DVC members/Why no free internet for us?

[Chuck S]

I thought the onsite high speed was provided through contract by an outside vendor, not Disney. That vendor would still need to be paid, between Disney and our dues, who do you think would pay?

 

[Deb & Bill]

I also use dialup when I'm at WDW. I use the high speed internet at DL because I'm paying for it with my daily user fee for the resort.

WDW could go to a daily use fee for services which would include high speed internet or wi-fi like they do at DL. But then everyone would scream about having to pay that.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

But as far as I can see, there is no good reason to make it free either. Disney pays for, so we pay for it. The way it is set up now, only those who use it pay for it. ..Seems fair to me.

ok I agree that the problem is there is money being made somewhere

BUT, that doesnt mean with "free" internet Disney wont still be making money

I dont know the exact numbers but I read recently there are over 80,000 members right now in DVC. If you assume, however you want to get there, that dues increases for "free" internet $2.00 per member per contract(again I dont know whether that amounts to a penny a point per year or 2 pennies--whatever--maybe someone knows exactly how many points are out there)

then Disney is pulling quite a bit of money per year from DVC alone just for the internet.

Again I have no idea what they make now, but I would bet it would come out pretty darn close and they could add that to their list of perks and we would barely even notice the cost.

Maybe they are making more now that what they could if they applied the cost to the dues, but I cant see that lasting much longer, maybe a year or two at most. Once the cell service and these hi speed access cards become even more available and reliable-who is going to pay $10 a day for internet

I dont even use the internet when Im at Disney(usually) but I would rather pay $2 or 3 or 4 dollars up front and then be able to use it for unlimited time while I was there rather than be hit with a $10 charge if for some reason I needed to get on there.

 

[dianeschlicht]

DVC is no different than any other Disney resorts. If you use, you pay. I asked our guide about this once, and also asked the front desk about it. Both times I was given the same response. Disney outsources ALL of their high speed internet. That means they get charged, so they just pass on the cost to those who use it. I know it seems high, but it really is similar to other resorts who do not offer it for free. About the only place you find free high speed these days where hotels are concerned, is for those establishments that cater to business clients.

 

[Groucho]

It doesn't matter if it's outsourced internet (at some level, ALL internet access is outsourced - that's the way it works, there is no one carrier.) Whoever Disney buys internet access from sells Disney a certain speed of bandwidth. (And I'm quite sure that it's 100% separate from where their web servers, mail servers, etc exist, and almost certainly separate than what their corporate intranet uses for public internet access - ie, what a Disney office worker uses to access Yahoo, etc.)

That speed is a fixed cost depending on the connection - a few T1s, perhaps, or something bigger. It's just like your connection at home - you can use a router and share your internet with several other PCs in your house, and to a point, you won't notice. If you have an unsecured wireless router (and if you do - SECURE IT!!!), your neighbors can (and may already) hop on and you probably won't notice (if they're just surfing and not doing big downloads.) It's probably a safe assumption that someone at Disney isn't going to be doing massive downloads so the bandwidth requirements shouldn't be too bad per user. Worst case scenario, they add more bandwidth from their carrier - but chances are that there's enough already to support that. They have to have enough to satisy the requirement if, say, a bunch of business had a conference that all will use the in-room internet. (Maybe not as a DVC resort, but I'd be surprised if all WDW resorts didn't go ultimately through a single internet connection.)

Again - usually, internet access is sold by speed, not the amount of use. Disney's price probably doesn't change whether one person uses it or 1,000.

I would guess that the current setup clearly brings in revenue (as they'll pay exactly the same whether or not you use the internet, so it's pure profit for them)... so that is the reason that they don't want to change it. What's happening is the opposite of what some have said... people paying for the internet are actually paying a little more of everyone's fees!

 

[tjkraz]

It doesn't matter if it's outsourced internet (at some level, ALL internet access is outsourced - that's the way it works, there is no one carrier.) Whoever Disney buys internet access from sells Disney a certain speed of bandwidth.

It's a lot more complicated than that in Disney's case. They outsourced the ENTIRE OPERATION. It's completely hands-off for Disney. IIRC, the contract includes not only bandwidth but end-user support, equipment, equipment maintenance, security, etc. It may have even covered the installation costs at the resorts, but I'm not certain about that. All 20-some existing WDW resorts had to be wired for in-room access.

With this type of contract, it's very, very likely that the service provider receives a set fee per subscriber. Makes sense from Disney's standpoint--every penny between the service provider's fee and the guest fee is pure profit.

This is pure speculation, but the provider could easily be getting $5-7 per subscriber, per day.

 

[MiaSRN62]

ncseric says : I have the Verizon Broadband wireless card too and had it with me when we stayed at Ft. Wilderness Cabins last year. Unfortunately, the signal out there wasn't great and I ended up paying for a few days of Internet access there.

We have the wireless card as well. Couldn't pick up a signal the entire stay at OKW last week, though we did have a very good signal very frequently when we stayed at our offsite timeshare (Vistana) the week previous.

 

[jdg345]

It's a lot more complicated than that in Disney's case. They outsourced the ENTIRE OPERATION. It's completely hands-off for Disney. IIRC, the contract includes not only bandwidth but end-user support, equipment, equipment maintenance, security, etc. It may have even covered the installation costs at the resorts, but I'm not certain about that. All 20-some existing WDW resorts had to be wired for in-room access.

With this type of contract, it's very, very likely that the service provider receives a set fee per subscriber. Makes sense from Disney's standpoint--every penny between the service provider's fee and the guest fee is pure profit.

This is pure speculation, but the provider could easily be getting $5-7 per subscriber, per day.

Agreed; this makes a lot more sense. The Bandwidth itself is cheap ... you can drop a DS3 (approx the same bandwidth in 30xT1's) for less than $6k/month ... and that's just mid-sized business. Big business can do much better. Chances are Disney has multiple OC3's (each OC3 is 3xDS3) and they allocate a slice of it for this service.

The cost comes in when they link it into infrastructure etc. It would have cost Disney boatloads to wire all those rooms. I wouldn't be surprised if they bid it out and said something to the effect of, "You guys wire it and maintain it ... we'll give you $X per user per day". Disney's capital expense was minimal, and they basically get to pick up a few $$ per day just because.

Of course, this is all speculation ... there are various models that could have been put into effect here.

 

[Groucho]

I'm sorry, I just can't buy that they're paying on a per-user basis.

This is how I imagine it's set up:
Each room has a single ethernet connection going to a big switch in the hotel's wiring closet (equipment room, whatever you want to call it) which probably goes to a central server room where the main internet connection is made. Normally, all the ports on said switch are disabled. When someone requests internet access, the port on that switch that connects to that room is enabled. The switch costs the same amount of money no matter how many ports are enabled, and due to the nature of the business, they're going on and off all the time, whenever someone starts or stops internet access.

The person who requested internet access can then DHCP to get an IP address. (Probably could get multiple IPs if they wanted, if they brought a hub or used VirtualPC or whatever.) Because they're on a private network via NAT rather than directly on the internet (almost certainly - could tell for sure if someone knew their IP address when they paid for it), the IP addresses are effectively free, and the DHCP server doesn't care if it hands out two IP addresses or 200.

Now that they have an IP address, they can get to the NAT gateway and freely access the internet. The only work that needs to be done is enabling/disabling the port. (Which is much easier that what they'd have to do to provide secure wireless or limited-access wireless.) Everything else is exactly the same no matter how many users there are (within reason), but it may be slightly slower if everyone's on at the same time, which can be fixed with more bandwidth.

If Disney IS paying on a per-port basis (I really don't think they're paying on a per-user price, they'd be paying for the number of ports active each day), then they ought to be able to refiddle the contract to support more users for not much difference in cost. Again, it's actually less work that way since you don't need ports to be turned on and off.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

I'm sorry, I just can't buy that they're paying on a per-user basis.

This is how I imagine it's set up:
Each room has a single ethernet connection going to a big switch in the hotel's wiring closet (equipment room, whatever you want to call it) which probably goes to a central server room where the main internet connection is made. Normally, all the ports on said switch are disabled. When someone requests internet access, the port on that switch that connects to that room is enabled. The switch costs the same amount of money no matter how many ports are enabled, and due to the nature of the business, they're going on and off all the time, whenever someone starts or stops internet access.

The person who requested internet access can then DHCP to get an IP address. (Probably could get multiple IPs if they wanted, if they brought a hub or used VirtualPC or whatever.) Because they're on a private network via NAT rather than directly on the internet (almost certainly - could tell for sure if someone knew their IP address when they paid for it), the IP addresses are effectively free, and the DHCP server doesn't care if it hands out two IP addresses or 200.

Now that they have an IP address, they can get to the NAT gateway and freely access the internet. The only work that needs to be done is enabling/disabling the port. (Which is much easier that what they'd have to do to provide secure wireless or limited-access wireless.) Everything else is exactly the same no matter how many users there are (within reason), but it may be slightly slower if everyone's on at the same time, which can be fixed with more bandwidth.

If Disney IS paying on a per-port basis (I really don't think they're paying on a per-user price, they'd be paying for the number of ports active each day), then they ought to be able to refiddle the contract to support more users for not much difference in cost. Again, it's actually less work that way since you don't need ports to be turned on and off.

Yikes! I think that was too much detail... I am the Dir of IT in my company (very small company), and Groucho is 100% right. To put it simply... Disney has the mega-connection of all mega-connections to the Internet. Bandwidth cost is not an issue for them. Their bandwidth is like a 72 inch water main pipe. The problem is the cost of setting up the infrastructure in each location. That said, the cost isn't great enough to prevent Disney from providing WIFI (wireless access) to the members, at least in common areas. We frequent VB each year, and they only have one Internet connected terminal just off of the lobby. I am one who does try to stay connected to my work when I am away. It just gives me a calming feeling to know that nothing horrible is happening at work. Then I go ride the waves without concern. C'mon Disney... get with the program.

 

[Mickeysduck]

I recently sent an email to member services asking about the internet service fee, and this is the response from the Member Satisfaction Manager:

"I appreciate your taking the time to contact us about our Member Perks program. Since we have
recently installed high-speed internet access in our Resorts, we are currently charging a usage fee
to anyone who would like the ability to use the service until we can recuperate the investment cost
associated with paying for the equipment. Once our initial investment has been recovered, another
determination will be made as to the fees for the service."

 

[Groucho]

Mickeysduck: good news and that would make sense.

DisDayDreamer: well, I doubt that Disney's internet connection is all that big. I'd bet that they have a single connection for resort guests, and that is probably fast but not necessarily THAT fast. Possibly the DVC resorts have their own connection, even. Not sure.

But there's no need for them to have a really, really fast connection - just fast enough so that not too many guests complain about it being slow. But hopefully they looked ahead to it potentially going free and planned for that, by installing enough bandwidth to support that from day one.

 

[tjkraz]

I'm sorry, I just can't buy that they're paying on a per-user basis.

Believe what you want. Until someone privvy to the actual agreements chimes-in, it's all just speculation. Here is what I personally DO know to be true:

1. When the deal was first announced, either via some informational release or perhaps an article in the Orlando Sentinel, the phrase "revenue-sharing" was used to describe the relationship between Disney and the Internet provider (I believe it's Smart City.)

"Revenue-sharing", to me, implies that Disney and Smart City have an agreed-upon split of all revenues generated by the daily Internet fees.

2. Do a Google Search for "Walt Disney World Smart City" and you'll find a copy of the contract businesses must complete if they wish to secure Internet access or other data services while utilizing a WDW Conference center. The contract is an agreement between the convention center client and Smart City. Smart City handles all of the installation and even collects the fees for providing the service.

I've worked with complex networks myself and know that pre-wired environments like the conference centers are likely very, very easy to enable on an as-needed basis. If Disney were just purchasing bandwidth and handling all of the service and support themselves, why would Smart City be involved here?

(Probable answer: They don't have ANY IT support staff on-site--at least not any who deal with Internet service--it's all oursourced)

3. The Internet deal came at a time when Disney was frequently outsourcing services. Last summer Disney announced that 1/3 of all of the IT positions were being outsourced to IBM in a $1.3 billion deal.

Shortly thereafter WDW announced a separate deal to outsource night custodial jobs at the resort hotels.

Point: When the situation fits, Disney has little reluctance to go the outsourcing route rather than trying to staff and manage a project themselves.

Disney, as a whole, has a very poor record when it comes to start-up IT ventures. Anyone remember the gory details of "GO.com"? Providing internet service to resort guests isn't exactly a project that has a high ceiling, profit-wise. When the time came to make a decision, sure they could have tried to tackle things themselves--paying pennies a day for bandwidth. But they they would also have to staff for equipment maintenance and monitoring, 24/7 telephone support, etc.

The safe route is to find a vendor to take on all of these responsibilites. Find a professional to do the job right. Assign all responsibilities to the vendor for a fixed fee and pocket the additional revenue as pure profit. Smart City has been providing telcom services to WDW for decades and appears to be the perfect partner.

I believe that the deal with Smart City is only for 5 years, so the possibility certainly exists that changes will occur before the end of this decade.

That's my take on the situation. Disagree if you will. Maybe we'll have more to discuss if the pricing model ever changes. Until then it's all just wishful thinking.

 

[Groucho]

I don't see any big disagreements there. Disney has been pretty open about outsourcing in general (witness the various McDonalds fry carts, etc, as well as third-party-owned restaurants - seems most new ones are that way)... and the industry trend is definitely towards outsourcing IT.

I would definitely not be surprised if WDW had little to no IT personnel of their own running the stuff like resort internet, etc. (If you want some other examples, how about Test Track... the guys sitting in the post-ride area are actually EDS employees outsourced by GM, which is basically outsourced by GM!)

Revenue sharing is fine but there's a different between sharing what the guests pay and exactly what Disney pays, IMHO (you could work the numbers another way if you wanted, I suppose.) I say this because the guest charge is pretty much pure profit, and Disney surely has a basic charge that is the same no matter if twenty or zero people buy it on a given day.

As for Disney's track record... I would say that the current parks sites are still not nearly as good as they could be. They're often slow and sometimes pages don't come up reliably... especially if you go to download their official podcasts. Sometimes you'll get a "page not found", retry and it'll download. And yes, I remember the original "go.com" and I think few people minded when it DID go!

 

[ralphd]

I recently sent an email to member services asking about the internet service fee, and this is the response from the Member Satisfaction Manager:

"I appreciate your taking the time to contact us about our Member Perks program. Since we have
recently installed high-speed internet access in our Resorts, we are currently charging a usage fee
to anyone who would like the ability to use the service until we can recuperate the investment cost
associated with paying for the equipment. Once our initial investment has been recovered, another
determination will be made as to the fees for the service."

Let the members that use the service, pay for the service. If the expense is included in the dues, nonusers will be subsidizing the users.

 

[ralphd]

Believe what you want. Until someone privvy to the actual agreements chimes-in, it's all just speculation. Here is what I personally DO know to be true:

1. When the deal was first announced, either via some informational release or perhaps an article in the Orlando Sentinel, the phrase "revenue-sharing" was used to describe the relationship between Disney and the Internet provider (I believe it's Smart City.)

"Revenue-sharing", to me, implies that Disney and Smart City have an agreed-upon split of all revenues generated by the daily Internet fees.

2. Do a Google Search for "Walt Disney World Smart City" and you'll find a copy of the contract businesses must complete if they wish to secure Internet access or other data services while utilizing a WDW Conference center. The contract is an agreement between the convention center client and Smart City. Smart City handles all of the installation and even collects the fees for providing the service.

I've worked with complex networks myself and know that pre-wired environments like the conference centers are likely very, very easy to enable on an as-needed basis. If Disney were just purchasing bandwidth and handling all of the service and support themselves, why would Smart City be involved here?

(Probable answer: They don't have ANY IT support staff on-site--at least not any who deal with Internet service--it's all oursourced)

3. The Internet deal came at a time when Disney was frequently outsourcing services. Last summer Disney announced that 1/3 of all of the IT positions were being outsourced to IBM in a $1.3 billion deal.

Shortly thereafter WDW announced a separate deal to outsource night custodial jobs at the resort hotels.

Point: When the situation fits, Disney has little reluctance to go the outsourcing route rather than trying to staff and manage a project themselves.

Disney, as a whole, has a very poor record when it comes to start-up IT ventures. Anyone remember the gory details of "GO.com"? Providing internet service to resort guests isn't exactly a project that has a high ceiling, profit-wise. When the time came to make a decision, sure they could have tried to tackle things themselves--paying pennies a day for bandwidth. But they they would also have to staff for equipment maintenance and monitoring, 24/7 telephone support, etc.

The safe route is to find a vendor to take on all of these responsibilites. Find a professional to do the job right. Assign all responsibilities to the vendor for a fixed fee and pocket the additional revenue as pure profit. Smart City has been providing telcom services to WDW for decades and appears to be the perfect partner.

I believe that the deal with Smart City is only for 5 years, so the possibility certainly exists that changes will occur before the end of this decade.

That's my take on the situation. Disagree if you will. Maybe we'll have more to discuss if the pricing model ever changes. Until then it's all just wishful thinking.

Smart City purchased Vista-United in 2001. United became part of Sprint and the original Vista-United was spun off to Smart City. Disney owned 51% of the original Vista-Florida Telephone (acquired by United), but I do not think they have any financial interest in Smart City.
Don't think you will see any changes in the telephone franchise in the near future.

 

[Groucho]

Let the members that use the service, pay for the service. If the expense is included in the dues, nonusers will be subsidizing the users.

The point that I was making on the thread is, once the initial costs are recouped, the USERS will be subsidizing the NONUSERS.

How you feel about that depends on what group you're in, of course.

 

[ralphd]

The point that I was making on the thread is, once the initial costs are recouped, the USERS will be subsidizing the NONUSERS.

How you feel about that depends on what group you're in, of course.

How can you subsidize someone to use something they do not use????

 

[sjdisneywedding]

Let the members that use the service, pay for the service.

this is the easiest excuse that exists, it drives me nuts. you get no where in anything with that type of thinking.

Like I said I dont even use the internet at WDW, BUT I would rather pay a few dollars up front each year and have the option of using it for free when I was there rather than pay $10 each day I used it.

DVC is a whole and we all contribute to make the whole better for everyone, theres a lot paid for by our dues that many DVC'ers dont use, theres a ton I pay for but dont use.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

If the expense is included in the dues, nonusers will be subsidizing the users.

yeah and???? isnt this is the case with just about anything subsidized?

everyone pays their share for the OVERALL product

theres always someone using something more than someone else or less than someone else.

one member at SSR may use the transportation 100 times a day, another may not have ever used it. yet they still pay the same rate per point.

everyone is always happy when the "stuff" they use is paid for, but if they dont use something then whoaaaa--let "THEM" pay for it

theres is no WE and THEY here.. its all US. you cant pick and choose what you want to pay for and what you dont, its a package deal