Next Web Wifi Disciplinarians: You *Will* Pay Attention

[Update: 11:01 am ET --

Seems that the Next Web folks have posted their new info about wifi a bit earlier than planned.

[from TheNextWeb2008 Update: Love, Internet Access and Attention]

A lot of people have been asking us if we would provide Internet access and Wi-Fi during The Next Web Conference 2008. We sort of avoided the question and sometimes even said ‘No’. This has caused concern with some people so I thought it would be a good time to explain our ideas about the subject. [emphasis mine] But first THE answer to the question: “Will there be Wi-Fi for participants at The Next Web Conference 2008?”

The short answer: Yes.

The long answer: Yes, and a lot more! We will have a special area with wired ethernet connections to a 100mbit Up and Down connection, the fastest connection we could get. This area (front left at the main conference area) will also have enough power sockets to keep everybody online all day. In addition, we will have Wi-Fi connections for the rest of the audience people. We plan to split these up in several groups of 50 people who will all be able to connect to their own access point.

This means that if one of those groups takes the network down, at least the other groups will still be online until we restart the device. And if the Wi-Fi fails we always have wired backup for you. One thing: we DO expect the wireless network to go down. It is our experience that Wi-Fi becomes extremely unreliable when you get more than 30 people in the same room connected.

We hope that the speakers will be so extremely inspiring and captivating that the use of computers will be limited to live blogging, twittering and digitally reporting about the speakers on stage.

Sounds like the right approach (although I wouldn't try to tell the attendees what they should be doing with their laptops... if the presentation sucks, might as well catch up on email, or Facebook).

I would suggest that in the future, conference organizers should not start out by being ambiguous or possibly misleading about topics like wifi access.

I believe that Marjolein Hoekstra was reporting what she heard in a discussion with Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten (@bomega), that wifi would be limited and it would be for the good of the conference (see below). But it appears they have either had a change of heart, or were just fooling all along. April Fools!
]

It appears that @bomega (or Boris Omega Veldhuijzen van Zanten), the organizer of the upcoming Next Web conference in Amsterdam, is taking on the dubious legacy of Walt Mossberg's D conference and the Nielsen "User Generated Content" folks, since the story going around is that he intends to limit Wifi access to only VIPs and selected bloggers in the main hall, so that attendees will... er, attend to what the speakers are saying.

CleverClogs Could anyone confirm or deny the rumor that during The Next Web Conference in Amsterdam the main audience won't have access to the net? 02:37 PM March 29, 2008 from web

CleverClogs @stoweboyd The idea is that by not offering net access, the audience will pay more attention to the hard-working speakers on stage. about 24 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

CleverClogs @mathys 100 wired net connections only at Next Web? Are we expected to play the game of musical chairs to figure out who wins net access? about 24 hours ago from web in reply to mathys

CleverClogs @allanjenkins Smells excellent opportunity for the marketing department of Vodafone to provide us all with mobile data cards for the event about 24 hours ago from web in reply to allanjenkins

CleverClogs @fzelders From the chat I had with Next Web organizer @bomega a few weeks ago it seems a deliberate decision, if they insist on the idea... about 23 hours ago from web in reply to fzelders

Can't have people chattering in the back channel after all. Fold your hands! Shut up! Don't color outside the lines! Sharpen your number 2 pencils! Pay fucking attention, you lazy slackers!!

Good lord.

I really tried to find out what his story was, but I got off on the wrong foot by twittering this:

stoweboyd @CleverClogs Fucking idiots. Just like Mossberg's D conference a few years ago. about 23 hours ago from twhirl in reply to CleverClogs

I went on to suggest that this was 'Attention Fascism' -- the same nonsense that Mossberg and Kara Swisher pulled at D a few years ago:

bomega @stoweboyd are you seriously calling me a "Fucking idiot"? about 22 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

Stowe Boyd @bomega I was referring to turning off wifi access at the #NextWeb conference: is that you? I am opposed to forced attention fascism. about 19 hours ago from twhirl in reply to bomega

I was warned by others that calling anything 'fascism' in the Netherlands is crossing a politeness line.

However, I was unable to get a straight answer from Boris about the wifi rationing planned for the conference. I asked a bunch of times and he was at best evasive:

bomega @stoweboyd I[t is not] very polite to insult the organization (me included) based on some rumor. We DO offer Wifi and VIP blogging seats... about 18 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

bomega @stoweboyd I respect your opinion but you make it hard to do so by calling me a fucking idiot. Just not appreciated. about 16 hours ago from TwitterMail in reply to stoweboyd

NicoleSimon @stoweboyd are they going to remove pen and paper next because it distracts attention from the speakers? absolute nonsense. about 16 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

bomega @stoweboyd I get your point. Don't agree but it doesn't apply to me or #nextweb. And, I repeat myself, don't like the way you communicate it about 16 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

bomega @stoweboyd False. One polite question would have gotten you the answer hours ago. about 16 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

bomega @stoweboyd You might be right. It is probably just stress that I'm so upset with your remark. Lets forget about the whole thing. :-) about 16 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

But I never did get the answer. I presume that means no: wifi will be limited to VIPs and a short list of bloggers.

There is technological or financial basis for these issues: it is difficult and expensive to get reliable wifi for tech conferences. Conference centers often lack the necessary bandwidth, so they attempt to push the full expense for more back on the event organizers, without any amortization over future events. Otherwise, the event organizer has to come up with some alternative: like datacard based portable wifi hotspots or the like.

But to wrap it all up as attention focusing, like a third grade teacher telling us to stop looking out the windows and do our fractions, well, that is just arrogant bullshit.

It's not about paying attention, per se: it's about note passing in class. They are trying to stamp out the back channel. Event organizers should be in favor of the back channel, which can enrich a conference (so long as it is not projected on the wall behind the speakers, which leads to potential feedback problems, like the Mena Trott "Kinder, Gentler Blogosphere" meltdown in Paris a few years back). But social networks are not controllable, and some people are control freaks: put them together, and what do you get? A revolution.

Hey, Boris. You can't control the messaging. You can't control social networks. You can't control our minds. You can't control us.

I admit that some of this because I was impolite, which I admitted:

stoweboyd The fuss with @bomega may be a cultural toestub. He's mad because I am impolite. I'm mad because he won't answer a direct question. #nextweb

But he is closed, not open: he won't answer the question. It's just nuts to complain that people are repeating a 'rumor', and then to not make a statement that clarifies the issue.

Apparently he has a blog post coming out tomorrow, that @CleverClogs (Marjolein Hoekstra) has seen, but it hasn't made her very happy:

@bomega thx for trusting me with your upcoming blog post about Next Web wifi availability. Your pov is understandable, but not agreeable... about 15 hours ago from web in reply to bomega

@bomega's upcoming post about Next Web wifi availability, which I helped tune a little, seems to offer the best possible compromise now. about 14 hours ago from web in reply to bomega

It may seem all a tempest in a teapot, but I am strongly opposed to events -- or any public or semi-public gatherings -- where the organizers believe they have the moral authority, by virtue of their organizing role, to arrogate about the attendees' access to the web and each other. Or even worse, to argue that they need to do this for our own good, because continuous partial attention is robbing our souls. Take your Ritalin like good like boys and girls!!

It's particularly off-message at a conference about the Next Web, which is driven by the social revolution, Boris. We demand to remain connected, no matter what others say.

I don't have any great technological solution to the problem of wifi access, but I believe that it is something that has to be on the agenda for conference organizers to try to accomplish. That they fail at times does not mean that they shouldn't try. And just because they try doesn't mean that we won't complain if they fail: we will, trust me.

As I said in an earlier twittergram:

#social #networks aren't democratic, and they aren't hierarchical, they aren't manageable, and they amplify both good and bad.

Comments

[Kenton A Hoover]

Missing an opportunity -- rather than using those idiotic comment cards to determine how good/bad a speaker's presentation is you could just track magnitude, diversity and direction of network traffic during the presentation and provide those results to the speaker and conference organizer. For example, if everyone tended to hit the same URL at the same time that a speaker mentioned something, there was either interest or a problem of definition. If everyone went random about ten minutes in, the speaker was uninteresting, etc.

[Patrick]

Hi Stowe,

You might need to read this...

http://thenextweb.org/2008/03/30/thenextweb2008-update-no-wifi/

[Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten]

You are wrong on several points. I did answer your question. You asked "If you don't answer directly, I (and everyone else) will presume that you are limiting wifi to VIPs at #nextweb. True or False?":

http://twitter.com/stoweboyd/statuses/779340095

My answer:
@stoweboyd False. One polite question would have gotten you the answer hours ago.
http://twitter.com/bomega/statuses/779340561

Why I don't like about this conversation is something entirely different: you heard a rumor and based on that called me a 'Fucking Idiot'. After that you expect me to be open? My idea of a conversation is very different.

I love to hear from people and get criticism. But it is hard to respect someone who calls me a fucking idiot and then when I explain that I'm offended by that tells me:

"PS I don't care what you think about my communication style".
http://twitter.com/stoweboyd/statuses/779339158

The subject of this discussion is interesting and I love to talk about it in an open and intelligent way. But don't expect me to jump when you say 'Jump, you fucking idiot".

[erwin blom]

It's not true Stowe, they are not closed at The Next Web. I criticise them often and that leads to good discussions. For example i had the same sort of discussion on wifi yes or no. But you didn't start with asking questions, you didn'it start a conversation, you started yelling 'fucking idiots'. And later on words like 'i don't care what you think of my way of communication'. And 'attention fascism'. An unnecessary aggressive way of communicating that leads nowhere. By the way, go to http://thenextweb.org/2008/03/30/thenextweb2008-update-no-wifi/ to read what Boris writes about wifi on The Next Web.

[Stowe Boyd]

Boris -

Actually, I included that tweet in the post, where you say: False, etc. I meant that you didn't respond to the whole question of VIP access etc.

Was that the original intent? Why did your organization say 'No' about wifi or avoid the question originally? Did you tell Marjolein in an earlier discussion that you were planning on limiting wifi access so that people would pay more attention?

Regarding my lack of politeness: true, but unrelated. And I never wrote "Jump, you fucking idiot." What I wrote was "Fucking idiots" referring to people who would limit wifi access at conferences to have us pay more attention; and I stand by that judgment.

Could you please answer the question: Did you and your fellow organizers plan to do that originally? Did you state that in earlier conversations with Marjolein and others? Why did you go back and forth on the issue? What was your thinking then, and when did you decide to change your mind and make this statement?

I applaud you for clarifying your position -- which would seem like normal business practice anyway -- but I suggest that instead of attempting to draw attention to my lack of good grooming and social hygiene, you should answer the questions I level at you and your partners.

And I maintain that anyone who tries to choke off our social connectedness at conferences for the sake of 'paying attention' is deeply, deeply wrongheaded and that it is clearly offensive and patronizing to the attendees. I hope you are not in that camp.

There, I said it without swear words, although they would suit, as well.

[@newamsterdammer]

"Why did you go back and forth on the issue?"

It's you who made a big issue out of rumor for no reason at all, you're not even going to the event. It's you who assumed something out of this rumor. And then it's you who makes it seem to be that Boris is going back and forth on this "issue". While Boris has been preparing everything he mentioned in his blogposting today, probable way before you were raising your "issue".

"you should answer the questions I level at you and your partners"

Boris doesn't have to do anything if he doesn't want to. But he did, multiple times, because that's the kind of nice person Boris is. If I was him I would've ignored your unreasonable Tweets and taken a bath and a glass of great wine, as he was planning to (http://tinyurl.com/2p4nkl). I advice you to do the same. It's way more relaxing than raising an issue out of a rumor that doesn't even concern you personally.

[Stowe Boyd]

Mr. Newamsterdammer -

Boris can do whatever he wants, but as a public figure -- which is what you become when you are organizing a public conference -- he is responsible for answering simple questions about his event. He has admitted going back and forth on the topic, and by including 'attention' in his post's title, as well as his guidance to the attendees about being good little conference attendees, he is acknowledging tacitly that access to wifi was somehow related to a concept of how people should focus while at conferences.

Regarding my attendence - I didn't attend the D conference, or the Neilsen conference that I (and many others) wrote about. I haven't personally jumped out of an airplane without a parachute, but that doesn't mean I can't say it would be dumb.

It a free and open space, here on the Web, and people can point at the Emperor and talk about the lack of clothes, if they want. Just like you can post here, suggesting that my comments are in some way illegitimate.

But for a minute, would you like to actually discuss the topic, instead of my bad manners? Do you think that a conference organizer is justified in limiting or blocking access to wifi to force attendees to 'pay attention'?

[@newamsterdammer]

Of course anyone can talk about anything. I just don't understand why you're so eager to point at this certain non-issue. I agree with Boris that it's always nice when people pay attention but I also think it's great that Boris/TheNextWeb2008 made it possible to connect to the Internet in so many ways (100 Wired Ethernet and several WiFi connections). They don't have to do that, it's an extra service they deliver. Blocking access to Wifi would be something else, not necessary in my opinion. However I don't think that has ever been the idea in the first place.

I'm going to take a glass of great wine now. Enjoy the upcoming TheNextweb2008 streams, tweets and back channel! :-)

[Ontario Emperor]

First off, I should note that use of the F-word (fascism) usually causes a dramatic drop in the quality of the conversation, so in a sense Boris' response is understandable.

On the other hand, imagine the possibilities if a service provider responded to an irate customer with a pleasant response. An example of this occurred in the last few days, when Steven Hodson, who was completely frustrated because of problems with MyBlogLog, wrote several things, including the following:

"Well I hate to tell you Yahoo but you are only as good as the treatment you give to the little pissant users and right now you suck monkey balls."

Now it would have been understandable if Yahoo had subsequently been less than helpful after that comment was blogged, but instead Yahoo went out of its way to help Steven. The result? A very positive post from Hodson.

And perhaps Stowe Boyd would have made a very positive post just now if Boris had passed over Boyd's frustration and provided more than a one word response.