How Can Escapees have everything right about RVing except internet at their parks?

[colddog15]

In a word -- customer expectations. If a business provides a service customers have a baseline expectation of that service. The customers will judge based on their personal expectations. For instance if a RV park advertises 50 AMP service then I'd expect that service to be 50 AMP and wired safely. Just offering 50 AMP service without all the other 'understandings' is not meeting customer expectations.

As a very long time user of 'on the road' internet access points RV parks in general are very far behind the customer expectation.

It's nice to come up with reasons RV parks do not meet the customer expectation but they don't. I agree with the sediment either offer good, fast, clean internet or don't offer it at all.

 

glen

[Smitty77_7]

I believe I was the first to respond the OP that I agreed that RV Parks should 'where able to do so' provide more robust WiFi. Still feel this is true, and again understand that not areas can yet support major lane freeways to the internet.

 

I've just caught up on all the threads, and for sure understand where different perspectives come from, and those differences are OK in my opinion.

 

I did signal out only the RV Parks. But in fairness, I feel all of us that believe strongly that today 'robust high speed internet' is now as common a need as clean water, and solid electricity - should also share our thoughts with our Local, State and Federal representatives.

 

The recent FCC ruling and change related to just the Cellular Data portion of the Internet On Ramp, is a good example about how things are changing.

 

RV mentioned the Musk Satellite approach. Google has theirs, and I believe Branson and many other are also looking into different internet access delivery systems.

 

Googles Fiber Rollout effort, a private company, is doing more about expanding bandwidth - then any coordinated effort from our collective governmental groups. Why? How come we can't treat this like sewers, water, gas lines, roadways and highways - as a general public basic need?

 

And yes, one major reason, as seen by the recent and ongoing FCC rulings - is large private corporations (Phone Land Lines, Cellular Phones, Cable Companies, etc.) are very big on fund raising donations, and have squads of lawyers ready to defend this revenue income. So this change will not be easy, and will take a collective leadership approach to do so. But that does not mean it should not happen. It would help the quality of all of our lives, and could also assist our future generations ongoing, by providing incredible education resources.

 

It's not all about the RV Parks, IMO - it's time for this to become a national discussion on where and how we get our 'information' available easily to and most important 'adequately' to as much of our population as possible. Not all will agree, not all, will want this. But you can bet by 2030, 2050, etc. - this ability to have 'information' (And yes, entertainment wise to via 7D Visual and 37.4 Inner Surround Sound in quest of '42' - too!) will be the expected norm.

 

I believe many on this forum did send 'their expectations' on the FCC review before it's ruling. If you feel that it's time to start the process to have a controlled coordinated approach on this - let our various representative know this...

 

And as one of our other Escapee Members has in their signature 'If it was easy, I'd do it myself!'. Sure not mocking the RV Parks that have provided what they could, when the could - many of these are truly small Mom and Pop businesses, without major revenue streams to just 'add a new wifi'...

 

Best to all, be safe, have fun,

Smitty

[bigjim]

chad, thanks for the parks view statement. The way they explained it made somethings clearer to me.

 

I frankly think that as wonderful as all this is we are becoming way to dependent on computers. I think some recent events have shown the danger of internet communications. It can be as big a threat to our national security as it can be a saviour. JMO

 

As far as the parks I cannot compare as I rarely stay in commercial parks. I guess everyone gets into RVing for their own reasons and I am glad the commercial parks are there and available but they are not the reason I went RVing. To each his own.

[docj]

In a word -- customer expectations. If a business provides a service customers have a baseline expectation of that service. The customers will judge based on their personal expectations. For instance if a RV park advertises 50 AMP service then I'd expect that service to be 50 AMP and wired safely. Just offering 50 AMP service without all the other 'understandings' is not meeting customer expectations.

 

 

Excellent analogy. No one here would find it acceptable if the advertised 50A service couldn't provide more than 30A after 6pm without the voltage dropping below 105V. Advertising wifi that doesn't meet expectations is no different.

[docj]

Doc.....I dont think I am wrong in saying that its selfish to stream in RV parks. We still have a stick and bricks home and do whatever we want on the internet when we are home as we have unlimited high speed data . When we are in RV parks we dont stream and dont play youtube videos out of a sense of courtesy to others in the park...plain and simple.

 

I agree that in a family situation with kids and their tablets the streaming is most likely second nature and they are not being selfish but ignorant of the situation. Some education wouldnt hurt in this situation.

 

I also agree that bandwidth has increased largely in part to the ads and high def photos and videos that load uninvited as soon as you start to surf the web. It would be nice if more of it could be screened.

 

 

 

Jack Mayer will attest to the fact that parks can block popular streaming sites if they're willing to undertake the task. Parks can also limit the bandwidth available to each customer. Some parks do these things to prevent others from hogging the available bandwidth. Others apparently are ignorant of the fact that they could do so or simply don't care enough to make the investment. You should be blaming the parks not their customers.

 

As I and others in this thread have already said, when you advertise wifi people expect to be able to do all the things they are used to doing. If a park is afraid to be honest with its customers by tell them that "we really only have wifi adequate for checking email" then that's going to hurt them in the long run.

 

OTOH if a park really can't get good backhaul service then maybe its customers will find their cellular service isn't all that good either. When we stayed at Stovepipe Wells in Death Valley we were appreciative of the meager internet access provided by a single Hughesnet satellite link. Since we had absolutely no Verizon service anything was better than nothing. We surely couldn't quibble with that park manager about his wifi.

[Cyberdave]

Wa_desert_rat, Although I appreciate your reply I strongly disagree. As previously stated, I have been on the road since July and this is my first time I have had a problem with wi fi for the little needs I have for bandwidth. And I have paid the 22.00 per day on a lot of occasions. The small data emails that I send and receive all day has never been a problem until I got here. Netflix has not always been great but I don’t use it much and am not figuring that into my comparison although I brought it up in my original post. I really think it is an age gap. I am 40 years old and very good with computers and internet. Every other forum I belong to, shares my thoughts on wi fi. Docj writes for an Rv magazine and agrees with me. In the end I believe it really is an age gap. My generation understands and the older generation does not. I wish I were retired (as I suspect most are on this forum) and didn’t have to depend on the net as much as I do. I do in fact have great backup with Verizon. But everywhere else I have been, I have not needed that backup. I might be on the wrong forum based solely on my age because I feel that 75% of the posters here cannot sympathize with me where 75% of the RV population as a whole does agree. I use Escapees as a mail service and pay a fee. And I will still stay at their parks often. But as I have stated several times before, “how can they have everything else right but the wifi”? I have not gotten many responses to this question at all. In fact, most responses were posters trying to give me lessons on not using netflix and how I should not expect good wifi. I disagree based on 10 months experience in several parks.

 

 

Apparently, you think there is room in the daily rates for high quality WiFi electricity, water, maintenance etc? Been on the road for less than a year and never, ever had an issue with WiFi at any other park? Well, in 5 years that we've been on the road we have stayed in well over a hundred parks and the majority did not have WiFi. Perhaps Travis could give some insight as to what a good WiFi would increase the daily rates.

[Newt]

Is WiFi included in the Rainbows End rates? I thought it was an extra charge.

 

Personally, if I have to pay extra for WiFi, I have higher expectations.

 

Newt

[Bill Joyce]

Wifi is extra cost at Rainbow's End and it is only in the new section (Oaks). We have always stayed in the old section, The Hill, and supplied our own internet.

[whj469]

I wouldn't expect an RV park to have great WiFi so that lots of people can stream movies.

If you want to use the internet to stream movies or for your work then you should have you own internet provider.

We use our cell phones as hot spots and are pleased with the result. I have been to Escapees in Livingston, TX and the internet

is slow and at that time you had to pay for it. I don't know if that has changed? If you stream lots of movies you should have lots of data because you will need it. Good Luck

[Cyberdave]

Is WiFi included in the Rainbows End rates? I thought it was an extra charge.

 

Personally, if I have to pay extra for WiFi, I have higher expectations.

 

Newt

That's my point. WiFi is available but it is not included in your daily rate. As you say, I would expect a lot more were I being charged for it.

[wa_desert_rat]

The OP, Gr8White, in his first post complains that he was cut back from watching Netflix.

" I was 1/4 through a movie on Netflix and it stopped because I got throttled down."

 

When he was asked why he did not have his own Internet connection (he had, after all, said he needed it for his work) he said that he did have his own Internet connection. But...

"I do have a backup myfi but prefer not to use it if I dont have to."

 

Of course he preferred not to use it. Because he has to pay for the data he downloads. Meanwhile he, and others, apparently think that the RV parks don't have to pay for the data that THEY suck down.

 

But they're wrong.

 

RV parks that offer WiFi not only pay for the data campers suck down, but every single link in the upstream datastream pays for data too. Both up and down. The only entity who doesn't usually pay for data downloaded are "end users". The subscribers.

 

So even though Gr8White is familiar with the way the system works on his cell phone 4G connection hotspot, he either doesn't know - or chooses to ignore - the fact that his RV park faces the same dilemma.

 

What I'd like to see is that everyone who thinks their RV park should provide enough WiFi so that they can stream whatever they want whenever they want set their MiFi (or tethering hotspot of whatever brand) to no password and then try to arrange a payment system for those who take advantage of it.

 

And report back here how it worked out for them. And I'd be especially interested in how much you had to charge in order to make money.

 

WDR

[Dutch_12078]

To lend some idea of the costs involved to the thread, in 2010 I helped install some of the backhaul hardware at a campground that had worked out a unique arrangement with a nearby manufacturing facility. Basically, the two companies share a 155Mbp/s OC3 fiber line, with the manufacturer getting 2/3 of the capacity from 7am to 5pm week days, and the campground getting the other 1/3. The rest of the time, the shared capacity reverses, with the campground getting the larger bit. I don't know how the financial arrangement is set up between them, but I do know that their shared OC3 line rate was about $6500/month. Set up costs for the OC3 alone were about $17,000, not including the in plant or campground distribution costs. The installation was only economically feasible because the service provider already had dark fiber in the ground that ran fairly close to both facilities. The 97 site campground is a 6 month seasonal operation, so their annual costs must be recouped in that period of course. The Internet service is included in their site rates.

 

Oh, and the number one complaint at this campground the last time I spoke with the owner about a year ago? Slow Internet...

[airstream harry]

Wifi is Not a big focus at most Escapees Parks. I guess they have their reasons. I would venture to guess that they know most full timers have their own wifi setup. Those who live at the parks also have their own. Seems simple to me. I don't think you can compare Escapees to other private parks. Escapees is a club, the parks are one part of their services. You think wifi should be more of a focus,they do not.

c u on the road

[Bill Joyce]

Tengo does have bandwidth caps in stages, normally on a 12 hour window. An example is full speed for the first 500MB, then slowed down for 501 to 1000MB, then unusably slow for over 1000. Wait 12 hours and it goes back to full speed. There is often a meter available online for your connection to show where you are in usage.

[wa_desert_rat]

Tengo does have bandwidth caps in stages, normally on a 12 hour window. An example is full speed for the first 500MB, then slowed down for 501 to 1000MB, then unusably slow for over 1000. Wait 12 hours and it goes back to full speed. There is often a meter available online for your connection to show where you are in usage.

The system we used to use would give full bandwidth for a set period of time... then gradually reduce it depending upon how much bandwidth was being used overall. So if you were the only one requesting data you'd get the full bandwidth. But if there were 25 others on the data flow would be apportioned.

 

All set up according to what was being requested.

 

Tengo does have a bad rep but, really, there is never enough bandwidth and the provider is always the bad guy.

 

WDR

[TxCowboy]

Tengo does have bandwidth caps in stages, normally on a 12 hour window. An example is full speed for the first 500MB, then slowed down for 501 to 1000MB, then unusably slow for over 1000. Wait 12 hours and it goes back to full speed. There is often a meter available online for your connection to show where you are in usage.

 

This makes a lot of sense and is pretty reasonable, actually. But some of today's applications are huge. I've got a program on my laptop that is over 10 gig. That's one program. Just downloading the updates can be daunting.

 

Was playing with a friend's computer over the past weekend. He was having "problems" and "it wasn't running right". After over one gig of fixes, patches, software updates, firmware updates, and security fixes, it is now running right. I can't imagine trying to work on that guy's laptop with anything less than a 10 mbps or higher throughput trying to update all that software, firmware, and drivers. Based on the numbers Bill provides above, it would have been a two day effort.

 

On a similar note, wasn't there a Windows 8.1 patch just a couple of months ago that was about 570 meg to the OS program then another 100 meg or so of security patches?

 

Again, some programs and patches are just huge nowadays. That's not streaming anything.

[Cyberdave]

Bottom line, you came, you made an rather ignoramus post asserting your experience with what, <10 parks. Got answers you didn't agree with belittled and insulted members and you feel all butt hurt?

 

You make broad aSSumptions regarding our age and not being 'in touch' with the 'tech' world without realizing that we range in age from 40 to 80 plus. Some of our members work or have worked in the industry and that couldn't penetrate...

 

So, MODTHR dude

[Bill Joyce]

TXCowboy: Been there on helping someone get their computer working, it often requires a lot of internet bandwidth. The Windows 8.1 upgrade from 8.0 was 3 or 4G and, I just updated a niece's computer to fix problems on a home DSL connection. My Verizon Note 3 updated to Android 5.0 today and used over 1GB. None of these could be done with the Tengo systems I have used.

[Big Greg]

In our ninth years full timing we have come to know that few RV parks have fast and reliable WiFi. There is no doubt it has improved during our years on the road and will continue to improve. If the OP has had fast reliable WiFi for the past 10 months I would consider that very lucky and buy a lotto ticket soon. I would assume there will be better WiFi from parks in a metro areas. Perhaps many of the Escapees are older, we are 68, and have learned that campground WiFi has not been fast and reliable in years past so we have become independent out of necessity. If this is the case Escapee parks might not see the benefit of WiFi to us old timers. Now that the number of younger RVers is increasing and they have grown up with fast and reliable internet access they will demand it from campgrounds. The younger Xscapers (as the Escapees calls them and is starting to focus on them) can have jobs that allow them to travel and work via the internet so reliable internet access is being demanded. Greg

[billr]

We operate a Campground and understand the public's view on WiFi expectations. We also have to upgrade our equipment to just try to keep our heads above water meeting moderate demands. The technology changes so fast that what is installed this year is already behind next or sooner. At an average of $8-$10K to revamp a system and toss an old one is a real issue for most parks. So we are always behind. Back haul is also a real problem for any park that is not in a city with cable or fiber optic.

 

We were able to bring service up to very good levels for laptop use then mobile devices took off! Once most had just one laptop per unit, now 3,4, maybe 6 including mobile. The range on the mobile devices create even more challenges to meet. Its a real balance.

 

We do have bandwidth monitoring in place with speed restrictions set to a point that one would be at full speed for any email, facebook and general surfing needs. No site restrictions at all. There is a cutoff at 1G per 24hrs. Streaming video will get shut down fairly quick.

 

We advise every guest that inquire and also provide all this info at check in. We want guests to understand we can provide reliable internet at NO extra charge to 2 devices with access code, for small band width uses. This way everyone can enjoy basic service. We have found by letting folks know in advance what we provide they can decide if they can live with that and chise to stay or ont if WiFi is a driving factor. This seems to work way better than guests expecting at home service and being disapointed. We recieve very few complaints.

 

Regarding using CG WiFi for work, we discourage this and if asked about doing so, we let the guest know that we would not rely on the system for work.

 

We are campers too, and we almost never use a parks WiFi. We carry our own.

 

I am not looking to get into any back and forth here on this just offering a point of view from a park perspective.

[RV fan]

Well, there are stupid people of all ages. I'm only a network engineer, so what do I know.

 

You can't get everything you want every time you want it.

 

I think that pretty much describes the age gap.

 

WDR

"We want it all and we want it NOW!" Including cheap camping fees, or we'll stay at WalMart

[Jack Mayer]

Despite the OPs claims otherwise, I do think his original question has been answered and answered well.

 

I also think this topic has been beaten to death at this point. I'm moving on unless someone has a specific technical question.

[airstream harry]

Yeah!!!

[aziamaiza]

I have read through this topic and did not plan to post anything here, but then I read through a news letter from a park I have stayed at and it had a snippet about guests and there internet usage. This park is a high end park that caters to full time and long time RV'ers, as well as vacation type RV'ers. The park has several locations in the Pacific Northwest (CA, OR and WA).

 

Here is what they put in their newsletter:

 

"Wi-Fi

We are continuing to upgrade our Wi-Fi capabilities at every resort. The limiting factor at every resort is getting a connection to the internet that has enough bandwidth. We are putting a new cable service in at Redding and have updated our DSL lines at Eugene, Clarkston and Lincoln City. The truth is that our biggest challenge is too many people using multiple devices and downloading or streaming videos and movies. Over Presidents Day weekend we checked on the software that controls our Wi-Fi Service at one of the resorts. The resort was full and that means 92 sites were occupied. But we had over 400 devices connected to our internet service! All were guests of the resort. We discovered that multiple users were trying to download movies, play video games on-line, and stream TV shows.

We really need the cooperation of our customers so that everyone can have fast internet access. We respectfully ask that all of our customers limit their use of the Wi-Fi to surfing the internet, doing their banking and business, and getting weather and news ... and of course communicating with friends, family and loved ones. We are also experimenting with issuing only two passwords per RV at one of our resorts. Most people do not realize that if they connect to the Wi-Fi and later are not actively using the device often there is still search activity going on in the background that consumes bandwidth. We are committed to giving the best Wi-Fi service possible and to upgrade our bandwidth wherever possible ... but please pass the word along that streaming videos, movies and TV programs or playing video games affects all the neighbors.

Another hint for those of you who have your own internal Wi-Fi or wireless printers: Often those devices are communicating within your coach on the same frequency that our Wi-Fi system uses. In most cases your devices are programmed to pick up the strongest signal (which is your own network) and therefore the park Wi-Fi gets blocked. I witnessed that just a few weeks ago at our Redding Resort. A customer was using his Apple computer. He could get a great signal outside the coach but once he went inside he could not connect. We discovered that he had several other devices that he connected to within his coach that were broadcasting on the same radio frequency. By turning off the other devices he was able to get a clear and fast Wi-Fi connection."

 

I just thought it was interesting to get a "Park" perspective included in this discussion.

 

Most "smartphones" are anything but smart, in terms of data usage. My guess is that a high percentage of them are always on even when the user is otherwise engaged. Imagine a street in which every house has multiple TV sets and none of them are ever switched off.

 

We need new guidelines. Its been my experience that the vast majority of campers honor the ten pm lights out, party over protocol. Likewise, it'll eventually be recognized as a matter of simple courtesy to turn wi fi off when not in use.

[docj]

 

 

We advise every guest that inquire and also provide all this info at check in. We want guests to understand we can provide reliable internet at NO extra charge to 2 devices with access code, for small band width uses.

 

I assume you realize that any camper with a WiFiRanger or other "WiFi as WAN" router can easily defeat your "2 device" rule unless you're doing something rather sophisticated to block them?