Team Introduction: Why We Are Qualified to Deliver University Stadium WiFi Projects
Our team has long been engaged in WiFi coverage engineering projects in Japan for enterprise parks, university campuses, hotels, commercial complexes, scenic areas, parks, and large outdoor event spaces. We are especially experienced in outdoor wireless projects that require high concurrency, smooth roaming, and strong overall stability. Over the past few years, we have continuously served various educational institutions and public activity spaces across the Kanto and Kansai regions, and we are highly familiar with the typical characteristics of Japanese university projects, such as short construction windows, detailed acceptance standards, high stability requirements, and clearly defined post-deployment maintenance responsibilities.
When it comes to equipment selection, we have accumulated extensive practical experience with COMFAST products across many real-world projects. For projects involving outdoor coverage, high-density access, unified PoE power supply, and centralized gateway management, we place great importance on long-term performance in actual engineering environments rather than relying only on specification sheets. COMFAST has consistently performed well in many of our previous campus, park, and outdoor activity deployments, especially in terms of AP sustained-load performance, power deployment flexibility, overall cost-effectiveness, and ease of later maintenance. Therefore, for this outdoor university stadium project in Japan, we once again adopted a complete COMFAST-based networking solution to ensure the entire project—from design and construction to acceptance—was controllable, deliverable, and maintainable.
1. Project Background
This project is located within the main campus of a university in Japan and is part of the school’s key wireless network upgrade plan for its outdoor stadium. The stadium is primarily used for the following scenarios:
- On-campus football, track and field, baseball, and other sports classes and training sessions
- Intercollegiate competitions and club activities
- Freshman welcome events, campus open days, and graduation ceremony sub-venues
- Daily spectating, livestreaming, photo sharing, and mobile work by faculty and students
- Mobile interviews and content uploads by media personnel during competitions
The previous stadium network could only support a small number of management terminals and provided scattered coverage. It could not support continuous wireless coverage for the stands, entrances, sideline activity areas, and management zones. Once competitions, campus events, or crowd gatherings occurred, the network would quickly suffer from lag, disconnections, roaming failures, slow authentication, and other issues.
The university hoped that through this upgrade, it could build a wireless network truly suited to the usage characteristics of a university stadium, achieving the goals of “stable in daily use, usable under event peaks, and easy to maintain afterward.”
2. Client Requirements and Core Pain Points
After the initial on-site communication, the university put forward very clear requirements, which also highly reflected the typical characteristics of stadium projects.
2.1. Coverage Must Be Complete
The client required that WiFi should not only cover the main grandstand and management room, but should also fully cover the following areas:
- Main spectator stand
- Auxiliary stands on both sides
- Pathways around the sports field
- Athlete waiting zones and sideline substitute areas
- Entrance checkpoints and crowd gathering areas
- Stadium management duty points
2.2. It Must Withstand Competition and Event Peaks
The university clearly stated that during competitions or activities, a large number of students and visitors would connect simultaneously within a short period, and the network must not collapse just because the crowd increases.
2.3. Outdoor Stability Is Essential
The stadium is a typical open outdoor environment, and the equipment must withstand long-term exposure to:
- Sunlight
- Wind and rain
- Temperature changes
- Humidity
- Reflection from metal stand structures
- Obstruction and multipath interference caused by surrounding buildings
2.4. Roaming Experience Must Be Smooth
A stadium is not a static office environment. Users frequently move between entrances, stands, passageways, and sidelines. As mobile terminals switch between different APs, connection interruptions and perceived disconnections must be minimized as much as possible.
2.5. Post-Deployment Management Must Be Simple
The school’s IT management department has limited manpower, so they wanted a clear network structure that would be easy to maintain, troubleshoot, and expand later.
3. Problems Discovered After On-Site Survey
As a team that has truly completed stadium projects, we know very well that the biggest mistake in stadium WiFi coverage is designing only according to “area” while ignoring “user density distribution, terminal movement patterns, obstructing structures, metal reflection, and event peak load.” After our on-site survey, we summarized the following key issues.
3.1. Uneven Access Density in the Stands
The main stand is absolutely the highest-density access area during events, especially the central seating section, where students frequently take photos, post on social media, watch replay livestreams, scan QR codes to join groups, and so on. If APs are placed only according to average area distribution, the central high-density zone will become severely congested while edge areas remain underutilized.
3.2. Sideline Areas Require Strong Signal Continuity
Athletes, coaches, and event staff remain active along the sidelines for extended periods, and some terminals are also used for live video transmission, competition data uploads, and event management. These areas cannot merely “have signal”; they must remain continuously stable.
3.3. Open Fields Create the Illusion of Easy Coverage
Many non-professional teams see an open stadium and assume that a few high-power APs can cover the entire venue. In reality, the biggest issue in open outdoor fields is not “distance,” but the following:
- Users are clustered, not evenly distributed
- Metal stands, railings, and light poles create reflections
- In open environments, interference between APs becomes easier to spread
- Blindly increasing transmit power worsens terminal uplink performance, creating false coverage
3.4. Power Supply and Cabling Window Was Limited
The university required that construction avoid normal teaching and training hours and minimize impact on stadium usage. In other words, cabling, installation, and commissioning had to be completed within a short construction window, which placed high demands on project organization.
3.5. Entrance Areas Need to Handle Instantaneous Peak Access
Before and after matches, entrance areas experience short-term crowd gathering, with users simultaneously scanning codes, logging in, uploading pictures, and contacting friends. Such areas are highly prone to instantaneous concurrency pressure.
4. Project Design Approach
For this project, we did not adopt a rough “few high-power APs covering the whole venue” approach. Instead, we used an engineering strategy of “zoned coverage, targeted service for key user groups, controlled interference, unified PoE power supply, and centralized core management.”
The design principles were as follows:
- Give priority to high-density access capability in the main stand
- Prioritize coverage continuity for auxiliary stands and sideline areas
- Prioritize short-term concurrent handling for entrances and walkways
- Prefer finer AP zoning rather than blindly increasing power
- Keep the uplink structure as simple as possible for easier later maintenance
- Ensure all outdoor devices are installed in locations that consider waterproofing, sun protection, lightning protection, and maintenance accessibility
5. Equipment Selection and Reasons
The following COMFAST devices were used in this project:
Core Equipment List
- CF-AC100 Full Gigabit Core Gateway × 1
- CF-SG181P 24-Port Gigabit PoE Switch × 2
- CF-EW87 Outdoor AP (3600M, WiFi 7, Dual-Band) × 12
Note: This project configuration corresponds to a medium-sized outdoor sports field commonly seen on Japanese university campuses. Actual quantities would be adjusted according to stand size, number of entrances, pole availability, and the area of surrounding auxiliary zones.
5.1. CF-AC100 Full Gigabit Core Gateway
Reasons for Selection:
- As the egress and central control node of the entire network, it is suitable for campus stadium scenarios requiring stable aggregation
- Gigabit capability can support the aggregated backhaul needs of multiple APs
- Facilitates unified address planning, access control, and basic network policy management
- Makes the overall network structure clearer and easier for maintenance personnel to troubleshoot later
In this project, the CF-AC100 was responsible for the entire wireless network egress management of the stadium and interfaced with the university’s campus backbone network, ensuring stable operation during both competition days and normal academic days.
5.2. CF-SG181P 24-Port Gigabit PoE Switch
Reasons for Selection:
- Meets the centralized PoE power supply needs of multiple outdoor APs in a stadium project
- Reduces the need for independent outdoor power supply points, lowering construction complexity
- Gigabit uplink ensures that simultaneous backhaul from multiple APs does not easily create bottlenecks
- Switches can be centrally placed in weak-current cabinets or equipment rooms for unified maintenance
In stadium projects, the role of a PoE switch is extremely important. Outdoor APs are distributed across stand structures, light poles, passage columns, and other locations. If power had to be solved individually at every point, not only would the construction workload increase, but the number of future failure points would also rise sharply. With unified PoE power supply, construction efficiency, stability, and maintainability all improve significantly.
3. CF-EW87 Outdoor AP (3600M, WiFi 7, Dual-Band)
Reasons for Selection:
- Designed for outdoor scenarios, making it more suitable for long-term installation in stadium environments
- Dual-band coverage capability suits large numbers of mobile terminal connections from students, teachers, and event visitors
- WiFi 7 architecture provides a better capacity foundation under multi-terminal concurrency
- Suitable for zoned coverage rather than simple long-distance rough coverage
- In open spaces like stadiums, combined with proper AP placement planning, it is easier to balance high-density zones and passageway areas
In this project, the CF-EW87 was the core of the entire solution. It was not simply “mounted high to illuminate the whole field,” but rather deployed based on the crowd distribution characteristics of the stadium. By separately modeling the main stand, auxiliary stands, sidelines, entrances, and other zones, we achieved truly practical coverage.
6. Network Topology Diagram
Below is the core topology concept actually used in this project:
7. Networking and Coverage Details by Area
7.1. Main Stand Area
This was the most critical coverage area in the entire project and also the area most likely to fail if handled improperly.
Our Approach:
- Divided the main stand into multiple audience concentration sections
- Assigned multiple CF-EW87 units to serve different stand blocks
- Controlled overlap between AP coverage areas to avoid excessive co-channel interference
- Optimized installation angles to “serve the crowd” rather than simply “reach the farthest distance”
Key Experience:
A stadium stand is not an office hall, and terminals are not evenly distributed. During real peak periods, students tend to gather in the central area with the best viewing angle. If APs are placed only symmetrically for visual neatness, the center becomes congested while the sides remain underused. Therefore, we increased capacity allocation for the central main stand area and prioritized resources for the highest-density zone.
7.2. Auxiliary Stand Area
Although the overall concurrency in the auxiliary stands is not as high as in the main stand, the usage frequency during training days and club competition days is still significant.
Our Approach:
- Deployed edge supplementary coverage
- Ensured continuous coverage for seating areas and front/rear passageways
- Avoided large-scale opposing interference with APs serving the main stand
Result:
The auxiliary stands maintained stable access on event days, while also delivering complete and reliable network experience during daily training scenarios.
7.3. Sideline Area
The sideline area is often overlooked by many engineering teams, but in reality it frequently carries the most critical business terminals.
This includes:
- Coach terminals
- Handheld devices used by staff
- Temporary photography and livestream terminals
- Mobile devices in athlete rest areas
Our Approach:
- Planned separate coverage for the east and west sidelines
- Controlled AP installation height to avoid covering only the open field while ignoring near-field users
- Emphasized roaming continuity along the sidelines to reduce perceived disconnections as people moved back and forth
Engineering Experience:
Sideline coverage should not focus only on achieving attractive center-field test numbers, but should instead prioritize real user experience near the boundaries, substitute benches, and technical desk areas.
7.4. Entrance and Gathering Areas
The biggest characteristic of entrance zones is not “long-term high load,” but rather “a sudden burst of large numbers of connection requests in a short time.”
Our Approach:
- Deployed dedicated APs in the entrance zones
- Prioritized coverage for code-scanning areas, ticket checkpoints, and short-stay gathering zones
- Allowed entrance APs to absorb instantaneous access pressure, preventing overload of stand-area APs
This step was extremely important. Many project failures occur not because the stands lack signal, but because spectators begin mass QR scanning, photographing, and messaging before even entering. If the entrance area lacks dedicated capacity, the user experience becomes unstable from the very beginning.
7.5. Management Duty and Maintenance Area
Although this area is not a high-concurrency zone, it requires high stability.
Our Approach:
- Included the duty point within a dedicated stable coverage zone
- Facilitated daily equipment inspection, event communication, and basic management office work
8. Real Problems Encountered During Construction and How We Solved Them
This section most clearly reflects the professionalism of an engineering team. A real stadium project is never something that is “finished as soon as the equipment is mounted.”
Problem 1: Obvious Reflection from Metal Railings and Structural Components in the Stands
During on-site testing, we found that certain stand positions had evident multipath reflections, especially from metal railings, seat support structures, and some steel framework parts, causing signal fluctuation.
Solution:
- Fine-tuned AP installation angles
- Adjusted the relative positions of some APs and the edges of the stands
- Controlled overlap between adjacent AP coverage zones
- Performed a second round of on-site channel planning optimization
Experience Summary:
In stadium projects, it is not enough to only look at the first round of spectrum scanning. You must perform re-testing after actual installation. Many problems are not caused by the specifications themselves, but by environmental changes introduced by metal structures on site.
Problem 2: “Strong Signal but Unstable Internet Use” in Some Areas
This is a typical trap in outdoor projects. During initial testing, RSSI in some positions looked good, but actual video playback or image uploading was unstable.
Root Cause:
- A terminal being able to receive AP downlink signal does not mean uplink performance is equally good
- Blindly increasing AP transmit power creates “false coverage”
- At long distances, terminal transmit capability cannot keep up, so actual experience becomes poor
Solution:
- Abandoned the idea of greedy long-distance coverage at a few points
- Switched to more reasonable zoned service
- Controlled transmit parameters and optimized two-way communication quality between terminals and APs
Engineering Experience:
Stadium WiFi coverage is not about who can “reach farther,” but about who can provide a more realistic usable area.
Problem 3: Connection Jitter During Peak Entrance Access
During simulated event peak testing, a large number of terminals connected simultaneously in the entrance zone, and at the beginning there were issues with slow association speed.
Solution:
- Treated the entrance as an independent peak-access zone
- Optimized the service boundaries of APs in the entrance area
- Prevented a large number of entrance terminals from competing for AP resources in the stand area
Result:
After the second round of optimization, performance in the entrance area improved significantly during simulated peak access.
Problem 4: Short Construction Window and High On-Site Cleanliness Requirements from the University
Japanese universities generally have high requirements for construction standards, especially in visible areas. Cables, mounting components, labels, and finishing quality all had to be规范 and professional.
Our Approach:
- Pre-labeled all cabling in advance
- Numbered every PoE link point by point
- Coordinated fixing positions with building and pole structures as much as possible
- Ensured cable routing followed the principle of “concealed, safe, and maintainable”
- Output a port-to-location correspondence table immediately after commissioning
Engineering Value:
This is not only a matter of appearance, but also of future maintenance efficiency. Many teams save effort during installation, but later when a problem occurs they cannot even locate the correct link.
Problem 5: Outdoor Device Installation Must Balance Protection and Maintainability
A stadium project is not over once the devices are installed. You must also consider:
- Stability during rainy seasons
- Equipment aging inspection
- Convenience of future expansion
- Whether maintenance personnel can quickly access and replace devices
Our Approach:
- All AP locations considered both waterproof direction and maintenance access path
- Switches were centrally deployed to reduce chaotic outdoor nodes
- Critical links retained maintenance redundancy
9. Actual Results After Project Implementation
After the project was completed and optimized through tuning, the overall network performance reached the university’s expectations.
9.1. Coverage Completeness Improved Significantly
The network upgraded from only partially usable coverage to continuous usability across the stands, sidelines, entrances, passageways, and management points.
9.2. Peak Access Capability Improved Significantly
In simulated competition and campus event scenarios, the overall network stability under simultaneous multi-terminal access was clearly better than before the upgrade.
9.3. Roaming Experience Became Smoother
As users walked from the entrance to the stands, or from the stands to sideline walkways, switching experience became much smoother, and terminals no longer frequently suffered from obvious perceived disconnections.
9.4. Post-Deployment Maintenance Became Clearer
The relationships among the gateway, PoE switches, and AP locations were clear, making later inspection and management easier for the university IT center.
10. Project Acceptance Details
During the acceptance phase, we did not simply treat “having signal” as sufficient. Instead, we carried out joint acceptance according to actual usage logic, focusing on the following items:
Acceptance Items
- Coverage testing across all stand sections
- Continuous roaming tests for sidelines and passageways
- Short-term high-concurrency access simulation at entrances
- Stable online testing in management zones
- Continuous observation of AP online stability
- PoE power supply and link status inspection
- Verification of weak-current cabinet labeling and port numbering
Acceptance Methods
- Real walk tests using multiple terminals
- Peak-load connection simulation
- Verification of real usage tasks such as video loading, image upload, and QR-code connection
- Re-testing at different times of day to confirm stable performance in both daytime and evening conditions
11. Positive Feedback from the Client and Users
After delivery, both the university management department and actual users gave very positive feedback.
Feedback from the University IT Center
“This stadium wireless network project was not just about installing devices. You truly understood our stadium usage scenarios. Your consideration of high-density stands, entrance peak load, and future maintenance was very detailed, and this is very different from some teams we have dealt with before.”
Feedback from Sports Management Staff
“In the past, the biggest concern on match days was that once too many students arrived, the network would become chaotic. After this upgrade, it is obviously much more stable, especially in the entrance and stand areas, where connection and usage are much smoother.”
Feedback from Student Users
- “Uploading photos and videos during matches is much faster than before.”
- “There is basically no disconnection from the entrance to the stands.”
- “Livestream uploads for club activities are much more stable.”
12. What We Did Differently from Other Engineering Teams
When many teams handle stadium WiFi projects, they tend to make several typical mistakes:
- Looking only at the area, not at user density distribution
- Pursuing only high-power coverage without considering actual terminal uplink capability
- Ignoring short-term peak concurrency at entrances
- Ignoring metal structure reflections and real multipath issues
- Using non-standard cabling and labeling, making later maintenance difficult
- Testing only signal strength during acceptance instead of actual service experience
The reason this project earned the university’s recognition lies in the following:
12.1. We Do Not Sell an “Equipment-First” Mindset, but a “Scenario-First” Mindset
We first study how the stadium is used, then determine how the equipment should be deployed.
12.2. We Do Not Consider Coverage Complete Just Because a Signal Can Be Detected
We care more about actual terminal connection quality, roaming experience, and usability under peak load.
12.3. We Include Future Maintenance as Part of the Design
We strive to make every point and link traceable, manageable, and maintainable.
12.4. Tuning Is Not a One-Time Action
We insist on on-site re-testing and second-round optimization, turning the project from merely “installation completed” into “ready for long-term use.”
13. Advice to Other WiFi Engineering Peers
If you are also going to work on university stadiums, campus sports grounds, or open-air stand projects, I strongly recommend paying attention to the following points:
13.1. Do Not Believe in “High Power Can Cover the Entire Venue”
What is truly difficult in a stadium is high-density capacity and real usability, not simply coverage radius.
13.2. You Must Distinguish Among Three Completely Different Business Zones: Stands, Sidelines, and Entrances
These three areas have different user behaviors, concurrency patterns, and experience requirements, so they cannot be designed in the same way.
13.3. Do Not Ignore Uplink Experience
Many cases of “coverage looks great on the surface but feels poor in real use” are essentially caused by imbalance in the two-way link.
13.4. On-Site Re-Testing Is More Important Than Paper Design
The stadium’s metal structures, open-space reflection, and crowd pattern changes on event days can all cause actual performance to differ from what the diagram model suggests.
13.5. Standardized Cabling and Labeling Are the Bottom Line of a Professional Team
A truly good project is not just one that looks neat on delivery day, but one that is still clear and easy to maintain six months later.
14. Project Summary
The Sakura Field Stadium outdoor WiFi coverage project for a university in Japan is a very typical example of outdoor wireless network construction for a university stadium. The key to the project was not piling up more devices, but truly understanding the wireless coverage logic of stadium scenarios: high-density access, zoned service, interference reduction, roaming assurance, and balancing construction with maintenance.
In this project, we adopted a combination of COMFAST CF-AC100 Full Gigabit Core Gateway + CF-SG181P 24-Port Gigabit PoE Switch + CF-EW87 WiFi 7 Outdoor AP, and successfully completed continuous multi-zone coverage across the university’s outdoor stadium, achieving stable connectivity for the stands, sidelines, entrances, passageways, and management areas. This once again verified the engineering suitability of COMFAST equipment in outdoor university wireless scenarios.
