Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fair organizers push for better cell/Wi‑Fi access after registration failures hindered sign‑ups
Summary
Fair volunteers and staff told the board that lack of cell service and Wi‑Fi at the fairgrounds caused state‑fair registration problems; staff will pursue local providers and other technology options, including vendor partnerships and Starlink, to provide reliable connectivity for future events.
Fair volunteers and staff told the County Fair Board that limited cell service and no reliable Wi‑Fi at the fairgrounds created substantial problems during the recent fair, including hindering families from completing required online state‑fair registration. The board instructed staff to pursue local wireless providers and other options to improve connectivity before next year’s fair.
Why it matters: Several volunteers described that families could not complete the online registration required by the state because there was little or no cell coverage at booths and barns. That delayed entries, forced in‑office signups and created a bottleneck for the fair office.
Volunteers and staff recounted workarounds used during the fair: using the fair office’s county Wi‑Fi from a county computer, bringing hotspots, and in one reported case using a personal Starlink terminal on a mobile trailer to get service. One volunteer said about 20 separate sign‑ups were done in person when connectivity failed. Staff told the board they have already contacted the county’s primary provider (noted in discussion as Verizon) and will follow up; staff also said some providers have been unresponsive in past years.
Board members suggested several next steps: reach out to local wireless providers with a proposal to guarantee service for a publicity exchange, test portable Starlink or other satellite options, and create a staffed “connectivity tent” with a county laptop and hotspot for families to use. Staff committed to follow up with providers and report back within a month.
Discussion vs. decision: The board discussed options and gave staff direction to pursue provider commitments and interim measures; there was no formal procurement vote at this meeting.
Operational clarifications: Staff noted security concerns if the county ran a public Wi‑Fi network for vendors and recommended provider‑operated solutions or vetted hotspot systems managed by county staff. The board also suggested looking into airport or port facilities for nearby connectivity options and exploring sponsorships to offset any vendor‑grade equipment costs.
