WiFi failures

[gmcguire]

After 6 years in the Bay Area I finally had the opportunity to take the Coast Starlight up and back from the Pacific Northwest. I took the Starlight up to Seattle for a conference, then took the Cascades up to Vancouver to visit a colleague, then the same train back to Seattle, and then the Starlight back to my base station of San Jose. On all segments I tried to use WiFi, it didn't work. On the Seattle to Vancouver portion I was with a group and we never pulled out our computers or smart phones, so I don't know if it was fully functioning (no announcements to the contrary make me suspect it worked just fine). Even though it wasn't a huge deal, if they're going to advertise it, it should work (more than 1/4 of the time!)

That said, overall the trips were great. The crew was excellent and the Parlor Car is a great addition. The only non-WiFi problems were a roomette door issue (handled excellently by my attendant, Jesse) and some issues with booking dinner. It was never clear, as it was handled differently by different crew and for different meals, how to book sittings for meals in the Parlor Car versus the Diner. It always worked out fine, they were very accommodating, but it was always a confusing mess.

 

[amamba]

I am so glad you had a wonderful trip! I took the CS for the first time this year and loved it. The scenery was wonderful and the OBS was really great. I also had a problem where the wifi didn't work in the PPC. Plus the movie theater downstairs was broken as well. Our PPC attendant told us that the wifi has had a bunch of problems.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

So far as I can tell Amtrak and wifi simply don't mix. Even on the Acela it's rather spotty and slow. On everything else it's either non-existent or perpetually broken. In the past this wouldn't have been such a big deal but in a world where even discount airlines are equipping their fleets with wifi and satellite television it's rather sad that a conventional terrestrial service like Amtrak finds it so difficult to implement. On the other hand, if Amtrak would simply stop advertising what they obviously can't deliver it might help promote more realistic expectations among new and returning customers. It might be better to occasionally surprise them with working wifi they're not expecting rather than constantly disappointing them with wifi that almost never works as advertised.

 

[Ryan]

It's really easy to get a radio signal at 35,000 feet to get internet service to a plane.

It's really hard to get a radio signal to many places that a train goes. Once you're out of range of cell towers, you're pretty much hosed.

 

[Tumbleweed]

With MI-Fi technology available, I wonder if it would be feasible for them to invest in MI-Fi stations through selected cars/trains and offer the service that way.....my 3g card had pretty good coverage OMA-CHI-WAS-WPB.....

 

[amamba]

It's really easy to get a radio signal at 35,000 feet to get internet service to a plane.

It's really hard to get a radio signal to many places that a train goes. Once you're out of range of cell towers, you're pretty much hosed.

I completely understand this concept. But what I don't understand is why my mifi worked perfectly fine on the CS when the wifi in the PPC didn't work. Was it because they are run off different networks? Is the wifi service on the train based on cell service? And why is the wifi so slow on the acela between NYP & BOS, particularly in the BOS - NHV stretch, but again, my mifi and my iPhone seem to not have as many issues?

I would love for someone to explain if it is different technology, or just the fact that more people are connecting to the service and slowing it down? Or is there an issue that I am missing completely?

I will also add that the MBTA wifi is pretty terrible on the commuter trains, so I don't have an example of a train that has good/reliable wifi.

 

[Ryan]

I completely understand this concept. But what I don't understand is why my mifi worked perfectly fine on the CS when the wifi in the PPC didn't work. Was it because they are run off different networks?

Probably.

Is the wifi service on the train based on cell service?

Yes it is.

And why is the wifi so slow on the acela between NYP & BOS, particularly in the BOS - NHV stretch, but again, my mifi and my iPhone seem to not have as many issues?

Because there's one person using your MiFi and many, many people trying to use the in-train WiFi. WiFi is only as good as its upstrem connection to the larger network.
It's also worth noting that installing WiFi in planes is pretty important, because you're not allowed to use your own devices to connect. It's far less important than that on a train where all of the business folks have company provided solutions, and most people with the desire to get on the internet already have their own service. If I want to get on the internet while I'm out and about, I can either use my iPhone (either alone or tethered to my laptop) or my 3G iPad. There's a only a small segment of the market in between "I don't need the internet" and "I have my own device that on-train WiFi caters to.

 

[transit54]

It's really easy to get a radio signal at 35,000 feet to get internet service to a plane.

It's really hard to get a radio signal to many places that a train goes. Once you're out of range of cell towers, you're pretty much hosed.

I completely understand this concept. But what I don't understand is why my mifi worked perfectly fine on the CS when the wifi in the PPC didn't work. Was it because they are run off different networks? Is the wifi service on the train based on cell service? And why is the wifi so slow on the acela between NYP & BOS, particularly in the BOS - NHV stretch, but again, my mifi and my iPhone seem to not have as many issues?

I would love for someone to explain if it is different technology, or just the fact that more people are connecting to the service and slowing it down? Or is there an issue that I am missing completely?

I will also add that the MBTA wifi is pretty terrible on the commuter trains, so I don't have an example of a train that has good/reliable wifi.

Without knowing the specifics of what Amtrak is using on the Coast Starlight, one strong possibility is that Amtrak is using a different carrier. Much like individual cellular service, when contracting for large scale data service, some carriers (Sprint, T-Mobile) are cheaper than others (Verizon, AT&T). It's entirely possible that Amtrak is using an inferior carrier on the CS. I see this because it seems consistent that no one riding the train has been able to access the WiFi successfully.

That being said, in general, WiFi on trains tends to be slow as a result of the large number of people using a relatively limited signal. Except in small areas which have true 4G technologies deployed, cellular bandwidth is very limited. Usually a train only has 4-5 cellular modems at the most - so there's just a lot less bandwidth to go around. This is what happens in the MBTA context. I manage a WiFi system on a fleet of commuter buses and this is a constant problem. Amtrak maintains a filtering system, which helps, but in the system I manage individual using tying up large amounts of bandwidth is a significant problem.

 

[transit54]

It's also worth noting that installing WiFi in planes is pretty important, because you're not allowed to use your own devices to connect. It's far less important than that on a train where all of the business folks have company provided solutions, and most people with the desire to get on the internet already have their own service. If I want to get on the internet while I'm out and about, I can either use my iPhone (either alone or tethered to my laptop) or my 3G iPad. There's a only a small segment of the market in between "I don't need the internet" and "I have my own device that on-train WiFi caters to.

I sort of disagree with this. In my experience, the vast majority of people want to use the internet on trains but have no desire to pay $20-$35+/month for internet. They make take a train a few times a year. Sure, business travelers typically have company provided cellular internet, but most infrequent travelers don't have their own solution. In fact, I constantly hear people say they would take the train more if it had WiFi. My sister takes Megabus from Pittsburgh to NYC over Amtrak purely because it has WiFi on board. There's no way she's going to pony up hundreds per year to have her own WiFi on these trips. A very small percentage of the student market can afford to have cellular internet, but having WiFi so they can be productive/kill time online is a major plus for that demographic and sometimes the deciding choice between modes.

 

[Tumbleweed]

My Verizon 3g card is on a month to month basis, no contract....I just activate it whenever I will be on a trip.....it's worth it to me....

 

[Ryan]

I sort of disagree with this. In my experience, the vast majority of people want to use the internet on trains but have no desire to pay $20-$35+/month for internet. They make take a train a few times a year. Sure, business travelers typically have company provided cellular internet, but most infrequent travelers don't have their own solution. In fact, I constantly hear people say they would take the train more if it had WiFi. My sister takes Megabus from Pittsburgh to NYC over Amtrak purely because it has WiFi on board. There's no way she's going to pony up hundreds per year to have her own WiFi on these trips. A very small percentage of the student market can afford to have cellular internet, but having WiFi so they can be productive/kill time online is a major plus for that demographic and sometimes the deciding choice between modes.

Oh, I'm not saying that the market for internet on trains (or buses) doesn't exist at all.

My point was twofold, first that it's smaller than the market for internet on planes (because of the travelers on the plane that have their own device but aren't permitted to use it). Second that the market for internet on a train/bus is whitteled down from both sides - the people that want access but have their own device, and the people that have no desire for the access.

As an aside, I don't look at the $20/month that I spend on my iPad data plan to be so that I can have access on a train (or bus), it's so that I have access all month, wherever I may go.

 

[transit54]

Oh, I'm not saying that the market for internet on trains (or buses) doesn't exist at all.

My point was twofold, first that it's smaller than the market for internet on planes (because of the travelers on the plane that have their own device but aren't permitted to use it). Second that the market for internet on a train/bus is whitteled down from both sides - the people that want access but have their own device, and the people that have no desire for the access.

As an aside, I don't look at the $20/month that I spend on my iPad data plan to be so that I can have access on a train (or bus), it's so that I have access all month, wherever I may go.

I completely agree with you that in terms of paid WiFi, the market on trains is very small and much, much smaller than planes for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I just think that on trains/buses, free WiFi is a much bigger issue for a large segment of travelers than WiFi is on planes, which caters more to the business crowd and the "must be connected constantly" folks. I think the average traveler doesn't have a problem sitting on a plane without WiFi, namely because they're usually saving a lot of time by doing so. But if they're going to get on a train or bus, which in most cases is somewhat slower than driving, they want WiFi onboard and they want it for free.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that on planes, having WiFi is not going to significantly increase ticket sales, but its a nice revenue opportunity because (as you pointed out) its a captive market. But on trains/buses, it has the ability to noticeably increase ridership in some cases and significantly improve the experience of those on board.

And I agree with the iPad comment - that's the same reason I subscribe to a MiFi. But we're talking about for the crowd that can't justify/can't afford cellular tethering fees (or doesn't have something like a cellular connected iPad) - and I think that's probably upwards of 60% of riders outside the NEC.

I guess I just feel that the demographic differences (and travel characteristics) of train riders outside the NEC make it a huge market, even if it is whittled down from both sides. I'd venture to say as many as 40-50% of riders would take advantage of it at some point during their trip, whereas uptake for on board WiFi on planes is much lower (assuming its not free, which it usually isn't).

 

[dlagrua]

On our Acela trip to DC two weeks ago, the WIFI service proved to be good but not great. Its strong in some areas but it does go away in the PHL and BAL stations. Also you cannot watch a Netflix or You Tube video as video streaming is blocked. Still its not bad and a step in the right direction.

 

[afigg]

I completely agree with you that in terms of paid WiFi, the market on trains is very small and much, much smaller than planes for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I just think that on trains/buses, free WiFi is a much bigger issue for a large segment of travelers than WiFi is on planes, which caters more to the business crowd and the "must be connected constantly" folks. I think the average traveler doesn't have a problem sitting on a plane without WiFi, namely because they're usually saving a lot of time by doing so. But if they're going to get on a train or bus, which in most cases is somewhat slower than driving, they want WiFi onboard and they want it for free.

One big difference on a plane, that unless you are sitting in business or first class, if you want to use a laptop you will have to tuck the keyboard under your chin. And if the person sitting in front of you puts their seat all the way back, maybe not even enough room for a tablet or smartphone game unless you hold it real[\i] close. Then, of course, there is the whole business of turning the electronics off during take-offs & ascents and before landing. WiFi access on a plane is far less useful unless you have room to use the electronics or on longer flights.

 

On a train, it is a different matter. Lot of people, even business travelers, will take advantage of free WiFi. Those with 3G connections might use the free WiFi to save bandwidth usage on their monthly plan.

 

I have taken the Acela a number of time between WAS and NYP since they added WiFi. Also took the Acela WAS to BOS several weeks ago. Between WAS and NYP, I have found the WiFi to be reasonably reliable, but I was using it for emails and read the news on the net mostly. Between NYP and BOS, I was using my 3G iPad and found some slow access or outright dropouts in CT, mostly eastern CT along the Shore Line route as I recall. The AT&T signal on the iPad also dropped out a few times in CT, but that is AT&T for you; don't expect too much from it in less populated areas (or even in densely populated areas).

 

When Amtrak finally adds free WiFi to the NE Regionals, it will be interesting to see if there is a noticeable bump in ridership numbers in the months after it is officially announced. However, ridership increases due to WiFi may be difficult to discern from the continuing increases in both Acela and NE Regional ridership Amtrak is already getting.