The Super Bowl 2013: A glimpse at the Vikings wired future

Joe Flacco celebrates the Ravens win (Jamie Squire/Getty Images)

Ars Technica had a very interesting look at last night’s Super Bowl — as an internet event.

The tech blog says the NFL put up enough WiFi access points to accomodate 30,000 connections at the Superdome in New Orleans.

Ars Technica has an interesting spin on it — that the NFL is using the robustness of the service as a reason to ban ad-hoc wireless devices, citing potential interference. It sounds like they’re actually searching people at the gates, and sniffing for them inside. Ars Technica made no mention of the potential for rogue broadcasting — showing the big game, potentially without the big commercials, via a WiFi camera or other means.

Someone who said they were actually at the game, broadcast engineer Andrew Stern, with Cumulus Broadcasting, had some interesting observations about the network’s capacity. He commented on the AT story:

“I am actually in the media center right now and having incredible wifi problems. I am looking at one of the named WAPs right now. There is so much wifi traffic that most iOS devices are freezing up, everyone’s having the same trouble.”

That’s presumably what the Vikings and the MSFA will be trying to avoid with their high density wireless system and neutral-host cell service baked into the design proposal.

  • KTN

    After arguing politics with a good buddy of mine (he a stark Libertarian, me a squishy in the middle Democrat), we can go out for a beer and talk about whatever, and move on.On the internets not so much, just a head shake about how dismayed I am others don’t think like me, and definitely no beer.

  • KTN

    After arguing politics with a good buddy of mine (he a stark Libertarian, me a squishy in the middle Democrat), we can go out for a beer and talk about whatever, and move on.On the internets not so much, just a head shake about how dismayed I am others don’t think like me, and definitely no beer.

  • reggie

    Online I am exposed to a wider range of opinions than in real life. That’s usually a good thing, even if it means occasionally yelling “how can he/she/they be so stupid?” at the screen. (I am confident others make the same yell at or about me.)

    I say “exposed to” because I am neither engaged in real conversation nor persuaded by rants online. In real life, my conversations take place in a much narrower band, but I invest more in the people with whom I talk face to face, who are (I think) smarter and more genuine than the people with whom I have a tenuous digital connection.

  • reggie

    Online I am exposed to a wider range of opinions than in real life. That’s usually a good thing, even if it means occasionally yelling “how can he/she/they be so stupid?” at the screen. (I am confident others make the same yell at or about me.)

    I say “exposed to” because I am neither engaged in real conversation nor persuaded by rants online. In real life, my conversations take place in a much narrower band, but I invest more in the people with whom I talk face to face, who are (I think) smarter and more genuine than the people with whom I have a tenuous digital connection.

  • Michael

    I watched the 2012 Third Party Presidential Debates
    with Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson and Virgil Goode, and thousands of other friends in the comfort of my own home beyond two party foolishness (sorta).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vE5CTTSFI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    In real life its those worried about Republican and Democrat and needing to vote one or the other, usually the other, while almost totally forgetting (due to corporate/fascist media) what it is that they really want and need for future of humanity and life on Earth.
    … and there is the small mix of Anarchists Libertarians, Green Party, and Grassroots friends throughout the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota …

    Both online and in person seem important, they differ in that we get to share coffee, cookies, tokes and other potlucks in person while we share “likes” and links online.

  • Michael

    I watched the 2012 Third Party Presidential Debates
    with Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson and Virgil Goode, and thousands of other friends in the comfort of my own home beyond two party foolishness (sorta).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vE5CTTSFI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    In real life its those worried about Republican and Democrat and needing to vote one or the other, usually the other, while almost totally forgetting (due to corporate/fascist media) what it is that they really want and need for future of humanity and life on Earth.
    … and there is the small mix of Anarchists Libertarians, Green Party, and Grassroots friends throughout the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota …

    Both online and in person seem important, they differ in that we get to share coffee, cookies, tokes and other potlucks in person while we share “likes” and links online.

  • Cashed Out

    I get to take my turn, as do others.
    I have a chance to fact-check myself and others.
    Bold capitalized text doesn’t raise my blood pressure.
    I can ignore an off-topic rant.
    I can choose not to participate.
    I can see a wider variety of opinions or fact-based conclusions.
    Humor and nuance don’t play we’ll on-line.

  • Cashed Out

    I get to take my turn, as do others.
    I have a chance to fact-check myself and others.
    Bold capitalized text doesn’t raise my blood pressure.
    I can ignore an off-topic rant.
    I can choose not to participate.
    I can see a wider variety of opinions or fact-based conclusions.
    Humor and nuance don’t play we’ll on-line.

  • Sarah Marie James

    I only feel comfortable talking about politics or sharing political content online – I feel more empowered to speak my mind online than off, but this is mostly because it’s is not considered polite in our culture to argue, dispute, or create an environment of conflict. My opinions are very liberal and talking about quality and equality of life on Earth person to person has resulted in harassment and name calling. I don’t face that kind of treatment on Facebook or Twitter.

  • Sarah Marie James

    I only feel comfortable talking about politics or sharing political content online – I feel more empowered to speak my mind online than off, but this is mostly because it’s is not considered polite in our culture to argue, dispute, or create an environment of conflict. My opinions are very liberal and talking about quality and equality of life on Earth person to person has resulted in harassment and name calling. I don’t face that kind of treatment on Facebook or Twitter.

  • Jim G

    Offline- when I talk with rural business partners and family members who are more conservative in their views than I am, I find that I’m more guarded in expressing my liberalism. In conversations with these folks I try to explain my views without causing offense, finding common ground in the values we all share. I value them and their contributions and I need to maintain good relationships

    On one occasion during a business meeting I voiced my opinion that taxes are not an absolute evil. That property taxes although they affect our bottom line, provided the county with funds to support the many services that are used by business partners living within the county. One example I used was the nursing home care, subsidized by the county, a partner’s mother had been using for years. That honest exchange was uncomfortable for me and since then I try not to confront these obvious contradictions.

    Online- I’m not using Facebook or Twitter to maximize my exposure. That’s probably because of my age demographic, but I do get daily email requests for money, participation in campaigns, rallies, etc. but rarely respond to these urgent appeals. On MPR, I enjoy answering Today’s Question. I find that answering these questions helps me clarify my thinking and gives me an opportunity to learn about topics that I had not thought much about. I discovered that I’m much more open in expressing what I would consider the unvarnished truth, as I see it, of course. I don’t have to worry about hurting an established relationship with a family member, friend, or partner.

  • Jim G

    Offline- when I talk with rural business partners and family members who are more conservative in their views than I am, I find that I’m more guarded in expressing my liberalism. In conversations with these folks I try to explain my views without causing offense, finding common ground in the values we all share. I value them and their contributions and I need to maintain good relationships

    On one occasion during a business meeting I voiced my opinion that taxes are not an absolute evil. That property taxes although they affect our bottom line, provided the county with funds to support the many services that are used by business partners living within the county. One example I used was the nursing home care, subsidized by the county, a partner’s mother had been using for years. That honest exchange was uncomfortable for me and since then I try not to confront these obvious contradictions.

    Online- I’m not using Facebook or Twitter to maximize my exposure. That’s probably because of my age demographic, but I do get daily email requests for money, participation in campaigns, rallies, etc. but rarely respond to these urgent appeals. On MPR, I enjoy answering Today’s Question. I find that answering these questions helps me clarify my thinking and gives me an opportunity to learn about topics that I had not thought much about. I discovered that I’m much more open in expressing what I would consider the unvarnished truth, as I see it, of course. I don’t have to worry about hurting an established relationship with a family member, friend, or partner.

  • Patrick

    It seems harder to me both to make a point and to be influenced by conversation online. In person, the pace of discussion is faster and folks have more opportunity to clarify exactly what they mean. That means I get more engaged in the discussion, trying to understand where the other guy is talking about and thinking through the issue.

  • Patrick

    It seems harder to me both to make a point and to be influenced by conversation online. In person, the pace of discussion is faster and folks have more opportunity to clarify exactly what they mean. That means I get more engaged in the discussion, trying to understand where the other guy is talking about and thinking through the issue.

  • Virtual Existence

    In the offline world fences are up, well maintained and well known, and there is no point in challenging people who only want validation for the opinions they have drawn from their life experiences. In the virtual world the situation seems to vary according to venue. Some communities encourage more nuance than others. For example the Strib tend to be polemical and hyperbolic, but as it’s local I will sometimes offer an opinion there and feel as if I’ve added something to community thought space, and there are pockets of non-political exchange where one can be appreciated. National mainstream internet seems to be the most pointless to me. Perhaps there is no sense of community spirit when there are 5,000 comments ahead of you. NYT has changed over time and while well written reader comments still provide serious fortification to articles, commentary on columnists has devolved into hardened attacks and has become off putting. The Daily Question is a fun space, perhaps because it still seems so small a community. I had worries at first with a few individuals over stating their case with repetitive posts, but all in all the space seems to handle what comes by fairly well. That is, bad commentary hasn’t yet driven out the good. K.O.W.

  • Virtual Existence

    In the offline world fences are up, well maintained and well known, and there is no point in challenging people who only want validation for the opinions they have drawn from their life experiences. In the virtual world the situation seems to vary according to venue. Some communities encourage more nuance than others. For example the Strib tend to be polemical and hyperbolic, but as it’s local I will sometimes offer an opinion there and feel as if I’ve added something to community thought space, and there are pockets of non-political exchange where one can be appreciated. National mainstream internet seems to be the most pointless to me. Perhaps there is no sense of community spirit when there are 5,000 comments ahead of you. NYT has changed over time and while well written reader comments still provide serious fortification to articles, commentary on columnists has devolved into hardened attacks and has become off putting. The Daily Question is a fun space, perhaps because it still seems so small a community. I had worries at first with a few individuals over stating their case with repetitive posts, but all in all the space seems to handle what comes by fairly well. That is, bad commentary hasn’t yet driven out the good. K.O.W.

  • Ann M

    Most people don’t want to discuss politics. They put up yard signs instead.They don’t care that we are one of the most highly taxed states and the state still has money problems.Some states don’t even have income tax.The liberals have decided to bring homosexuality into the political realm. I discuss that with people in my church. We won’t ever call their unions “marriages.” The gov’t should take the word “marriage” out of all gov’t documents and stop teaching school children what marriage is.Then people can keep their own personal views of marriage.

  • Ann M

    Most people don’t want to discuss politics. They put up yard signs instead.They don’t care that we are one of the most highly taxed states and the state still has money problems.Some states don’t even have income tax.The liberals have decided to bring homosexuality into the political realm. I discuss that with people in my church. We won’t ever call their unions “marriages.” The gov’t should take the word “marriage” out of all gov’t documents and stop teaching school children what marriage is.Then people can keep their own personal views of marriage.

  • Jim G

    Yes. Our human brains don’t mature until we’re approximately 25 years old. It makes no sense to give life-long consequences to those who don’t have the mature brain-power to understand how their sexual behavior will affect their adult lives.

  • Hey Der

    Zero tolerance is never a good idea. Having a lifetime listing on a sex offender registry for peeing in an alley or streaking through a high school football game is ridiculous. Save the registry for those serious criminals that belong there.

  • verdant

    It’s difficult to answer statistically and without careful study, but from programs on 60 Minutes, the system seems utterly out of whack, causing needless suffering. It does appear that much of this is an outgrowth of the culture war, in particular a result of 8 years of Bush II judge appointments with an anti-sex far Right Christian agenda.

    Discretion of judges is probably a good thing, but it does introduce another set of problems, regional anomalies, for one.

  • Rick Palm

    Yes, All these laws do is destroy lives, not help. I wonder how many of these prosecutors and politicians when they were kids did not play doctor with the boy/girl next door. How about when you are a teenager and you take your date to a drive-in movie, (yes, I am showing my age) and fooled around in the back sit, or parking somewhere to watch the submarine races. They too, should have to register as a sex offender.

  • verdant

    It is noteworthy that anti-sex interests by and large seem to favor capital punishment and torture.

  • Cashed Out

    … and punishment of the mentally ill.

  • Sue de Nim

    Most of those you label “anti-sex” would consider themselves “pro-sexual-fidelity.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lois-Paul/100000984982873 Lois Paul

    Do you mean “Are there fewer rapes and sexual molestations than before the registries?” No, the number of those crimes has remained relatively stable. Do you mean “Are there more people on the sex offender registry?” Yes. The number of offenses which qualify one to be placed on the registry has grown. Also, since 96.5% of the new convictions for sex offenses are from people who have never been convicted of a sex crime before, the sex offender registry is growing every year and will continue to do so, even if every sex offender now on the registry is kept in jail indefinitely. Do you mean “Are there fewer children adversely effected by sexual offenses than before the registries?” No. There are more, because the sex offender (median age of 14, according to FBI statistics) is so often a child themselves, and they are very adversely affected by their presence on the sex offender registry, as are any siblings. Furthermore, since the offender is often a member of the family, the victim is often more adversely effected than before the registries. Keep in mind also that even “playing doctor” can get a child as young as 8 on the sex offender registry, even in the case of normal childhood mutual curiosity. As you can see in the comments, there are also cases of two teens below the age of consent having mutually consensual sex on the registry. Streakers, mooners, public urinators and other such minor crimes are on the registry. I recall a recent case of some boys who were being prosecuted for slapping other children on the buttocks, during a “butt-slap” day. These, among other reasons, are the reasons that nothing has improved, only gotten more public.