RV campground wi-fi & cellular antenna/repeater Featured

It's worked well for me when I'm camping or at motels with crappy WiFi. There are no miracles though. If you're in a cellular dead spot you've got nothing. I often camp in areas with no cell service of any sort.

You could try asking on sci.electronics.design.

Googling for RV wifi antenna produces a lot of hits and I would expect there are RV forums, articles, videos, etc that go over options. Could also read reviews from RV campgrounds and avoid places that have poor wifi. Really no excuse for that today. There is only so much you can do with an antenna and amplifier if the other side sucks. I doubt you are getting much better performance in that $400+ marine one. Anything with marine on it goes up by 2x. If you're lucky, it might have better protection from salt corrosion and the like, but I would not even count on that.

Another thing I just thought of. The latter two solutions are point-to-point, directional. So it would have to be adjusted at each location. Which could take some fiddling around with, monitoring signal strength while turning it, not what I'd want to do after a long drive, getting somewhere at night. It would have better theoretical performance, but I think I would go with an omnidirectional approach first. Also, I think the marine one works as is, I believe the other two would need a wireless router connected to it.

Another option is a cell phone plan with enough data. They have gotten less expensive, could probably get something in the $50 range. How well that works depends on the carrier and coverage where you happen to be.

Keep in mind that most RV parks are in the sticks, where they're lucky to get 1.5Mbps DSL[*], much less anything faster. Even 5G, once it rolls out, may not make it that far into the sticks.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 15:58:05, trader_4 snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):

The only way to amplify small signals is with directional antennas.

All such devices comes with an aligning tool to choose the best direction. If you don't know this, you can't help anyone.

If the signal strength is low, you have no choice but a directional antenna.

Wrong. An omni is always the worst choice for low signal strength. With so much wrong advice you probably shouldn't be trying to help anyone.

Wrong. They are full routers with full DHCP capability. If you want to you can add a switch to the router but that's just gravy.

How is that going to work if the signal is too low to make a phone call? Do you even realize all that you say is wrong so you can't help anyone?

Doesn't matter how much it costs. It's the wrong solution for low signal strength.

You won't be able to help anyone always being wrong.

Wrong. That can't work if the signal isn't strong enough. You haven't said a single thing that has been correct.

Are you stupid?

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 16:22:29, Scott Lurndal snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home> wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):

I would suggest that the op needs knowledge, portability and power.

The first thing the op should do is visit the campsite & run a site survey. There are free apps to run site surveys such as cellular-z which will tell the op how much signal there is in what bands both on cellular & wifi.

With that knowledge the op will know how strong the cellular signal is and where the nearest towers are on a map and what frequencies they are using.

Also with that knowledge the op will know the same information about the wifi access points, what frequencies they're on and their signal strength.

Once the op knows if the strongest wifi signal is in the 2.4GHz or 5GHz bands, I would recommend these $50 all-weather portable device for starters, but this style is only about ten times more powerful than a home router is so it's a portability compromise.

The problem to solve will always be in reception since you can easily transmit at legal powers with all these devices. The reception of the weak signal is what will require the most trial and error with directional antennas.

The reception of weak signal requires mainly a directional antenna with high receiver sensitivity in the radio electronics, which is what will cost money (upwards of $175 for something a thousand times better than a home router).

The strength of a campground wifi signal has NOTHING to do with a cell signal strength or availability.

Some campground wifi is slow because it is a directional wifi link from another campground, business, or residence some distance away where DSL internet connection is available. The wifi signal is then "repeated" to wifi users at the campground. The big problem is often the wifi download link requires an unobstructed line of sight between antennas.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 17:43:27, Clare Snyder snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca> wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):

I agree with you.

I said to use the phone to run a site survey of both wifi and cellular.

Agree that LOS is where wifi frequencies are happy but they can bounce.

To catch more bounce (reflection) you need high receiver sensitivity. To cause more powerful bounce (reflection) you need high transmit power.

High receiver sensitivity is gained by paying dollars for the most sensitive radios but high transmit power is easy because it's already limited by law.

The more expensive setup might be something around a 30 dBi directional antenna with around -100 dBm receiver sensitivity at the slower datarates.

But that's going to increase the cost from about $50 for the unit to about three times that, and it will increase the size thereabouts by about double.

I specifically said that you'd have to align it. The point is do you want to climb on to the roof of the RV and align it when you arrive at some location at 10PM and it's raining? Suppose there are two wifi hotspots, not in the same direction?

It's very likely that there is a range of signal strength where an external omni-directional antenna on the roof of the RV with an amplifier could achieve a usable connection, while a wifi device like a tablet inside the RV can not. Or are you claiming that all the omni-directional products sold for that purpose are frauds?

A big omni-directional antenna outside, on the roof, is better than the micro antenna in a typical wifi device inside an RV.

Why don't you run along and go f*ck yourself.

Who said the cell phone signal is too low to make a phone call, f****it?

Why don't you run along and go f*ck yourself.

The cell phone signal strength at any campsite location has nothing to do with the wifi signal being provided by the campsite people. Since you don't understand even that, you shouldn't be trying to help anyone. Which BTW you aren't doing anyway, you're just bitching about what I posted.

Why don't you run along and go f*ck yourself.

Yes, how very practical and this is coming from the guy who attacks others claiming they aren't giving good advice. Do you even understand what an RV is, how people typically use them and how big the USA is? F****it.

And don't forget, a "highly directional" transmitting antenna at a camp ground will ONLY provide a strong signal to those within the "cone od coverage" of that antenna - and the higher the gain the narrower the "cone" (often significantly less than 10 degrees of coverage - with the strongest signat in the "center" of the cone and pretty rapid dropoff a few degrees off. A local rural provider up here had to re-aim their relay antennas after every major wind storm - and they were mounted on structures like 100+ foot concrete silos!!!

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 20:37:09, trader_4 snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):

That's like saying if you buy a car you have to learn how to point it. Of course you have to align it.

Your priorities are all wrong. If the signal strength is low nobody would suggest an omni antenna.

Your priority is ease of alignment at the tradeoff of signal strength. You'd get the convenience of a 0 dBi to 3 dBi omni antenna in trade for the reception of a 30 dBi antenna. You traded all your signal for convenience.

You're making all the wrong tradeoffs in this situation. But what is worse is you're too stupid to realize that.

You are wrong.

The transmit power of a typical tablet is around 15 dBm (40 mW) which is very low compared to 30 dbi (1 W) transmitting devices we're talking about.

Don't make up what I said just because you are stupid.

You don't seem to understand what the tradeoffs are of the omni antennas. All you care about is convenience.

Trading convenience for signal works at home. But it doesn't work when you have very low signal.

What do you think the gain is of those omni antennas you speak about anyway? Compare that tiny gain to the very large gain of a directional antenna.

That's the tradeoff you should be thinking about.

That's something only a stupid person would say. What do you even mean by a "big omni-directional antenna" anyway.

You seem to be too stupid to realize the frequency determines the size. The size does not determine the power or sensitivity.

You appear to be too stupid to realize the basics of antenna tradeoffs.

Why are you mad at me because you are the one who is stupid? Get mad at yourself instead.

Or learn about antennas.

Why do you call me a "f****it" because you are too stupid to know the difference between cellular coverage and wifi coverage?

Why don't you stop being stupid and learn something about antennas instead?

I find it illustrating that you're so stupid you think someone said that.

You're the one who is stupid. Not me. I'm trying to point out where you said stupid things. Which was pretty much everything you've said so far.

You can't help yourself, let alone help anyone else.

What would be better is for you to read up on the basics of antennas. Then you won't be too stupid to help anyone else.

You might actually learn something if you just stoped being so stupid.

What exactly is your objection to running a site survey for cellular & wifi?

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 22:39:06, Clare Snyder snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca> wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):

I agree with you.

Either you get a less directional antenna at the loss of signal strength. Or you get a more directional antenna for the gain of signal strength.

The tradeoffs are what you're forced to choose between. You don't get to change the ratios by "getting a bigger omni" antenna.

At work we have those dish antennas on a pole that we can remove and it expands into a tripod or we can leave it mounted to the outside of the vehicle with the tripod legs folded up like umbrella spokes nicely fold up.

The radio is powered off the vehicle battery when we stop at the job site. We rotate the directional antenna 360 degrees and watch the lights light up.

Green is good. Yellow is so so. Red is bad. No lights means no power. :->

Then we have a bolt-clamp that we tighten by hand to lock it into place.

There is also a utility in the router web interface that beeps when the signal is strong and it shows the signal strength but the lights work ok.

You're right about survivability but we don't work in high wind situations. Even so, all these antennas are designed for common outdoor situations.

The ones I recommended are designed for wind loads of around 400 N @ 200 km/h (94.33 Lbf @ 125 mph) and a wind survivability of about 200 km/h (125 mph) which is probably more wind than an RV camper would like.

Yet you responded as if I had never said it. And you have to re-align a directional antenna every time you move the RV. Gee, you think maybe that's why they sell ones that are omni-directional?

I'm not making any tradeoffs, you're hearing voices in your head. I simply pointed out that there are omni-directional ones that don't have to be aimed and that the poster should look into them and consider them. And that they should check with RV forums where people have actually used these products. I doubt you've ever been in an RV.

So go explain that to all the manufacturers of omni-directional products, including companies like Winegard that have been in the antenna business since the dawn of radio.

Now who should we believe? Winegard or you, f****it?

If he can afford it, or it's not much money, when the wifi isn't good, he can use his phone as a Hotspot. That's what I've been doing for the last 6 weeks and it works well regardless of where I park.

I'm a fool to get involved but the OP said this about his friend:

Friend uses an RV where campgrounds have varying degrees of wi-fi and cellular signal depending on the campsite chosen

People park in a campground for a day or two or three, then drive to the next one, and do that all summer, or all year if they're retired. Many campgrounds involved, some for only one night.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 19:07:28, micky snipped-for-privacy@fmguy.com wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):

You still need a site survey.