oporkka - Fotolia

News Stay informed about the latest enterprise technology news and product updates.

NFL's Cisco-based stadium Wi-Fi frustrates tablet-toting coaches

The stadium Wi-Fi network that NFL coaches have been complaining about is based on Cisco wireless LAN infrastructure. The new network has been erratic, making coaches' Surface tablets useless at times.

The National Football League hasn't made positive headlines recently. To add to its troubles, the private stadium Wi-Fi network used on the sidelines by football teams and their coaches during game day has been riding the bench.

Bill Belichick, head coach for the New England Patriots, recently complained about the spotty Wi-Fi connection on the sidelines, and he said that NFL coaches have voiced the same frustrations with the unreliable wireless experience. In a statement to SearchNetworking, Cisco admitted to being the wireless LAN infrastructure provider for the spotty sideline network.

"Cisco works on a variety of projects with the NFL, such as [the] Super Bowl. ... The new sideline Wi-Fi was an initial proof of concept in the pre-season where adjustments have been made by the NFL now that the season is underway. [Those adjustments have] resulted in significant improvements," Cisco said.

Cisco provides the equipment -- both the hardware and software -- for the network infrastructure on the sidelines at each NFL stadium. In conjunction with the new wireless LAN, the NFL also recently inked a $400 million sponsorship with Microsoft Corp. last year that provides coaches with Surface tablets to use on the sidelines for designing plays and in-game planning.

In the interest of fairness, in-house IT staff at each NFL stadium do not have visibility into this Cisco-based sideline Wi-Fi network. The network is managed by the NFL and tablet use falls under the league’s new pilot program -- the Sideline Viewing System (SVS) – which allows teams to use the Surface tablets for game planning, according to a Microsoft spokesperson. However, each team is free to operate its own stadium Wi-Fi network for fans. Several teams use infrastructure from Extreme Networks, which also supplies wireless network analytics to the league.

The NFL's decision to have two separate teams operate two Wi-Fi networks in the same venue may be partly to blame for poor performance.

"The hodgepodge approach seems like it could mean more headaches for the NFL than it's worth," said Andre Kindness, senior analyst for Forrester Research, based in Cambridge, Mass. "If one IT team is managing the stadium, as well as the field, then you're going to have much better results." With two teams operating Wi-Fi, one team doesn't know what the other is doing, which could lead to crowded wireless spectrums and interference, he said.

Stadium Wi-Fi: Prioritize coaches and staff over fans

Supporting high-density stadium Wi-Fi is hard enough with one Wi-Fi network. Two Wi-Fi networks competing for the same wireless spectrum is naturally worse. "What we are seeing now is growing pains, and not a fundamental flaw in the Wi-Fi network," said Craig Mathias, principal at the advisory firm Farpoint Group, based in Ashland, Massachusetts. The NFL IT staff tasked with managing the sideline Wi-Fi is still in most likely in the process of fine-tuning for coverage, and probably doesn't have enough access points to handle the capacity needed on the sidelines, Mathias said.

But even though two separate Wi-Fi networks from potentially two different vendors are hard to get to play nice, they can be made to work at the same time, he said. "It's very difficult to get two different Wi-Fi systems operating in close proximity form two different vendors to cooperate -- it's a little more brute-force," Mathias said. The stadiums can swing a separate Wi-Fi for guests and the NFL teams by reserving a channel for the mission-critical traffic and applications used by the coaches.

"The mission-critical portion should be reserved for the coaches on the sidelines, and that traffic needs to be prioritized ahead of the consumer traffic," he said.

Microsoft did not comment on the connectivity of the Surface tablets for this story, but noted that the NFL manages the sideline network. The NFL declined to comment.

Let us know what you think about the story; email Gina Narcisi, news writer, and follow @GeeNarcisi on Twitter.

Next Steps

High-density Wi-Fi improves fan experience

Ten myths of Wireless LAN interference

San Francisco Giants aim for bleachers with social media headquarters

Dig Deeper on Wireless LAN (WLAN)

Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

Maybe if someone would proofread these before publishing them they would be more credible.
My favorite part of online articles are the comments, they always seem to say what I’m thinking. I don’t really trust any single article published on the interwebs that appears to be some form of copy/paste or written in such haste that it makes me believe it was written purely as click bait. “Clickbait is a pejorative term describing web content that is aimed at generating online advertising revenue” This one falls under click bait to me. 1x Full Screen pop up add as soon as you get to the page 1x Full sized funded banner at the top of the page 1x Full sized banner trying to persuade you to click outside the article before reading it 1x Title crafted of pejoratives to mislead the reader (Cisco […] Frustrates Coaches, tablet-toting coaches) 1x Banner sized add to click to other advertising pages (Between the Title and the Article no less) 2x Google Add 4x “Sponsored” News links A quick Google of the terms NFL, Cisco, and Wireless gives links to news describing the plan to expand wireless with proof of concept designs and so on.
I am astonished that anyone would consider the comments section below an "online article" to be his or her favorite part, since that is usually the domain of anonyomous trolls. But given that you chose to comment anonyously and "perjoratively," I am not surprised. This story is not "click bait" nor a "cut and paste" job. I suggest you read your dictionary a little more closely when citing its definitions. This reporter successfully revealed that Cisco had provided the infrastructure for the Wi-Fi services that coaches were complaining about during games. Cisco admittted as much. It said that this network was part of a proof-of-concept. That may be true, but it's a proof of concept that's very much being used in a "production setting." Also, the rest of the story goes on to ask experts why the network might be a source of trouble. The experts didn't necessarly blame Cisco. Instead, they pointed to the NFL's decision to operate two separate wireless networks in the same physical location. Not a good idea.
Actually this article is filled with speculation and opinion and very little fact apart for an upset coach. Everything being mentioned by the experts is speculated with no technical evidence behind any of it. The article also completely omits any other options that would come into play with any Wi-Fi network, especially an outdoors design. That includes the known Wi-Fi issues on the Microsoft tablets and outdoor interference which normally does not affect internal Wi-Fi.
I would just comment that when you are in the grocery store line reading the headlines of the "Gossip" Rags, do you believe those!?!? Same type of technical article here. No facts, just conjecture from people who have little to no knowledge at all of the technology they are writing about. I really love the comment from Bill Belichick to substantiate these claims. Does he even have a smart phone??