Protocols......................................................................................................................................................................7

Introduction to Research..............................................................................................................................................................7

Research Methods.........................................................................................................................................................................7

Interview of Student Employee....................................................................................................................................................7

Interview Plan of Internal Stakeholders.......................................................................................................................................8

Online Research..........................................................................................................................................................................8

Wi-Fi Characteristics Testing at Manley Field House...................................................................................................................9

Errors in Testing.......................................................................................................................................................................11

Evaluation of Options.......................................................................................................................................................................12

Option 1 - Restructuring the Current Wi-Fi Setup.....................................................................................................................12

Option 2 - Incorporating Data Limits on Video Content...........................................................................................................12

Option 3 - Install a New Wi-Fi Network.......................................................................................................................................13

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................................................14

Recommendation.........................................................................................................................................................................15

Sources and Works Cited:...............................................................................................................................................................16

Glossary............................................................................................................................................................................................17

Appendix...........................................................................................................................................................................................19

Interview with Christian Soto......................................................................................................................................................19

Carrier Dome Level 2 – More of the Same.......................................................................................................................................19

1


Executive SummaryThe project that I am presenting this feasibility report on is intended to improve the slow Wi-Fi performance in the Carrier Dome. As the resident athletic facility for Syracuse University, it is necessary to provide optimum performance for event attendees due to the modern need for uploading and downloading media, especially with the emergence of Wi-Fi capacity-sapping video media. The current situation of the Dome’s Wi-Fi network is that due to large crowds during events and the large number of Wi-Fi devices that they possess, there is a huge load that is placed on the network. The current network setup is not equipped to handle this load as presently constituted, and so event attendees receive slow Wi-Fi network performance. The key stakeholders for this project are the Carrier Dome staff that will be directly involved in decision-making: Chief Facilities Officer Peter Sala, Senior IT Coordinator Don Howard, Technical Manager Rob DeFrancisco, and Athletics Director Mark Coyle. In researching possible solutions, my methods consisted of conducting interviews with some of the stakeholders as well as a student who works at the Dome, gathering information on network solutions companies and their cost quotes, obtaining online data pertaining to Wi-Fi and its usage in stadium venues, and conducting basic network environment testing at Manley Field House. Based on this research, I have proposed three possible options for solving the problem. These options consisted of restructuring the current Wi-Fi network setup, incorporating data limits by throttling video content (which was introduced to me during my research), or installing a new Wi-Fi network system. My criteria for evaluating these options included cost effectiveness, time commitment, scope of work, human resources, communication methods, solution lifespan, quality, and level of risk. Following upon the modern path that stadiums are taking when dealing with high density networks, I recommend the third option, which is that the Dome should involve a WLAN vendor (Wide Local Area Network vendor) organization and install a new network setup in the Dome, thus improving the performance.

2


Introduction

Present State:This feasibility report on my presented solutions starts with identifying the present state of the Carrier Dome. The Dome has many capabilities that allow it to provide Wi-Fi to its attendants. The large crowds at events mean that they bring a large number of Wi-Fi devices, creating a dense environment known as a high density network. Every public Wi-Fi network uses access points that authenticate users and direct them to the closest point. The function of every network is to provide the best coverage possible with as little interference as possible. The Dome uses access points with directional antennas, which provide a lot of coverage distance in a straight line from where the antenna is deployed. These antennas have both a strength and a weakness. The strength is that they can cover a lot of distance in a straight line to a large amount of people throughout the stadium, but the weakness is that their signals can interfere with each other at various points in the stadium. This results in a situation where if there is a large number of users on each access point, the interference impacts network performance. In today’s digital world, the average number of WiFi-capable mobile devices (e.g. cell phones, laptops, tablets) carried per person is 2.7 (WiFi SPARK). In 2014, 64 percent of consumer internet traffic was video content. This number is on pace to increase to 80 percent by 2019 (Cisco VNI). Video content is particularly exhausting of network resources because due to the large size of video files, each instance of video uploading or streaming takes up a large amount of bandwidth space. Therefore, it is very important for a strong Wi-Fi network to exist in any venue that has video uploading and streaming. Since the Carrier Dome is a large venue for events where video content is prevalent, there is a huge burden that is placed on these access points during major events at the Dome.

3


Problem: Here is the issue that I researched and presented feasible solutions for in this report. I conducted an interview with Christian Soto, a networking employee at the Dome who has adept knowledge about Wi-Fi as well as an understanding of the current situation in the Dome. Based off of his insight, I was able to develop an accurate problem statement of the situation. There is an inability of the Carrier Dome’s current Wi-Fi setup to properly cope with the average of 2.7 Wi-Fi devices per person. Wi-Fi has become an important and integral part of the audience experience at events, so it is key that those users do not have to deal with slow Wi-Fi and connectivity issues that exist at the Dome. As previously stated, the access points are unable to handle this burden the way that they are structured and placed around the stadium. There are too many “dead spots” where obtaining a connection is impossible, and overall these issues have rendered the network

unviable. Figure 1 helps show the dead spots and lack of decent coverage in the seating areas. Figure 1. Carrier Dome Wi-Fi Coverage

This shows the coverage situation of Wi-Fi at the Carrier Dome. The illustration shows that many parts of the seating area and most of the concourses are out of the desired optimal coverage

range of any access points. - Courtesy of Syracuse University ITS

A good network performance is when each device is getting over a 20 mbps connection (Garrett). However, during major events, network speeds at the Dome drop to as low as 1 mbps (Soto), which explains the slow performance. In addition to that, event attendees are unable to

4


connect to their 4G network because the Dome’s thick concrete walls block out cell phone reception (Christian). This leads to all mobile devices having to be solely dependent on Wi-Fi for a network connection. This makes it even more imperative that a strong Wi-Fi connection is in place, and my report will determine what the feasible solutions are so that every event attendee at the Dome can attain a strong Wi-Fi connection for faster performance.

Stakeholders:The key stakeholders for this project will offer me their insight on the parameters of the project and will be directly involved in decision-making once the solutions are presented. It is imperative that all stakeholders know all the information they need to know about this project if it is to be feasible. The internal stakeholders are the Carrier Dome staff consisting of: Chief Facilities Officer Peter Sala, Senior IT Coordinator Don Howard, Technical Manager Rob DeFrancisco, and Athletics Director Mark Coyle. There are also two external stakeholders. Syracuse University’s Information Technology and Services (ITS) executes the scope of work for all IT projects on campus. Therefore, ITS Chief Information Officer Samuel Scozzafava will be kept in contact for every phase of the project solution. All Syracuse University projects need to be funded and a budget needs to be established, so Assistant Provost for Strategic Planning and Budget Roberta Jones will also be kept in contact. There is a possibility of another external stakeholder, which would be the WLAN vendor that the Dome would contract if such an option is decided upon.

Options

Introduction to the OptionsWhen considering possible options for this project, my main goal was selecting solutions that would truly improve the Carrier Dome’s Wi-Fi network performance. I have developed 3 feasible solutions I have researched into that would accomplish this goal. Each solution is unique, which means that each one has a different set of parameters and slightly different number of people involved.

Restructuring the Current Wi-Fi SetupThe directional antennas that the Dome’s access points use to provide network connection are not in their optimal setup for faster performance. These antennas have the capability to change the way that they are sending out signals in the Dome. What this would do is reduce the distance that each access point would cover, but it would optimize the close proximity around each one and increase the network connection speed of each device. This practical solution would elevate the connection speed for each device from 1 mbps, but it is not expected to get them close to the desired standard of 20 mbps to reach optimum performance.

Incorporating Data Limits on Video ContentThis solution was presented to me, based on its affordability, during the end of my research process during a phone call to Cisco Stadium Solutions. The problem is that there is a high volume of capacity-sapping video content that mobile device users transmit over networks. In order to increase network connection speeds, incorporate a video data limit by throttling the network traffic that comes from the leading video data applications such as Youtube and ESPN

5


Video (Cisco VNI). This would free up space on the network for non-video users to attain a strong connection. This solution works for non-video mobile data users, but it does not truly solve the problem because it doesn’t help that 64 percent-and-counting of mobile data users that upload and stream video content. This is not the best option for keeping people happy, but instead can be contradictory to solving the problem.

Install a New Wi-Fi NetworkThis solution is based on its desirability and the fact that it is technically sound. By involving a WLAN Vendor to come and install a new system, the Dome’s marketability and relevance would increase due to the appeal of the new system and the social media advantages that mobile device users will receive. Video content of Carrier Dome events would become part of the national data content and media availability stage (Cisco VNI). This installation of a modern network would enable each device on the network to attain the desirable 20 mbps connection speed needed for video content because of the strong network connection. This solution is the most promising, but has an incredibly higher cost as compared to the other two options.

Criteria

Introduction to CriteriaUsing the concepts of project management, I began the process to develop the necessary criteria for evaluation of any solution. For every IT project, the Systems Development Life Cycle is a key process for planning, analyzing, designing, testing, implementing, and maintaining that project and its outcomes. Ultimately, the Systems Development Life Cycle determines the longevity of any IT project. Therefore, I developed a set of criteria that would impact the feasibility of my solutions by the level that each one is technical, practical, desirable, and affordable.

CostEvery project has a budget, and a set amount of costs. The costs for this project will be presented to Assistant Provost for Strategic Planning and Budget Roberta Jones, who will cross-reference these costs with her project budget. Any project solution will have to be evaluated based on its cost-effectiveness, and this criterion will be a big factor in determining the feasibility of that project.

TimeThe amount of time that every Dome employee and staff can commit will be a big factor in evaluating whether or not the project is feasible. The time schedule of the project cannot be too extensive, because the Dome is used for events year-round. The project also cannot occur during football or basketball season, which sets the feasible timeframe from April to August. The project solution will be weighed on availability of employees for that project, as well as the schedule of work.

6


Human ResourcesThere are many departments at the Dome, and many employees within those departments. Any project will have to be evaluated by how many people it involves and what departments it involves. The less people involved, the more feasible the project is.

Scope of WorkThe amount of labor hours that need to be put into the project cannot be extensive. This is a project that involves something beyond the standard day-to-day operations of the Dome, so its feasibility will be evaluated by how much work needs to be done.

CommunicationThe Dome uses a specific call center-based communication system throughout the building. There is also an organizational email that employees have and are comfortable with using to communicate. Any project would have to be able to set communication methods within these two mediums.

QualityThe project has to solve the problem and reach the purpose that it was originally intended for. It will be evaluated on how thorough and compliant the project is with the objective.

RiskThe project cannot have a threat that is likely to happen that can prevent quality assurance or cause major issues. If the project is more likely to have a negative outcome than it is to succeed, then it is not feasible. Using the SWOT analysis, every project option will be evaluated.

LongevityThe project has to be either a long-term solution or one that practically fixes the problem. If not, then the project will be evaluated by if the spending of resources is worth what the project brings to the table. If a successful long-term solution can be feasible, then it supersedes the concept of the short-term solution.

Methods and Protocols

Introduction to ResearchIn order for me to solidify the feasible solutions to the problem, I conducted research at many levels to determine the causes of the problem and gather all pertinent information. To start, my qualifications as an Information Management and Technology senior helped me prepare and take the right approach to dealing with the technical and management concepts of this project. My research plan consisted of many aspects, including interviewing a student employee, interviewing stakeholders, gathering online data, contacting WLAN vendor organizations, and conducting performance testing at Manley Field House. Each one of these research opportunities gave me insight into a different aspect of the complex problem, and ultimately led me to the solution possibilities.

7


Research Methods

Interview of Student EmployeeFor my research, I interviewed Christian Soto, an employee at the Carrier Dome who works in networking and is familiar with the problem. He generously agreed to give me insight on what’s going on with Wi-Fi at the Dome. I asked him a few questions pertaining to his general experiences with the Dome’s Wi-Fi network, his thoughts towards the problem, and his ideas on possible solutions. He brought something to my attention when he discussed the characteristics of the network. He explained that during the workweek when the staff is preparing the Dome for an event, the building is essentially empty. During these instances, the Wi-Fi connection performance works perfectly fine with a strong signal, great bandwidth, and continuity as you walk around the Dome. However, when the Dome is full during major events, there’s the issue of contention. That is when the performance of the network goes down. Devices only get approximately 1 mbps of network connection speed, which is well below current Wi-Fi standards. Christian also mentioned that because the Dome’s thick, concrete walls, cellular reception for mobile data gets blocked. According to him, the cutoff where good Wi-Fi network performance degrades to bad performance can be placed at 5000 people, and all major events have well over 10,000 people. Finally, his input on possible solutions was that the directional antenna access points needed to either be replaced or repositioned.

Interview Plan of Internal Stakeholders For my feasibility report, I had originally planned to conduct short interviews of approximately 45 minutes with each of the four internal stakeholders, Don Howard, Rob DeFrancisco, Peter Sala, and Mark Coyle. This endeavor turned out to be very ambitious, because Mr. Howard was the only one who was able to give me some of his time, for about 15 minutes. This forced me to narrow the questions I wanted to ask and focus on the critical points I wanted to understand and gather information on. As the Senior IT Coordinator for the Dome, Mr. Howard introduced me to the network infrastructure, and told me that JMA Wireless was the current vendor for their technology. He explained how they connect the network to services such as ticket sales, point-of-sale booths, the Dome’s call center, and operations such as energy management and parking resources. Finally, I wanted to know background information for the criteria that I was developing, and so these were the answers that I got:

● Cost for Labor - From $30,000-50,000 per day based on the type of project and number of people involved.

● Time Constraint - Any project has to be done during the basketball and football offseason, so this places the feasible timeframe from April-August.

● Human Resources - Anytime the Dome is operational, many departments have to be working. The estimate was placed at 75-150 employees present based on the type of project.

● Communication - The Dome uses phone extensions originating from the call center and going to every office. Employees and staff also communicate through the organizational email.

● Risks - There is a timeframe where there will be no operational Wi-Fi network. This means that there will be no Wi-Fi at the Dome during any events at the Dome during that time, and all the services that depend on it would be suspended or placed on a contingency plan until project completion.

8


Online ResearchI used multiple websites to obtain online data pertaining to Wi-Fi and its usage in stadium venues, as well as gathering information on network solutions companies and their cost factors.

● WIFI Spark - The average number of mobile devices carried per person has risen to 2.7 devices.

● Garrett Kelly from Angie’s List - A good network performance is where each device is getting over a 20 mbps connection.

● Cisco Virtual Networking Index (VNI) - In 2014, 64 percent of consumer internet traffic was video content. This number is on pace to increase to 80 percent by 2019. After calling the number from the Cisco networking solutions department, I was told that networking companies only give cost quotes after consulting with stadium administration. Therefore, I should use the data for the average cost estimates for a stadium facility.

● Lee Badman on Wirednot - Average conservative total of $1.25 million for a new Wi-Fi network for each current stadium facility. (Non-conservative would be the over $10 million cost for the 49’s new Levi’s Stadium)

● ITS - Provided the current Wi-Fi site survey map of the Carrier Dome.

Wi-Fi Characteristics Testing at Manley Field HouseThe purpose of conducting testing at Manley Field House was to find out how Wi-Fi devices interact with a directional antenna. The impact factors that I focused on were aimed to simulate the Wi-Fi device location in relation to the antenna and the coverage mode that the antenna was in. The device can either be in close range (under 50 yards away) or it can be at long range (over 100 yards). Also, the antenna can either be in horizontal mode or in vertical mode, as figure 2 illustrates. The Cisco Aironet directional patch antenna was loaned to me by the iSchool CCENT lab.

Figure 2. Coverage of a Directional Antenna

This diagram shows the coverage of a Wi-Fi directional antenna when it is in vertical mode vs. horizontal mode. The vertical signal covers more distance in a straight direction, but the

9


horizontal signal is stronger for the area that it encompasses, and covers more distance to either the left or right side of the antenna.

The theory for my test was that due to Manley Field House being devoid of any high density environment, all of the network connection speeds for my test results would be well over 1 mbps. However, the connection speeds would be greater when the antenna is set to horizontal mode than when it is set to vertical mode. If this is the case, then it would prove that the antennas work better in horizontal coverage mode. My testing method for the directional antenna involved two sections, with the first section having the antenna in vertical mode, and the second section having the antenna in horizontal mode. Each section involved four test sessions, and two of the tests involved two devices while the other two tests involved three devices. This was done in order to simulate how multiple devices interacted with the antenna while taking all factors that could affect test results into account. The test sessions with two devices were done with both devices close to the antenna, and then with one device being close while the other device was further away from the antenna. The test sessions with three devices were done with two devices close to the antenna and one further away, and then with one device close to the antenna and two further away. The criteria for the test was based on the measure of the network connection speed, and whether or not the devices had an equal connection speed. This showed how each device was receiving the signal from the antenna. Using the Jperf wireless software tool, I was able to compile results for each of the eight test sessions, given in figures 3.1 - 3.4. The spread of total connection speed between the devices can vary from 35-50 mbps, which is a normal characteristic of Wi-Fi. Also, each test were conducted as a 2-minute session.

Figure 3.1

10


Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3

11


Figure 3.4

As the results indicate, the network connection speed at horizontal coverage mode was greater for the devices than at vertical coverage mode. The most telling results were that in horizontal coverage mode, devices that were in close range had the highest connection speed of any of the test sessions by a significant margin, proving that this is the most efficient setup out of any possible directional antenna setup.

Errors in TestingThere were two minor errors that could have impacted the results of my testing:

● Human error: While I was conducting the testing, I had to make sure that all devices started the Jperf software testing session at the same time and stopped after exactly 2 minutes. This was done as close to perfectly as possible.

● Manley Field House does not have the thick walls that the Carrier Dome does, so cell reception does get through. It is understood, however, that cellular networks operate on different frequencies, and should not have any impact at all on Wi-Fi testing.

Evaluation of Options

Option 1 - Restructuring the Current Wi-Fi Setup

CostThis solution has a very moderate cost when compared to the others. Although it costs more than Option 2, it significantly lower than Option 3. Since there are no external stakeholders or new purchases to be made, the labor costs of $30,000-$50,000 stand alone.

TimeThis project can be done within a week, so there are no issues with timeframe.

Human Resources

12


The amount of human resources involved would be about 75-150 employees, which is feasible for a short project.

Scope of WorkThe scope of work is less than the scope of work for Option 3, and only slightly more than Option 2, although that option comes with a scope of work for continuous maintenance.

CommunicationSince this project will take place in the Dome, there are no issues with communication.

QualityThis project meets quality standards because it does solve the problem it was intended for, even if it is not the most desirable option.

RiskThere is little risk involved with this project because the research in my report showed that directional antennas can work more efficiently without any setbacks. The Carrier Dome has 450 antennas, which are enough to convert over to horizontal coverage mode.

LongevityThis solution is a short-term option, and choosing this option would be based on the money saved and the small scope of work, while trying to provide the best service possible.

Option 2 - Incorporating Data Limits on Video Content

CostThis solution has the lowest cost when compared to the other solutions. Since there are no external stakeholders, new purchases, or extensive labor costs, the one-time cost at the genesis of this project is for minimal labor of under $1500. However, there is a repeated cost for maintaining the integrity of the data limits and to ensure that network traffic is monitored.

TimeThe timeframe for this project is the least amount of the three options, as it can be done in two days.

Scope of WorkThe scope of work for the implementation phase of the project is minimal, but there is a continued scope of work due to maintenance of the solution.

Human ResourcesThere would be less than 20 employees involved for conducting the scope of work, which is very feasible. However, it is important to note that there will be an especially high level of involvement from the Chancellor’s office because the act of content filtering or limiting requires legal processes.

Communication and Risk

13


Since the project will take place in the Dome, there are no issues with communication during the scope of work, but communicating with the Chancellor’s office can take time, adding a risk that comes from external factors.

QualityThis project does not truly meet quality standards because it does not make Wi-Fi in the Dome a better experience for event attendees, which brings the feasibility of this option into question.

LongevityFinally, this solution is more long-term than Option 1, but it is not as long-term as Option 3. Choosing this option would be based on the immediate money saved, the small scope of work, and the belief that reducing video content will make the Wi-Fi experience better.

Option 3 - Install a New Wi-Fi Network

CostThis solution has a much higher cost when compared to Option 1 and Option 2. The question of feasibility with this option lies in the cost. There are multiple external stakeholders that would be involved in this project, as well as extensive costs for purchasing and labor. Badman’s estimate for Wi-Fi in stadiums puts the purchasing costs at $1.25 million, and then add up the approximate of $250,000 in additional labor costs to get total costs at around $1.5 million, which is well beyond the costs for either of the other two options.

TimeThe timeframe for this project is for a few months, which means that the project has to be contracted with a WLAN vendor from before April and needs to start as soon as possible once April arrives.

Scope of WorkThe scope of work is immense, but the WLAN vendor will be conducting a lot of that scope of work.

Human ResourcesThere will be over 100 employees and 25 staff members that would be involved. The Chancellor’s office will also be involved in any final sign-offs, but if this project is deemed feasible by the decision-makers, then that would be a smooth process.

Communication and RiskThere would be a risk for a communication issue since a third-party vendor is directly involved. However, since the scope of work will be conducted at the Dome, any risk can be mitigated.

Quality and RiskThere is also another risk that if the project is not completed by August, then there is a threat of not having the Wi-Fi setup ready to go by football season. However, this risk can be mitigated by a quality assurance agreement with the WLAN vendor.

Longevity

14


The Systems Development Life Cycle of the project would be the average of 10 years for any IT project. If this option is chosen, it will be due to its longevity to last over a decade, which can be up until the Dome is replaced as the athletic facility of Syracuse University. In addition to that, it will be chosen because it is the best option for solving the problem of slow Wi-Fi. Figure 4 illustrates how WLAN vendors have introduced the new, more efficient wave of Wi-Fi network antenna deployment.

Figure 4. The New High-Density Stadium Wi-Fi Model.This illustrates the movement to transition from legacy distance-based coveraged models to more

efficient coverage models that improve network connection speeds for mobile devices.- Cisco VNI

ConclusionMy research confirmed the problem statement, in that the Carrier Dome Wi-Fi network is not equipped to handle the load that current mobile data users produce. The methods I integrated allowed me to find the best possible solutions that matched the necessary criteria to make any project feasible. Each solution presented a way to make the Wi-Fi connection speed faster, although some solutions may be more feasible than others. The goal for my feasibility report was to use this research to bring awareness to the fact that a faster Wi-Fi network connection needs to exist at the Dome. It will benefit both the Dome and the event attendees, helping to bring both sides the real element of video data for the first time.

RecommendationAfter careful consideration of the criteria and benefits, I conclude that installing a new Wi-Fi network is the best solution for the Dome. I base this on the longevity of this solution, as well as the quality assurance factor. This one-time cost will set up the Dome to take the next step in the athletic facility business, because this will provide it with the technical capabilities to be one of the more relevant facilities in sports. After the one-time costs, this solution will be easy to manage and develop into a successful and integral part of the Dome’s operations.

15


Sources and Works Cited:

1) Soto, Christian. Personal Interview. 7 November 2015.

2) WiFi SPARK. WiFi Sectors. Stadium WiFi. Web. 2015. Link: www.wifispark.com/wifi-sectors/stadium-wifi

3) Kelly, Garrett. Angie’s List. How Much Wi-Fi Speed Do You Need? Web. 11 June 2013. Link: www.angieslist.com/articles/how-much-wi-fi-speed-do-you-need.htm

16


4) Cisco VNI. Cisco Virtual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2014-2019 White Paper. Web. 27 May 2015.

Link: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/ip-ngn-ip-next- generation-network/white_paper_c11-481360.html

5) Badman, Lee. Wirednot. What’s Big Deal w/ Stadium Wi-Fi? Let Me Spell it Out for You. Web. 22 January 2014.

Link: https://wirednot.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/whats-the-big-deal-with-stadium-wi-fi-let- me-spell-it-out-for-you/

6) Syracuse University Information Technology and Services. Wireless locations. Carrier Dome Wi-Fi. Web. Image. 2015.

Glossary

Wi-Fi - Local area wireless networking technology that allows electronic devices to connect to a network.

Capacity-sapping - Any form of data that exhausts the resources of a Wi-Fi network, leaving the rest of the network with limited resources to allocate to the rest of the users.

17


Throttling - Intentional limiting and containing of a specific web service or data type, usually to prevent capacity-sapping.

High-Density Network - Any location, such as an airport, shopping mall, or stadium where a large amount of users with Wi-Fi mobile devices gather in a confined area.

WLAN Vendor - Any company or organization that sells high-density Wi-Fi implementation services to clients such as sports facilities.

Access Point - A device that allows a wireless device to connect to a network via Wi-Fi.

Coverage - The distance and area that a Wi-Fi antenna encompasses.

Interference - Anything that can cause Wi-Fi frequency waves to become corrupt or prevent them from reaching the intended receiving device.

Directional Antenna - A Wi-Fi antenna that transmits and receives in a specified direction.

Network Performance - The connection speed at which a device is sending and receiving data on a network. Measured in mbps.

Mobile Device - Any device that has wireless capabilities that can connect to Wi-Fi to send and receive all forms of data.

Internet Traffic - Flow of data across the internet.

Bandwidth - The total amount of available data capacity that needs to be divided and allocated on a Wi-Fi network.

Dead Spot - Any portion or area of a Wi-Fi network where there is no signal reception and a device that was previously connected to the network will disconnect at that spot.

Mega-Bits Per Second (Mbps) - The measure of the total information flow over a given period of time. Used to measure bandwidth.

Project Management - The technique of carefully planning, organizing, motivating, and controlling project resources.

Systems Development Life Cycle - Conceptual model used in project management to describe the stages of an IT project, from feasibility study to maintenance cycle.

SWOT Analysis - Analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, & threats of a given project.

Information Management and Technology - The study of computer information systems as well as the coding and technology behind them.

18


Continuity - State where your device stays connected to the Wi-Fi network wherever you move inside the venue. Site Survey - A conducted set of plans of a wireless network, or a design of the blueprint.

CCENT - Center for Convergence and Emerging Network Technologies at the iSchool

Jperf - A software network testing tool that can send data streams to simulate network traffic.

Overhead - The difference between the advertised bandwidth of a network and the actual connection speed of a device on that network.

AppendixInterview with Christian Soto

- As an employee, how is the Wi-Fi at the Dome?- When it’s empty when I work, it works perfectly fine. Strong signal, great bandwidth,

walk around the dome and not lose your connection.

19


- When it’s full, issue of contention, they use directional antennas with access points to cover a lot of people. (At least once a week, for all football games, basketball games, and special events)

- Feelings on Wi-Fi in the Dome?- I feel confident in being able to get a reliable, strong connection up to the point where we

have a moderate crowd. Because the concrete walls of the Dome knock out 4G signal, the devices are even more reliant on Wi-Fi. But it’s fine when there’s not a lot of people, say, under 5000 people. The problem is that when we get to a certain point and there is a big crowd, there is too much contention from everyone’s devices and not enough bandwidth allocated to each access point the way it’s set up.

- How did it affect your overall experience?- As an employee, I understand the problem, so I don’t get as frustrated. I know that

stadiums are a difficult environment to deploy Wi-Fi. I don’t need a network connection for much since I am working at the Dome at that time.

- What solutions do you have in mind?- I just think that the access point directional antennas need to be replaced or readjusted.

They aren’t going to function well the way they are today. The demands on the network have gotten too large for them. There is a lot of overhead.

Carrier Dome Level 2 – More Visuals on the Dome’s Wi-Fi

20

improving the wi-fi in the carrier dome feasibility report

Documents