I watched a bunch of the fest from the comfort of my own home, streamed to my TV via Airplay via iPhone via YouTube in stunning HD. Why isn’t the same technology being used to enable communication on the ground between attendees and the outside world, and visa versa?There are two aspects to the value: utility & discovery. Allowing people to connect with each other in order to coordinate meet-ups, food, shared experience is of great value to anyone attending an event, and solves a real problem. On the flip-side of that coin is the sharing & recommendation function, which adds huge value to others there and beyond to check out something new or join in the fun.Brands are always looking to get in front of fans’ eyes and gain mindshare. What better value than being the company which delivers you connectivity in the middle of the desert at the event, right in your pocket on your smartphone. Talk about focused attention and loyalty. I bet the festival vendors would love to get involved as well and advertise deals/specials. A killer app could allows fans to recommend anything going on in real time based on their social connections and activities/check-ins. We know it’s possible, it just hasn’t been nailed yet. An opportunity for the taking…Of course, there’s something to be said for disconnecting, letting go and being fully present at the event. Which even if you’ve got a smartphone and free bandwidth can still happen, by choice.

The second issue is that private entities ranging from hotels to shopping malls to Coachella all share some of the responsibility. While AT&T/Verizon/Sprint etc. certainly “could” do a better job providing repeaters and signal amplifiers to improve the experience, is it truly their responsibility to read the minds of Coachella organizers? Coachella has specific dates and projected attendance counts when the extra connectivity would be useful, but I’d bet there is little sharing of that information with all of the wireless carriers. Even if there was, how much extra service should carriers do “at no cost” to Coachella, etc? Doesn’t it make more sense that Coachella should plan for additional bandwidth, the same way it plans for additional security or more parking spaces?

As far as telecom easements go, I’ve got mixed feelings. Many of the early cable franchise agreements that I’ve read had little basis in reality. They asked the MSO to provide PEG channels, interactive services and all sorts of goodies that wouldn’t exist for decades. These franchise agreements were drafted by government officials that were more interested in tax revenue and concessions they could brag about to their constituents than true service level agreements that understood the idea of peaks and valleys. That attitude continues to this day, with regulators often conflating concepts in hopes of scoring political points instead of adopting less ambitious language that everyone can agree on. (Witness last year’s “Net Neutrality” debacle, when the FCC could have adopted ‘you shall not prioritize someone else’s video bits over my video bits’ language, but ended up in a situation where even Doc Searles wondered aloud whether people shared the same definition.)