Strong Signal - Low Bandwidth

[Kevin H]

I spend a lot of time in remote places such as Yellowstone.  I can get a pretty good signal but there is very little bandwidth.

I can go to a spot in direct line of sight to the cell tower.  Get 4 bars of signal but still do a LOT of clocking and slow service.

What options does a person like me have?  Satellite internet?  I am not aware of any type of booster for bandwidth.

I'm open to all possibilities as I am out here frequently.

Thanks!

[rynosback]

I am not aware of a booster for bandwidth also.  There is Hughes gen 5,I think, satalite internet.  But you would be at the mercy for clear skies and no trees.

[frater jason]

I run everything off a 3G mifi with limited bandwidth.  It does require some adjustments.

Here's an rvwiki article on dealing with limited bandwidth.

[richardbetsey]

In also am not aware of any devices that will boost bandwidth. We are on Verizon and always there is a major difference between bandwidth on the phone and the hotspot we use our computer with.

I do notice that signal strength can affect the hotspot a bit.

We've had good luck increasing signal strength with our WeBoost amplifier. The latest version has an antenna that is omni directional so you can just leave it in place.

[Mark and Dale Bruss]

Low Bandwidth is like having an 80 mph Interstate with cars bumper to bumper, just not many cars get through.

Because of the nature of Yellowstone, few towers and lots and lots of visitors using what bandwidth the tower have.

Satellite Internet net is not like the days of the old Hughesnet where you could setup your dish onto CONUS satellites.  Today it is spotbeams and the dish setup is meant for sticks&bricks locations.  

With satellite Internet, you have more bandwidth and slower web browsing because of very long hop times.  It takes time for the signal to travel the 22,500 miles to the satellite and then 22,500 miles back to Earth, sometimes twice.

 

 

[LiveWorkDream]

1 hour ago, Mark and Dale Bruss said:

Satellite Internet net is not like the days of the old Hughesnet where you could setup your dish onto CONUS satellites.  Today it is spotbeams and the dish setup is meant for sticks&bricks locations.  

With satellite Internet, you have more bandwidth and slower web browsing because of very long hop times.  It takes time for the signal to travel the 22,500 miles to the satellite and then 22,500 miles back to Earth, sometimes twice.

I'd like to respectfully say nope, that's not the case at all. We currently have a rooftop mounted RV DataSat 840 and find the speeds and performance almost just as fast as cellular broadband, even up here in Alaska where are currently camped.

Anyone with a technical background who prefers to camp in remote areas but must be online every day like my husband and I will find that the investment is worthwhile. It has been indispensable for us up here in the North Country and all the other remote places we travel in our RV. 

If you have any questions about RV mobile satellite internet please PM us. My husband has extensive experience with this technology, we were users #1 for this system and have owned one since 2007. Can't live without it.

 

[docj]

5 hours ago, LiveWorkDream said:

I'd like to respectfully say nope, that's not the case at all. We currently have a rooftop mounted RV DataSat 840 and find the speeds and performance almost just as fast as cellular broadband, even up here in Alaska where are currently camped.

With all due respect, although your download speed may be similar to cellular your ping time with a satellite system using a geosynchronous satellite must, by definition, be on the order of at least 700-900 msec.  This is due to the fact that the satellite sits over the equator at a distance of ~23,000 miles above the earth.  Therefore, the "slant angle" distance from you to the satellite to the ground station is on the order of ~40,000 miles for each leg of that journey.  So from the time you click on a link to when you see any action on the part of the server can be on the order of two seconds.

This lag time makes it difficult to use satellite connections for real-time applications including video calling.  It is possible to maintain a conversation across a link with this much latency, but it is difficult and can be awkward.

The real reason that most RVers shy away from satellite internet service is that all of the satellite vendors have fairly strict limitations on daily data usage.  My personal experience was with Hughesnet which, at the time, was restricting downloads to something on the order of 500MB/day except during a window in the wee hours of the morning.  I gather those limits have increased somewhat, but the last time I checked there was no way a satellite company could give me the several GB/day we use for our computers and our video streaming.

[docj]

8 hours ago, richardbetsey said:

In also am not aware of any devices that will boost bandwidth.

Unless you have an exceptionally weak cellular or wifi signal, amplification doesn't have anything to do with bandwidth.  People often cite the fact that "we had [many] bars of signal but still had lousy download speed."  They simply aren't related.  The signal you are measuring on your device (the number of bars) just tells you that the wifi system is broadcasting a signal of sufficient strength (sort of like voltage).  But the amount of data that signal can carry depends on the size of the "pipe" that the CG is connected to the internet with.  If the pipe has a small diameter, not enough data will flow through it. Nothing you can do will change that.  The situation is similar with cellular, except there the limitation is the cellular tower and how many people are connecting to it.

[Kevin H]

Thanks everyone.  Your answers confirmed what I figured.  Nice to get other opinions tho.

Halfway through the summer.  Kinda getting used to it.  Weekends are like going to Shangri la when we go to town

[LiveWorkDream]

On 7/21/2018 at 6:26 PM, docj said:

This lag time makes it difficult to use satellite connections for real-time applications including video calling.  It is possible to maintain a conversation across a link with this much latency, but it is difficult and can be awkward.

Um, no, we do voice and Skype all the time.

your download speed may be similar to cellular your ping time with a satellite system using a geosynchronous satellite must, by definition, be on the order of at least 700-900 msec. 

We just pinged 590 from Alaska.

On 7/21/2018 at 6:26 PM, docj said:

he last time I checked there was no way a satellite company could give me the several GB/day we use for our computers and our video streaming.

If you've got the money, they can deliver it now. It is not like things were when HughesNet was a player. Today Mobilsat has different plans available depending on one's usage. We have never been happier with our service. There is no comparison between not having service at all, and having these speeds when your income depends on it. We love it.

[chirakawa]

3 minutes ago, LiveWorkDream said:

 

It is not like things were when HughesNet was a player.

HughesNet is no longer a player?  I thought they were the number one satellite internet provider.  Wow, things change quickly.

[LiveWorkDream]

1 hour ago, chirakawa said:

HughesNet is no longer a player?  I thought they were the number one satellite internet provider.  Wow, things change quickly.

Should clarify to say they are no longer a player in rooftop mounted mobile satellite internet systems.

[docj]

On 7/23/2018 at 2:13 PM, LiveWorkDream said:

If you've got the money, they can deliver it now.

I guess if you consider $1,599/mo for 10Mbps max download speed and 10GB of data acceptable for your business, then I guess it's better than not having service.  But that's a bit rich for my budget.  I don't think Netflix is worth that kind of money.  😀

 

[docj]

5 hours ago, LiveWorkDream said:

Um, no, we do voice and Skype all the time.

You admitted that your ping was 590 msec in one instance.  You may be accustomed to conducting conversations with that much delay, but it's still a significant nuisance IMO.

[Mark and Dale Bruss]

It is what you want to deal with.  When I was using Hughesnet, before there were many 3G towers, I learned to live with 1000 ms ping times.  I also learned to schedule my big downloads to 2:00 AM-7:00 AM.

But did have the ability to get Internet virtually anywhere.

Yes, I learned to live with those limitations but I never tried to peddle it as being equal to  wireless.