Am I the only one in this day and age that feels that WIFI should be free to everyone

[Sitzmark]

There's no such thing as "free" wi-fi, someone is paying the bill. Every time you buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks, or a Happy Meal at Mickey D's, you're paying for that "free" wi-fi, even if you never actually use it. I, for one, am glad that the cost of internet service aboard ship is so prohibitively expensive that it forces me to go "off the grid" for a week or so.

 

I don't understand how having something like Internet access included, would prevent you from going "off the grid". If that is your wish, why don't you just do it?

[Fat Paul]

I was sitting at a table having dinner with my husband when an acquaintance of ours said "why do you even go to dinner with your husband you're always on your phone?" so I turned around to her and I said well let me see... my Mom AND my father in law are in the hospital dying at the moment... (they died 40 hrs apart) and we came to get dinner to grab a bite... I have a disabled son 1200 miles away who texts me about 20 times a day but some of those times are an emergency and I always check my phone just to make sure everything is okay. I have a daughter in law 1300 miles away who is pregnant and going into labor at any time so yes I am on my phone, checking my phone, But you know what??? it's really not your business!!!

I HATE when people THINK they know exactly what your doing. ..My pet peve!!!

 

Yup, no one knows what struggles the other is going through.

[Yorkvillain]

I was sitting at a table having dinner with my husband when an acquaintance of ours said "why do you even go to dinner with your husband you're always on your phone?" so I turned around to her and I said well let me see... my Mom AND my father in law are in the hospital dying at the moment... (they died 40 hrs apart) and we came to get dinner to grab a bite... I have a disabled son 1200 miles away who texts me about 20 times a day but some of those times are an emergency and I always check my phone just to make sure everything is okay. I have a daughter in law 1300 miles away who is pregnant and going into labor at any time so yes I am on my phone, checking my phone, But you know what??? it's really not your business!!!

I HATE when people THINK they know exactly what your doing. ..My pet peve!!!

 

Well said.

[pspercy]

Why would you care? Why do you think they will care what you think?

 

It's thoroughly bad manners for a start.

[Sitzmark]

It's thoroughly bad manners for a start.

 

I agree, taking it upon ones self to tell someone "what they think" is terrible manners when someone should be minding their own business.

[rednose83]

Hahahahaha rednose 83! Exactly!! You might be texting your mate they have a booger, and if the others at the table shared their numbers you could alert them as well that their zippers down! Or,

" [emoji126] woman in red dress port side'.......[emoji33]

 

Exactly. I just had to employ this method (Saturday) when we went to Outback and a girl walked in wearing nothing but underwear and a lace dress (college town). That was one text hubby was happy to get LOL :eek:

[waterbug123]

 

there are only (at most) 5,000 people onboard... doubtful they will ALL be online at once... wifi systems in cities handle 10 times that volume without slowing...

 

 

Just curious what city you live in where 50,000 people can walk down the sidewalks and be on the same free wifi system all at once. :confused:

[AustinCruise]

...

 

Admittedly, I don't know the ins and outs of providing internet at sea... but people keep talking about how if "everyone" goes on it will slow down speeds... there are only (at most) 5,000 people onboard... doubtful they will ALL be online at once... wifi systems in cities handle 10 times that volume without slowing...

 

 

Not sure of cities that handle that much on a single network... but a city has the advantage of a wire to move the data. It isn't really a problem within the ship and if they had servers on the ship for RCCL experience type programs they would be fine for that purpose (assuming enough wire and wifi access points throughout the ship).

 

The real problem is the satellite link. People want to access servers back on real land, youtube, Facebook, email, etc.

 

If I am reading the various marketing web pages correctly, a satellite beam can provide 1.2Gbps of data & there are limited number of beams available. This is less than a single network cable at 10Gbps, the current standard (Although most home networking equipment is 100Mbps or 1Gbps these days). Commercial optical fiber can go 10-100x that speed.

 

Anyway, think about it in terms of having 200 people over to your house to use the internet. Whatever service you have would be swamped. Yes, you could pay more and have another wire (or 10) added at significant cost. The cruise ships can't exactly pull more wire back to shore. They would have to put up more satellites and all the cost associated.

[chengkp75]

Not sure of cities that handle that much on a single network... but a city has the advantage of a wire to move the data. It isn't really a problem within the ship and if they had servers on the ship for RCCL experience type programs they would be fine for that purpose (assuming enough wire and wifi access points throughout the ship).

 

The real problem is the satellite link. People want to access servers back on real land, youtube, Facebook, email, etc.

 

If I am reading the various marketing web pages correctly, a satellite beam can provide 1.2Gbps of data & there are limited number of beams available. This is less than a single network cable at 10Gbps, the current standard (Although most home networking equipment is 100Mbps or 1Gbps these days). Commercial optical fiber can go 10-100x that speed.

 

Anyway, think about it in terms of having 200 people over to your house to use the internet. Whatever service you have would be swamped. Yes, you could pay more and have another wire (or 10) added at significant cost. The cruise ships can't exactly pull more wire back to shore. They would have to put up more satellites and all the cost associated.

 

Exactly.

 

People on this thread are referring to two different systems. First, the "wifi" apps that are on some ships, or coming, to allow you to look at reservatiions, etc, are INTRAnet, or strictly onboard the ship. This requires a shipwide wifi system, which is not that costly, and why this will probably become more widespread. This kind of system does not connect to the INTERnet, just to the server onboard.

 

The second system is connecting to the INTERnet, which as you say, utilizes a satellite connection, unlike the Marriott or Starbucks. Also as you say, there is a limited bandwidth for each satellite connection (each ship). Most of the ships already have purchased this maximum bandwidth, but most of it is used by the ship itself, since the ship is connected to the home office 24/7. Every POS (point of sale) register onboard is connected real time to accounting in Miami, the Purser's accounts are connected real time, the engineer's maintenance and purchasing system is connected real time, the food and beverage purchasing system is connected real time. What bandwidth that is left over is what is offered to the passengers. This is why you will find certain times of the day, or certain days of the cruise where wifi service is significantly better than other times; the ship is not using that much data at the time.

 

The lines like to sell "unlimited" internet packages, knowing that you will only get the leftover segment of the bandwidth, regardless of how many minutes you buy or how much unlimited time you use.

 

People have commented on how high RCCL's prices are lately, and my guess is that some of that is to cover the expense of placing and operating your own satellites for the new ships. I don't believe that the increase to cover this new service would be "a few bucks per passenger", it would be considerable.

[srlafleur]

 

Anyway, think about it in terms of having 200 people over to your house to use the internet. Whatever service you have would be swamped. Yes, you could pay more and have another wire (or 10) added at significant cost. The cruise ships can't exactly pull more wire back to shore. They would have to put up more satellites and all the cost associated.

 

hehe...on my home internet (Verizon), just having 2 computers and our Roku going slows our home wifi down to dial-up speed, if not to a dead stop. We're at the end of the line, apparently, so if a enough neighbors are also logged in, we're toast. And, though we're in a decent-sized city, Fios (the next step up through Verizon) isn't available to our neighborhood.

[Sitzmark]

Just curious what city you live in where 50,000 people can walk down the sidewalks and be on the same free wifi system all at once. :confused:

 

 

Many cities have municipal Wi-Fi, Los Angeles is researching it the last I heard.

 

Cities that provide Wi-Fi include places like Akron, Cleveland, Clearwater Beach, Denver, Houston, Kissimmee, Miami Beach and many more. It probably isn't as good as your home paid service, but it's there if you want it.

[gone2c]

Let's not forget the 1000 to 2000 crew members who would love to see free wifi. No matter what constraints Royal put on accessing the web, I'm sure someone would find a way to breach it. We think it's slow now just wait.

[waterbug123]

Many cities have municipal Wi-Fi, Los Angeles is researching it the last I heard.

 

Cities that provide Wi-Fi include places like Akron, Cleveland, Clearwater Beach, Denver, Houston, Kissimmee, Miami Beach and many more. It probably isn't as good as your home paid service, but it's there if you want it.

 

Thank you. I'll be in Denver soon so good to know. I guess service quality is really my big question. i.e. how many people can realistically be on it at one and still have good connection speed, can you stream with it, etc.

 

Back to the person who questioned why a ship can't offer free wifi when entire cities can: I assume these municipalities put up all these zllions of routers using tax dollars?? Or they funded else wise?

[shirleygallegos60]

Yes DENVER, but not the dozens of suburbs around it that people refer to as Denver.

 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Forums mobile app

[chengkp75]

Back to the person who questioned why a ship can't offer free wifi when entire cities can: I assume these municipalities put up all these zllions of routers using tax dollars?? Or they funded else wise?

 

But the same problem still exists. The city takes all their routers (however financed) and send them through enough hard cables from the routers to the ISP servers, and then through enough hard cables to other servers, to get adequate speed. On a ship, all the routers in the world would still have to go through the limited bandwidth "cable" of the satellite link. I know others who are more tech savvy than I am have posted on similar threads that another problem with satellite data is the transmission lag, or something similar, that limits data transmission speed.

[Sitzmark]

But the same problem still exists. The city takes all their routers (however financed) and send them through enough hard cables from the routers to the ISP servers, and then through enough hard cables to other servers, to get adequate speed. On a ship, all the routers in the world would still have to go through the limited bandwidth "cable" of the satellite link. I know others who are more tech savvy than I am have posted on similar threads that another problem with satellite data is the transmission lag, or something similar, that limits data transmission speed.

 

It will improve. These things always do. To say that a thing cannot be simply because it was not available in the past is a bit short sighted.

 

My cell phone used to just make calls, then it got text functionality. Then it had a web browser but wasn't much good, then it got better, then I could tether a computer to it with a usb cable and get dial up internet speeds for the computer, then I got high speed wifi tethering and could connect 1 computer at high speed. Now I can tether up to 5 computers to my phone and we all have pretty decent performance.

 

These things aren't static, they are always changing. Whatever the best is today will be outdated soon. The O3B technology is new, I'm sure it won't be the final word in satellite bandwidth.

[chengkp75]

It will improve. These things always do. To say that a thing cannot be simply because it was not available in the past is a bit short sighted.

 

My cell phone used to just make calls, then it got text functionality. Then it had a web browser but wasn't much good, then it got better, then I could tether a computer to it with a usb cable and get dial up internet speeds for the computer, then I got high speed wifi tethering and could connect 1 computer at high speed. Now I can tether up to 5 computers to my phone and we all have pretty decent performance.

 

These things aren't static, they are always changing. Whatever the best is today will be outdated soon. The O3B technology is new, I'm sure it won't be the final word in satellite bandwidth.

 

Of course. Don't think I said that it would never improve. But what we are discussing here is cost, and why it cannot be free with today's technology. Of course, we can send up more satellites and increase satellite bandwidth, the question is: how much does this cost? And while high-speed internet is a benefit to everyone, the satellite bandwidth technology is only of benefit to the cruising public, so again: how much will it cost, per person?

Edited September 24, 2014 by chengkp75

[LetsGetWet!]

But the same problem still exists. The city takes all their routers (however financed) and send them through enough hard cables from the routers to the ISP servers, and then through enough hard cables to other servers, to get adequate speed. On a ship, all the routers in the world would still have to go through the limited bandwidth "cable" of the satellite link. I know others who are more tech savvy than I am have posted on similar threads that another problem with satellite data is the transmission lag, or something similar, that limits data transmission speed.

It will improve. These things always do. To say that a thing cannot be simply because it was not available in the past is a bit short sighted.

 

My cell phone used to just make calls, then it got text functionality. Then it had a web browser but wasn't much good, then it got better, then I could tether a computer to it with a usb cable and get dial up internet speeds for the computer, then I got high speed wifi tethering and could connect 1 computer at high speed. Now I can tether up to 5 computers to my phone and we all have pretty decent performance.

 

These things aren't static, they are always changing. Whatever the best is today will be outdated soon. The O3B technology is new, I'm sure it won't be the final word in satellite bandwidth.

You're not really being fair there. He's not being short-sighted at all. He explained how things are TODAY, which makes sense since the OP thinks shipboard WiFi should be free TODAY.

 

Of course things will improve over time, but right now the O3B satellite technology is what we techies call "bleeding edge" technology and is hideously expensive. It won't be outdated "soon" but certainly will be someday. One thing will remain the same though - shipboard internet connections will ALWAYS be slower and more expensive than those on land, for the simple reason that you can't run physical wires (or state-of-the-art fiber optic cables) to those ships, you'll always be using satellite technology or similar, and that will remain slower and more expensive than wired solutions on land.

 

Will shipboard WiFi be free someday? I'd hazard a guess that it will be - someday. But that someday isn't TODAY, and that's the technology we're all trying to explain here, without getting overly technical. Make it free today, put 5,000 users (BECAUSE its free) along with the required ship's traffic on even that bleeding-edge O3B uplink, and your internet experience will grind at agonizingly slow speed. I'll hazard a guess that no one would be happy with that, and CC would be filled with complaints about the ridiculously slow FREE WiFi onboard!

 

The ongoing challenge to overcome is - we're all used to using our phones/tablets/laptops based on current land-based internet speeds, and that usage evolves over time as land-based internet speeds continue to increase. You said it yourself with your cell phone timeline. So in 5-10 years when O3B has been replaced by even newer, faster technology, land-based internet speeds will also have gotten much faster than they are today, and our "standard" phone usage may include oodles of 1080 HD video streaming, along with other similar data-intensive usage. Which will still leave the challenge of how to provide enough bandwidth for 5,000 users, plus ship usage - using only satellite (long-range wireless) feeds.

Edited September 24, 2014 by LetsGetWet!

[Sitzmark]

Of course. Don't think I said that it would never improve. But what we are discussing here is cost, and why it cannot be free with today's technology. Of course, we can send up more satellites and increase satellite bandwidth, the question is: how much does this cost? And while high-speed internet is a benefit to everyone, the satellite bandwidth technology is only of benefit to the cruising public, so again: how much will it cost, per person?

 

 

Only the cruising public??? O3B stands for the "Other 3 Billion" which refers to the parts of the world where broadband internet is not currently available. This is a slightly broader market than the cruise industry.

 

How much will it cost? I don't know, I doubt very much that any one on this board knows the answer to that. but not only are cruise ships not the only user of this service, they aren't even the primary user.

[FLACRUISER99]

Read this. http://www.o3bnetworks.com/media-centre/press-releases/2013/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-and-o3b-networks-expand-business-partnership-to-provide-guests-onboard-allure-of-the-seas-cruise-ship-with-ultra-fast-and-affordable-internet-access

[Sitzmark]

You're not really being fair there. He's not being short-sighted at all. He explained how things are TODAY, which makes sense since the OP thinks shipboard WiFi should be free TODAY.

 

Of course things will improve over time, but right now the O3B satellite technology is what we techies call "bleeding edge" technology and is hideously expensive. It won't be outdated "soon" but certainly will be someday. One thing will remain the same though - shipboard internet connections will ALWAYS be slower and more expensive than those on land, for the simple reason that you can't run physical wires (or state-of-the-art fiber optic cables) to those ships, you'll always be using satellite technology or similar, and that will remain slower and more expensive than wired solutions on land.

 

Will shipboard WiFi be free someday? I'd hazard a guess that it will be - someday. But that someday isn't TODAY, and that's the technology we're all trying to explain here, without getting overly technical. Make it free today, put 5,000 users (BECAUSE its free) along with the required ship's traffic on even that bleeding-edge O3B uplink, and your internet experience will grind at agonizingly slow speed. I'll hazard a guess that no one would be happy with that, and CC would be filled with complaints about the ridiculously slow FREE WiFi onboard!

 

The ongoing challenge to overcome is - we're all used to using our phones/tablets/laptops based on current land-based internet speeds, and that usage evolves over time as land-based internet speeds continue to increase. You said it yourself with your cell phone timeline. So in 5-10 years when O3B has been replaced by even newer, faster technology, land-based internet speeds will also have gotten much faster than they are today, and our "standard" phone usage may include oodles of 1080 HD video streaming, along with other similar data-intensive usage. Which will still leave the challenge of how to provide enough bandwidth for 5,000 users, plus ship usage - using only satellite (long-range wireless) feeds.

 

 

I would submit to you that it is very possible with the current bandwidth to have acceptable internet access available on the ships. Using the new O3B satellite connections along with properly configured proxies to cache common web requests would reduce upstream bandwidth usage while also allowing the filtering of streaming content to avoid users overloading the network with their Netflix movies. Would it be blazing fast? no, could it be better than it is? sure.

 

Your numbers assume every passenger would connect at the same time all the time, I enjoy the internet and I couldn't see myself using it even every day. I'd guess that if you have 4000 passengers you probably wouldn't typically see more than around 800 users it at any given point, that's 20%. I'm sure that usage could be higher during peak times. Keep in mind that in many cabins, there might be one device, but 2 or more guests. Not every guest translates to a network endpoint. Many more won't have anything at all and would add no load to the system.

 

I'm familiar with the razors edge, the leading edge, the cutting edge and the bleeding edge. If it doesn't work they can call it version 1.0 but I do think they should try.

[LetsGetWet!]

Only the cruising public??? O3B stands for the "Other 3 Billion" which refers to the parts of the world where broadband internet is not currently available. This is a slightly broader market than the cruise industry.

 

How much will it cost? I don't know, I doubt very much that any one on this board knows the answer to that. but not only are cruise ships not the only user of this service, they aren't even the primary user.

Yep, the service was initially conceived for providing broadband to the third world where it currently doesn't exist.

 

As for cost, no, probably no one here can say authoritatively. But a few data points - their venture funding to date appears to be $1.2 Billion. What has that gotten so far? The first four satellites were launched in June, 2013, followed by 4 more this spring. They've JUST this month managed to go operationally live with that constellation of 8 satellites.

 

What kind of speed does that get us? Well, from their own information, "the company reports that many of its telecommunications company customers are now able to provide 3G data services to their customers when before they were only able to offer voice services. And its data trunking service is able to provide 600Mbps with a latency of less than 150 milliseconds."

 

All of us "first-worlders" on cruise ships are used to high-speed 4G internet on our phones & tablets these days. 3G was introduced in the US in 2003, so its already more than a decade old, and obsolete for over 90% of the US population, who have solid 4G access. What does that mean exactly? Well, using Verizon for example - phonearena.com says Verizon 4G offers download speeds in the 6Mbps range, while their older 3G offers about .8Mbps - not quite an order of magnitude difference. 3G is generally defined as at least .14Mbps, which is where it started in 2003 in the US, and may well be what the new providers in the third world will be providing using O3B.

 

Meanwhile, back to our ship. O3B says its data trunking service provides 600 Mbps. So if our ship has 5,000 passengers wanting access, the math shows that each of them would get about .12Mbps, which is slower than the slowest 3G of 2003 - not at all what they're used to for internet access these days. Of course, all 5,000 won't be trying to access simultaneously, but we also haven't taken into account at all the ship's own usage, both for their systems and crew access.

 

Look at it another way. If you're a Verizon user you're currently used to about 6Mbps internet download speeds. The new O3B (onboard only Oasis & Allure) will be able to provide that experience - for up to 100 of the 5,000 passengers at a time, if the ship is using zero bandwidth, which of course isn't realistic. If the ship & crew are using 25%, that drops down to 75 passengers at a time who can be given the internet experience they've become accustomed to. If only 10% of the 5,000 passengers are trying to access the internet (not at all unreasonable if it was FREE) and the ship is using 25%, now those passengers are getting about what they'd see on a US 3G network, which they'll only experience in very rural regions of the US today. I guarantee you that would result in a lot of ongoing whining about poor internet onboard the ship.

 

Meanwhile, again from O3B's own website for their maritime service:

 

"O3bMaritime benefits at a glance:

 

Increased Revenue Generation

 

Genuine broadband and crystal clear voice delivered by O3bMaritime encourages guests to use internet and voice services providing a significant source of additional revenue to cruise operators."

 

Free WiFi for all passengers within the next 2-3 years at least? Extremely unlikely, IMHO.

I would submit to you that it is very possible with the current bandwidth to have acceptable internet access available on the ships. Using the new O3B satellite connections along with properly configured proxies to cache common web requests would reduce upstream bandwidth usage while also allowing the filtering of streaming content to avoid users overloading the network with their Netflix movies. Would it be blazing fast? no, could it be better than it is? sure.

 

Your numbers assume every passenger would connect at the same time all the time, I enjoy the internet and I couldn't see myself using it even every day. I'd guess that if you have 4000 passengers you probably wouldn't typically see more than around 800 users it at any given point, that's 20%. I'm sure that usage could be higher during peak times. Keep in mind that in many cabins, there might be one device, but 2 or more guests. Not every guest translates to a network endpoint. Many more won't have anything at all and would add no load to the system.

 

I'm familiar with the razors edge, the leading edge, the cutting edge and the bleeding edge. If it doesn't work they can call it version 1.0 but I do think they should try.

See my post above, written before I saw this note from you. Nope, not assuming that all 5,000 (not 4,000 - only Oasis/Allure) will be on at the same time. I think the assumptions I laid out above are reasonable - especially if the service was made free.

 

Finally, your last sentence - they ARE trying, the O3B rollout on Oasis/Allure clearly demonstrates that. What I maintain they WON'T be trying anytime soon is to give it away for free.

Edited September 24, 2014 by LetsGetWet!

[Sitzmark]

Finally, your last sentence - they ARE trying, the O3B rollout on Oasis/Allure clearly demonstrates that. What I maintain they WON'T be trying anytime soon is to give it away for free.

 

perhaps they are not, I maintain they should.

[LetsGetWet!]

perhaps they are not, I maintain they should.

Yep, and I maintain they should provide free unlimited alcohol to everyone onboard too!

 

Good luck on either of those... :D

Edited September 24, 2014 by LetsGetWet!

[DHADEN]

OK, let's see if we can understand this. People who book and pay for suites will get upgraded service, people who cruise often will receive perks, people who pay for unlimited drinks will receive same, if you want specialty dinning....guess what.... PAY for it. If you want unlimited internet you should expect to pay for it. No one owes you anything.

 

Ok; I read the first page, but not the rest, so saw this post and agreed - if anyone else has already said this .........:rolleyes:

 

I've got it - - you want it!!!!!

 

It does not matter how much it costs me to get it;

It does not matter how much PROFIT I'm making;

It does not matter if you like it or not......

 

I've got it - You want it - PAY UP. ;)

 

And......

God Bless The Free Market Economy

Edited September 24, 2014 by DHADEN