[orbillius]

> they will still be marking the ticket as used in their backend.

I assume that's true, but it makes me wonder how their scanners are connected to the server.

I mean, if 10,000 people showing up to an event with smartphones overwhelms wireless networks, wont that also kick their scanners off the network?

They'd probably like to have a system where, if a scanner loses its connection, it can still validate tickets. It could store a copy of validated tickets locally, and upload it when the network connection is restored - that would mean a copied ticket would have to make sure they go to a different door/scanner. But it would allow copying.

[janalsncm]

Simplest answer is a private wifi network for the scanners.

[ssl-3]

It's also the best answer.

It's all off-the-shelf electronics and standard protocols. Venue provides some wifi with a "Ticketbastard" SSID (or whatever) at entry points, and the COTS-built barcode-validating devices use that. Easy-peasy.

They might also provide other wireless networks for other purposes (definitely for vendors [$$$], but perhaps also for regular house staff, touring staff, and maybe even the guests who pay for it all!), but they'll all be under the venue's control and coordination: Other than the odd personal hotspot that wanders in, there's not necessarily any meaningful outside interference on 2.4/5GHz wifi bands in a big venue.

It's pretty easy to make short-range wifi work reliably in that kind of RF environment, such as the chokepoints where tickets are validated. (Modern apartment dwellers will have worse interference problems than that.)

[xav0989]

There’s actually a ton of interference in the 2.4 GHz space, especially at venues like outdoor festivals. However your solution does work. I work at a festival that provides a WiFi network and an Ethernet drop for the ticket scanners. We have to use multiple APs to cover the main entrance area, but it’s feasible.

[ssl-3]

I was thinking more along the lines of a stadium crowd than an outdoor festival, but yes: I agree. I've had miserable luck with 2.4GHz stuff in festival environments where people camp out for a few days. :)

I don't pay very much attention to the ticket-scanning devices while I'm getting into a big show (which is generally a rather unpleasant experience on my side), but:

Don't they allow usage of 5GHz bands? Unlike 2.4GHz, I've had tremendous success with 5GHz bands in all kinds of environments -- including outdoor festivals.

[hunter2_]

I have no idea what connectivity options are available in current scanners, but it sounds like a viable solution could be to use an RF band that customers don't overwhelm, similar to wireless microphones perhaps, with a little hub situated nearby that consolidates the list of already-scanned tickets, possibly standalone or possibly on a wired network that includes other far-away entrances.

[8n4vidtmkvmk]

Was going to say it shouldn't be hard to run a wire around an entire stadium, but maybe some popup outdoor venues that might be complicated. Could use line of sight towers for fun.

[dzhiurgis]

900mhz networks like halow or even lorawan should do

Even at huge venues i dont expect requests would be over 5 rps

[Arrath]

5 RPS, per scanner, surely?

[somehnguy]

No way, scanning tickets is slow because it rarely works seamlessly. It's pretty standard to stand there for a few seconds moving your phone back and forth and/or rotating it. Or when one person has all the tickets for their party and has to scroll to the next one between scans.

I think maybe 4-15 seconds between scans per scanner, at best.

[dzhiurgis]

Can you imagine 5 people moving thru scanner in 1 second?

Even at 1 rps that's if we assume 1 meter distance that's 3.6 km/h or a normal walking pace. Do you ever see crowd at ticketing move at walking pace?

[Arrath]

Not at all, I was imagining over speccing the system.

E.g. this weekend I went to a show at a 70,000 seat arena. Knowing from experience, there are 4 entrances. This time there were 10 people scanning tickets at the gates I entered. Friends reported the same at the one they came in.

5 RPS per scanner is obviously overkill, but if those 10 at one gate were linked to a hub that could issue 5 RPS I would call that adequate, if barely.

If all 4 gate areas were linked centrally to a system that could do 5 RPS, well, actually, that might explain the throughput I experienced getting through lol