Re: Wireless in future meetings

[John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>]

Folks, the Secretariat is quite good at this stuff.  Really. 
The odds that they are going to book us into a hotel where we 
can't work effectively --especially along a dimension as easily 
understood as this one-- are, I think (reinforced by all of our 
experience since Houston), low enough that it really isn't worth 
the cost of the bits on this list to speculate about what 
various hotels might choose to do to individual guests.

Even when hotels have restrictive or expensive policies, those 
arrangements are typically negotiable if one is bringing them a 
very large meeting.  And Marriott is unlikely to sign a deal 
with T-Mobile, or anyone else, that is sufficiently exclusive to 
cost them meeting or convention business from groups that need 
levels of network service that T-Mobile can't/doesn't offer. The 
situation would be different, of course, if it were impossible 
to run two different 802.11b networks in the same facility, but 
that is why there are network identifiers.  And, again, the 
Secretariat is, in my experience, very good at those types of 
negotiations.

I'm almost positive we can find something more threatening to 
worry about :-(

regards,
   john


--On Friday, 20 December, 2002 09:47 -0800 Joe Touch 
<touch@ISI.EDU> wrote:

> John Stracke wrote:
> > Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> > > I would imagine that the IETF as _customers of the hotel_
> > > can do  pretty much what it wants.
> > Depends on Marriott's contract with Wayport--it probably
> > specifies some  degree of exclusivity.  But Wayport might be
> > happy to grant an exception  when they learn the volume of
> > traffic an IETF meeting puts out.  :-)
> Some places charge a "corkage" fee for running your own
> network when they have one too, even if they don't provide
> what you want (i.e., NAT).
>
> FWIW.
>
> Joe