Venues (over a certain size) are near monopolies. There is only one Moscone Center. You could hold event at Cow Palace, but that's not the same level of facility, nor so optimally placed.
There are lots of other conference centers. That Moscone happens to be the only big one located in downtown San Francisco doesn't make it a monopoly, that's merely a competitive advantage, and competitive advantages often let places charge more.
Unfortunately, there's really no market-based solution to convention-center practices. Competing for desirable locations -- say, by building your own convention center and charging less/having better practices -- is close enough to impossible that we can just call it impossible.
And given how often convention centers are funded by the taxpayers, it's only fair for the taxpayers to impose conditions on how their money will be used.
Even if there's only one convention center in an area that's suitable, there are a lot of cities with convention centers out there. Lots of conventions are not particularly tied down to a ___location, other than for sentimental reasons.
I get that the situation sucks. I've been there too. But ultimately you're paying this tremendous premium not because there's literally no choice, which is what a monopoly would entail, but merely because it's worth it over the alternative.
I think the fact that these things are often owned by the local governments is a good reason why they shouldn't be doing stuff like this, but that seems like a remedy to ask for from the local governments in question, rather than some sort of federal investigation.
Like ghaff says, once your event gets above a certain size, you're not choosing a venue for "sentimental reasons". The number of places that can handle the truly large conventions and conferences is, I suspect, not as high as you think it is.
Right. You get to around the 10K+ range and you've basically got Vegas (the Sands and possibly the Convention Center though I haven't been to the latter since Comdex days), the Moscone, Javits, the main convention center in Boston (10K is a bit large for the Hynes), Orlando can be made to work (though I hate the logistic involved). There are doubtless other potential locations--Chicago was the other Comdex site back in the day, Houston had/had huge oil & gas shows--but I can't remember the last time I've seen a top-tier tech show at another ___location.
The whole tradeshow thing is something of a racket--speaking as someone who has been involved with tech tradeshows in various contexts for more years than I care to admit. As you suggest, there are lots of cities and lots of convention centers, at least until you get above a certain size in which case your options drop dramatically. But I suspect that moving most tech conferences to $RANDOM_MIDWEST_CITY wouldn't be a popular choice among potential attendees. (Not that I'm personally a particular fan of certain popular venues like Vegas but many are.)
bell never had a monopoly because you could choose to run wires to all the people you want to communicate with, you merely pay them because it's worth it over the alternative.
There are lots of conference centers for small conferences. In the medical field, some of the conferences can only be held in 5-6 centers within the U.S.
I've seen conferences charge really high prices for data at a convention center, namely because so many people attended, that it would have overwhelmed the convention center's (likely underpowered) network. Price kept usage low.
This is one reason I've began to like the smaller conferences more. More variety in venues and free data. Plus it's easier to be known among a smaller group of people.
Exactly "the only big one". As in there are no others. If you want to have a big convention in SF your choices are, ... None. The ability for a developer to buy land and build another big, profitable convention center in SF is near zero.
