

Draconian ‘Wi-Fi police' stalk Olympic Games - srazzaque
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/draconian-wifi-police-stalk-olympic-games-20120803-23jdc.html

======
alan_cx
OK, lets get rid of the corporate sponsors, and charge £1000 per ticket
instead. No, let tax payers in the host country pay more for the event,
because as every Brit knows, we are not paying enough as a country, are we? Or
lets sell exclusive rights, and then renege on the exclusivity part.

How do people think this all gets paid for? Already the games cost the UK more
than double the original estimates. Business subsidises the games, to get
exclusivity. Not only that, inside that actual games they have zero presence.
So of course they will protect what little they bought. And yes, it is little.
Look at the corporate graffiti over ever other sports events, like the
football world cup. There is none what so ever with in the Olympic events
themselves.

I read here many people being reasonable about facebook and craigs list
protecting their assets, but the Olympics cant? How is that? Who can afford
the complete costs of the event with out the money of the corporations? Must
it be a "socialist" paid for by taxes Olympics alone? Is that what people are
saying. Olympic spirit? Well, that costs money.

Choice people, take the corporate money, or your government and the fans pay.
Choose. But if you want the corporate subsidy, don't complain about it
afterwards.

Or should the Olympics be play out in a field in the middle of nowhere so that
no one can watch it at all? The only other way this works is if the UN pays
for it, or something equally stupid.

It simple: its a very, very expensive event which happens every 4 years. It
needs corporate money to fund it, or no country, other than a super power, can
afford it. It has to be exclusive, or there is nothing what so ever in it for
the sponsors with out that exclusivity. That exclusivity has to be protected,
or no deal.

Do I like that? No. Do I like the fact that most of the big sponsors are not
British? No. But guys, lets be real, the money has to come form somewhere.

~~~
ktizo
There is sponsorship and then there is instituting a ban on selling chips and
using personal wifi.

One does not need to follow from the other.

This level of exclusivity is not something that should even be on the table to
purchase, as aspects of daily life such as the choice of food in London and
the permission for people who live there to use their own legal devices for
the purpose for which they were designed, is not the government's property to
sell unless we regard ourselves as nothing better than serfs.

~~~
krickle
Brilliantly put. There's selling exclusive sponsorship and then there's
purchasing legislation to exclude other vendors. That is absolutely
unacceptable, and is orders of magnitude worse than what Craigslist is doing,
which people still have the option of not using.

------
tzs
Anyone recall the story a while back where a bunch of IETF engineers were
attending a meeting, and they offered to fix the hotel's flakey wifi? Part of
the fix was getting rid of a lot of hotspots, because when you have too many
hotspots in an area they interfere with each other and make performance
crappy.

Won't the same problem happen if there are too many people trying to run
personal hotspots in a given area?

~~~
user49598
Yes, but you don't fix it by shutting them all down and making people pay for
something they could provide themselves. You make it free, 'cos it's the
Olympics and people need to communicate freely.

ps. wasn't my downvote, I think they're useless

edit-- well it seems you removed the part of your comment that called out your
down-voter and now i seem pedantic

~~~
freehunter
_making people pay for something they could provide themselves_

They could. At the expense of everyone else around them.

 _You make it free, 'cos it's the Olympics and people need to communicate
freely._

Go to a club on Thursday night (Thirsty Thursday) and try to have a
conversation with your friend. The same thing happens with wifi. Considering
the amount of wifi equipment used by the teams at the Olympics, I think it's
more pragmatic for the IOC to heavily regulate the spectrum to be sure the
coaches can do their job. When it's all said and done, the spirit of the
Olympics is about the athletes, not the fans.

~~~
user49598
Making everyone pay isn't a solution, it's a business plan.

When I go out to a loud club I can still communicate and no one comes around
telling me it's against the club rules to try to.

The Olympics would be nothing without our ability to communicate about them.
IMHO that's one of the biggest failings of NBC this year. They're doing a
horrible job of communicating the Olympics. Opening up the communication
channels just brings more interest, more coverage and more excitement.

~~~
prof_hobart
True, but how many people (apart from journos, who are almost certainly going
to already have a separate wifi network provided) really need to be using
their laptops to communicate from within the Olympic site? If you want to
tweet or whatever, the chances are that you'll already have a smartphone with
you that you can do that from.

The NBC debacle is a big deal, and if I was American it would have a big
impact on my enjoyment. But this is vastly different, and I'm not finding my
enjoyment affected one bit by this ban (I doubt that I will be bothered when
I'm down there next week either).

~~~
Retric
Considering how many people are visiting from foreign countries I would assume
Skype or other video conferencing solutions to be vary popular.

~~~
prof_hobart
If you're coming from a foreign country, you've probably got a foreign
phone/data contract, and probably don't want to be streaming huge amounts of
data over it at roaming rates.

------
petitmiam
"The absurdities don't end there. According to Britain's Daily Telegraph, Fish
and chip stalls have been advised they are not allowed to serve chips on their
own without fish as McDonald's is the official chip maker of the Games."

That is absurd. McDonalds sells fries, not chips.

~~~
kenolsen
"French fries", also known as "Pommes frites", are known as "Chips" in UK.
Fish and chips is awesome.

And yes, McD is being a douche bag here, but the biggest *rse is probably UK
itself allowing this to happen.

~~~
petitmiam
I've only been to the UK once, but I don't remember fries being called "chips"
in UK McDonalds.

I've always thought of "fries" as those skinny things McDonalds/Hungry
Jacks/Burger King sell, while chips are the chunkier version you get at a
proper Fish'n'Chip shops or pub. Restaurants here (Australia) generally
distinguish between the two.

~~~
Zenst
As somebody in the UK I'd have to agree french-fried and chips are different
things. One is reconstituted potatoe's into small thin like eddibles of a
uniform small size and chips are cut potatoes into chunkier like bits.

[http://www.okeiweb.com/experience/images/stories/Image/pictu...](http://www.okeiweb.com/experience/images/stories/Image/pictures/better-
chips.jpg) is as good as any picture of a chip and as you can see it is
nothing like a french fry.

~~~
vetler
Where I live, the fried potato-variant in the image is the same thing as fries
- we don't distinguish between our variants. We might go as far as calling
them thick fries, but that's about it.

------
mmariani
Every time I see the expression "olympic spirit" I don't think anymore in
selfless athletes doing their best to compete in the name of their country.

What I see is a draconian institution doing its best to protect a $US45
billion brand by treating proud citizens as consumers.

What a shame!

------
Lockyy
I think the best bit is that the international organisation for sporting
achievement that is meant to encourage fitness and a drive for excellence has
an official chip vendor.

~~~
codeka
Not only that, but McDonalds is the _official restaurant_ of the Olympics.
Surely I'm not the only one who sees the irony in that?

~~~
karolist
There's irony. There's salad, chicken and green tea in McDonnald's as well
(they just don't advertise it that much). You can eat that and stay fit.

~~~
archangel_one
Do they offer any of those things in the free McDonalds provided in the
athletes village? They didn't the last time I saw it, but that was a few years
ago now when they weren't focusing so much on healthier alternatives.

------
emeltzer
I'm so glad the chances of San Francisco hosting the olympics in the near
future are basically 0

~~~
samstave
If they do make it here, I among others will be sure to sponsor wifi and
cellular jammers to kill any and all signals.

In addition, we would need TV-BE-GONE beacons as well to cause IR sweeps that
shut off all TVs in distance.

Digital civil-disobedience.

~~~
joshAg
i like your style. might i suggest finding out how the wifi scanners work, and
then creating a bunch of dummy wifi connections with well hidden embedded
systems (of course, set them up with a hidden ssid so it doesn't interfere
with people actually using wifi)? also, fake ads for fake companies that
blatantly use the banned words.

~~~
lgeek
> set them up with a hidden ssid so it doesn't interfere with people actually
> using wifi

WiFi APs with hidden ESSIDs still send beacons, but don't include the ESSID.
This means that they'll obviously add radio noise.

~~~
joshAg
Yes, adding noise will be unavoidable, but not broadcasting an ssid means
unsuspecting people won't try and connect to these pseudo AP's.

To cut down on the interference caused by the added radio noise one could
either hardwire all the pseudo ap's to use the same channel, effectively
blocking anyone from using it, or have each ap actively scan and switch to the
least used channel at a set interval.

------
alex_h
The law granting these powers is the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games
Act 2006.
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/pdfs/ukpga_20060...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/pdfs/ukpga_20060012_en.pdf)

~~~
ciex
Has there been a discussion around this law in the UK? I don't really believe
a democratic vote would have signed it off, so I wonder how it is possible to
wave through such a thing with no public controversy. What do the people gain
from a 'ban on chips'?

~~~
switch007
This is how "democracy" works: the candidates lie, they get voted in, then you
have no say for 4 years. Repeat.

~~~
philbarr
Exactly, it's hardly like we gave them a mandate to screw everybody in London
over.

------
yaix
The Olympics were a good idea, but now they have become just ridiculous.

The last time I watched the Olympics was about 8 years ago. I rather go to a
local sports event that is actually about the sports competition.

~~~
squidi
It is a legitimate point that there are lots of controversial commercial
issues at the Olympics (e.g. petitmiam's fish and chips comment), but that
should not detract from admiring the motivation and efforts of the elite
athletes competing. They train their wholes live and push themselves through
mental and physical barriers.

~~~
franze
>They train their wholes live and push themselves through mental and physical
barriers.

... only to participate in a "big brother meets capitalism" like event. i have
respect for the athletes, but everyone who participate in the olympics
supports the near criminal IOC.

~~~
squidi
Should a top diplomat not work for a government because they are corrupt too?
Or a talented young footballer in the favelas of Sao Paulo not dream of
winning the World Cup and earning a good wage because FIFA is corrupt also?[1]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA#Allegations_of_corruption_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA#Allegations_of_corruption_and_legislative_interference)

------
Zenst
Worth noting O2 are offering free wifi about London during the games and
Virgin media are offering free wifi on parts of the tube train system as well.

BT are just being arses, but history has a way of repeating itself, so no
supprise there.

------
sthkr
Sensationalized article with poor research. There's a real reason behind all
this:

Read here:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/xjads/something_you_wo...](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/xjads/something_you_wont_see_on_tv_this_is_the_olympics/c5mz1h3)

~~~
drewcrawford
Reducing interference is a fine theory, but who decides that one party's
traffic is legitimate, and the other party's traffic is interference?

In most sane countries, there is a licensing authority to whom you pay
licensing fees in exchange for exclusive use of spectrum, and the person who
owns that license is the lawful spectrum user. And then you have deregulated
bands that anyone can use without any license and it is on these bands that
WiFi operates.

I think the outrage that people have about what is going on here is
essentially Ofcom (UK's version of the FCC) is, for this event, regulating an
"unlicensed" band that is supposed to be available for everyone's use.

And so not only are Ofcom granting a part of the spectrum to the IOC for free,
they are also effectively withdrawing a "license" from the general public. And
the people who make hardware and software are unwillingly subsidizing the IOC
by creating and marketing and mass-producing cheap devices that utilize radio
frequencies that they reasonably expected consumers to be able to control, not
reserved for the use of a private entity.

If the IOC wants interference-free spectrum, it's easy enough to get. The
outrage here is that they are exercising control over spectrum that is
explicitly not to be controlled.

~~~
zv
It's private property. Owner get to decide, who's allowed and who's not.

~~~
drewcrawford
I can't tell whether your argument is that it _should_ be that way or it _is_
that way, but you're wrong on both counts:

Straight from the FCC:

> Today’s declaratory ruling reaffirms the Commission’s dedication to
> promoting the widespread deployment of unlicensed Wi-Fi devices. It
> clarifies that American consumers and businesses are free to install Wi-Fi
> antennas under our OTARD rules – meaning without seeking approval from their
> landlords – just as they are free to install antennas for video programming
> and other fixed wireless applications. - FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps
> [1]

As to whether it _should_ be this way, consider a world in which individual
landowners could actively jam police communications, or if every sliver of the
spectrum chart [2] needed to negotiate with all the landowners in the United
States. No radio communication would be possible. It is about as workable as
letting landowners shoot down planes flying through "their" airspace.

[1]
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157...](http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.pdf)
[2]
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/spectrum_wal...](http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/spectrum_wall_chart_aug2011.pdf)

~~~
peeters
You realize that London is in the U.K., not the U.S. right?

------
mikerice
Why does this bother anyone? They're trying to stop interference with the vast
amount of wireless communication tools they have to use from refereeing to
planning etc.

~~~
PakG1
I was a venue technology manager for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. I
can't speak for everything regarding how wireless communication tools were
used, but anything that was scoring-related, application-related, or PC-
related had to run on hard network lines. Wifi was deemed too risky for
ensuring connectivity, even on non-Games-critical systems and processes. We
had only a couple of exceptions (example: every venue had an Athlete's Lounge,
and every Athlete's Lounge had wifi for the athletes). I could be wrong, but I
don't believe wifi was allowed for any operations-related purposes.

We literally dug trenches in concrete and in mountainsides to lay fibre and
copper, rather than rely on wifi, even where there were concentrated temporary
buildings or trailers at outdoor venues.

The only valid uses for wireless that I recall were radios for security and
general Games operations (security and general operations had different
spectrum, if I recall, with the general operations being further separated
into different bandings, depending on the type of operations), plus mobile
phones.

I'm sure there were various other wireless communication tools. For example,
in rare cases where there was no way to get coax somewhere for TV screens
(i.e. like the top of a mountain), we installed satellite dishes instead,
after making sure that line of sight was OK. But although I can't think of
much else, I'm sure there were plenty. I regularly spoke with the Games
spectrum manager about setting up his infrastructure requirements, as they
were going to set up operations at each venue for monitoring the airwaves and
detecting rogue signals, or overreaching signals. It wasn't simply some man
walking around with some device. It was pretty heavy-duty equipment.

But to be clear, things like referring and planning, I can't imagine relying
on wireless communication tools all that much, if at all. Especially timing
and scoring. The timing and scoring requirements were the most mission-
critical stuff. I've never been treated like shit as much as the Omega guys
treated me because we weren't finished their photo-finish stuff by the time
they arrived, though we were of course ready by opening day.

edit: OK, if I recall, the broadcasters may have wanted spectrum for their own
uses. And the press tents definitely all had wireless for the journalists and
photographers also. But nothing else crosses my mind. Here's another example
how important it was to have the hard lines. We dug trenches all the way up
Whistler Creekside to lay down the fibre and timing cables for the alpine
skiing course. This way, photographers could take photos of the racers, jack
into the fibre via some mobile sheltered switches (they were on modified
sleds) we set up on the course, and the photos would arrive down at the bottom
for editing and collating before the racers reached the bottom. That way as
soon as a result was announced, any newspaper/sports/etc website could put up
their article with photo almost instantaneously after the racer finished. That
would not have been possible with wireless.

edit2: Sorry, reading this, I realize it's not very well written. Points all
over the place, nothing in order. Sorry, guess I'll just leave it as it is.

------
iamandrus
What about Bluetooth tethering? Do they check for that too?

~~~
scraplab
It's all 2.4GHz, so it'll appear on the spectrum analyser.

~~~
ConstantineXVI
It also wouldn't stand out particularly much from other BT traffic (headsets,
keyboards, etc.); so not nearly as obvious as a Wi-Fi base station blasting a
beacon constantly. I don't think your average person is even aware that
functionality still exists.

------
Tichy
I hope they forbid everybody to talk about it or refer to it, except for some
obscure TV network nobody watches anymore. Then maybe in a couple of years,
nobody will care for the Olympics anymore, because nobody will ever have heard
of them.

------
geoffpado
I wish they'd get these guys at some of the tech conferences I've been to.

------
iuguy
I wonder if these things pick up bluetooth PANs? I think there's a great
opportunity to subvert the wifi rule by setting up bluetooth hotspots.

------
briandear
This is just horseshit. London has gone off the deep end into absurdity. I
wish Anonymous would teach these people a lesson.

~~~
sbuk
Erm, this has more to do with the IOC than 'London'.

~~~
briandear
Very true, but the IOC regulating what a private pub advertises outside of
Olympic venues couldn't happen without the government going along for the
ride. "We'll let you host the Olympics provided you restrict the mention by
your citizens of any non sponsor products for the duration." Inside venues,
the IOC calls te shots, but restricting beers a pub can mention? That goes a
little far. I wonder if a pub called "The Gold Bass Ale Shoppe" would just be
closed down altogether.

