2019 edition: Are you using a mast mounted WiFi or cellular extender?

[hellosailor]

Optimum antenna cable length is going to depend on the gain of the antenna (doesn't matter if that is db or dbi here) and the line loss of the cable. Let's say your antenna has a gain of 9db over what a simple antenna built into, or attached right onto, the router.

That means in theory the external antenna would have 8x more gain (every 3db is a doubling) than the plain router. If your cable has a loss of 3db per 100 feet...then you could literally run 100 feet of cable and still have a net gain of 6db, which is 4x what the router alone had.

Just how much gain do you need? Ah, that's like asking how long is a piece of string.(G) In some situations you are miserly trying to grab every db that you can, in others, a 3db or 5db gain may be enough to move you from no signal to a usable signal. There's no absolute answer unless you are out there measuring signal strength.

Then there's also the frequency again. A cable that has "acceptable" loss at 700MHz may easily have twice as much loss at 2GHz, on other cellular companies. So you might just have to trust your "guy" on this, and be aware that in general, less cable is always better, and the height of your antenna really isn't significant compared to the height of the cellular tower. You can always change cables down the road, if you need to.

[ronstory]

Wifi has been congested and unreliable at the marina's we have hit in the PWN. I have done the Alfa, Ubiquity and high gain antennas, directional, etc. I would rather just pay a bit and have no drama.

I just use the Huawei B310 (~$60) and Mint wireless SIM card.

https://www.amazon.com/Huawei-B310S-.../dp/B0784FVS66

It used the T-mobile GSM network and at $25 a month I get 12Gig of data. More than I would ever need for a weekend or two a month, plus our cells are unlimited data on ATT.

YMMV

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

My local consultant/supplier said that his research had indicated that a maximum of 10m (30ft) antenna cable was optimum, to still give you the best height vs line loss.

Anyone disagree with that?

It very much depends on the quality of the antenna cable.


Cellular companies themselves use Heliax for cables that run up towers because it is very low loss and not particularly expensive. If you were to run, say, 3/8" Heliax, you could run it to the top of the mast on any sailboat without transmission line loss being a consideration. It is what I use for personal projects except for short runs and situations where a smaller diameter or more flexible cable is needed.


RG-8, and RG-213 also have tolerable losses, and could be run to the top of the mast, and are less expensive than Heliax.



The main disadvantage of Heliax, RG-8, and RG-213 is the size of the cable, as they all have an outside diameter of almost 1/2".



The smaller diameter coax, RG-58 and similar, will have considerable losses at cellular frequencies, and so you would want to keep the cable runs short. There's nothing magic about 30' but that sounds like a reasonable tradeoff point.

[wtmf]

thank GOD for a sextant, chronometer, SILENCE and damn the torpedoes.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by wtmf

thank GOD for a sextant, chronometer, SILENCE and damn the torpedoes.

Lol...what sextant do you use to "contribute" to CF?[emoji54]

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by ronstory

Wifi has been congested and unreliable at the marina's we have hit in the PWN. I have done the Alfa, Ubiquity and high gain antennas, directional, etc. I would rather just pay a bit and have no drama.

I just use the Huawei B310 (~$60) and Mint wireless SIM card.

https://www.amazon.com/Huawei-B310S-.../dp/B0784FVS66

It used the T-mobile GSM network and at $25 a month I get 12Gig of data. More than I would ever need for a weekend or two a month, plus our cells are unlimited data on ATT.

YMMV

Just going thru the learning curve on this, first Speedtesting on the Samsung Phone and then the Huawei b525- 64a without ant external antenna

I would have thought with the extra wireless link from modem to phone, the phone would be the same or slightly better

But via the Hussein...it is Way Better! All this high ones are via the sim modem.

[Down East]

Also had a WIFi booster, but had technical niggles and marina WiFi in my area is terrible.
I went to a Verizon Jetpack at the beginning of 2018 and added a cheaper omnidirectional cell antenna - 12 dBi 7730L for $99 from Amazon (currently just rail mounted to test it for the first season).
I’m sold on the Jetpack as a great low cost solution that can be used off the boat too.
I work from the boat occasionally through a VPN and it’s been very reliable.
I’ve been told that using the phone as a hot spot is not good for it for more than a short period.
The antenna adds a bar or two, which I thought was good given that it’s a cheaper antenna at deck level.

[hellosailor]

Pelagic-
The antennas that are in cell phones, are severely compromised in order to keep everything in a tiny cheap package. If you remember the Motorola StarTac? The GSM models had a 3/4'(?) tall stubby antenna. The CDMA models (Verizon) had a 2-1/2" long pull-out antenna whip. I had a little discussion with a Motorola engineer (they could still take phone calls back then) about this stuff because the parts COULD be swapped, and his answer was "Size still counts but everyone wants a smaller phone."
Of course back then, almost every cell phone could take an external antenna. I used to just throw a magmount antenna on the car roof, plug the cord into my Treo (had to move from the StarTac because TDMA was no longer supported), and I could pull two or three bars in what were total dead zones on the internal (still stubby) antenna.
Funny how now most of the cell phones, nearly all of them, have no provision for external antenna hookup, and you're forced to buy a pico-cell site or other external powered booster to accomplish what had been cheap and simple. And how oddly they've still allowed for external antennas on JetPacks and other devices.

"Oooh, look, that's a pretty one!" just isn't always the way technology should be chosen.

[Pelagic]

Yes, you might think there was some kind of collusion between the phone makers and the service suppliers to keep you reaching into your pocket

[ronstory]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Just going thru the learning curve on this, first Speedtesting on the Samsung Phone and then the Huawei b525- 64a without ant external antenna

I would have thought with the extra wireless link from modem to phone, the phone would be the same or slightly better

But via the Hussein...it is Way Better! All this high ones are via the sim modem.

Attachment 186541

Yes, it's advantage of having a dedicated piece of HW that does "one thing well". Our phones are pretty amazing, but the are always distracted will all those apps and wifi vs. LTE. ;^)

[hellosailor]

Pelagic-
Not collusion, but if the antenna connector adds 10c to the cost of the phone, and the carriers say "Make it cheaper, we have no interest in that" then the phone makers have negative incentive to build a better product. No collusion needed. And of course, since the US cellular systems run slightly differently from the rest of the world, even if you can find what you want in the global market, odds are it won't work quite right here.
Even if the makers build better products, the carriers are notorious for not accepting "carrier agnostic" phones. You either buy what they offer/approve, or you go find a pay phone. As when the US models had only A-GPS, forcing you to pay a monthly service fee if you wanted navigation information, when the rest of the world got full GPS. The carriers here said that was all they wanted, so that's all the choice we got.
I suppose one could argue for an FCC requirement of antenna connectors. They've actually been debating the way that the carriers disable FM broadcast radio in some cell phones, because broadcast radio (AM or FM) is so valuable after a disaster, when the cellular system is down but there's still information the public needs, and can get, if the radio chip is enabled.
It says something very unflattering about our system, that so few companies take pride in the quality and performance of their products, and resort to hucksterism instead.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Pelagic-
Not collusion, but if the antenna connector adds 10c to the cost of the phone, and the carriers say "Make it cheaper, we have no interest in that" then the phone makers have negative incentive to build a better product.

The connectors are considerably more than 10 cents and would be even more expensive in the era of IP67 (waterproof/submersible) phones. In addition to the parts cost of the connector itself, it complicates assembly, and there has to be some sort of switching between the internal and external antennas. They also use up space and add weight. Perhaps as much as several dollars worth of parts, and that's huge.


As an aside, I am getting raked over the coals at work for recommending the use of an M12 x-coded Ethernet connector for a new product. They are a smaller, environmentally sealed alternative to RJ-45s, and are starting to show up on outdoor cameras and things. We may see them on radar before long. Anyway, these things cost almost $20 each, and that's if you buy thousands of them at a time and use the cheapest vendor. Typically connectors are one of the most expensive parts of an electronics product.



Of olden time, the AMPS network was designed to provide coverage sufficient for mobile access using a cartop-mounted antenna. There was a transition once phones got small and you could fit one in your pocket, and so we had the docking stations and antenna connectors because there wasn't enough coverage for handheld use everywhere on the road.


That's changed because the coverage goal is now in-building which means enough signal to overcome the attenuative properties of walls. As a result, the on-street coverage is more than enough for handheld use without a cartop antenna. Sure, you can find fringe areas if you look for them or spend time in remote, hilly regions, but it's not like it was in 1995.


It's less than 1% of uses who would install an external antenna today. I'm not sure I would even for use aboard, given the plethora of other choices.

[zeehag]

i have used unsuccessfully booster antennae--- the signhal is only as good as the connectivity which remained nil in marina wifi situations.
ok so shoot me now hahahahaha
so i went to at and t found a modem tha tdelivers to me good wifi from cell towers. huwei is its name.
now telcel also has one.not sure maker of it.
there is no reason to suffer thru marina wifi any more. success.
and i can share if my cold black shrivelled heart allows...hahahahaha gone from crap to all of that in one short visit to at and t.
i can stream movies and have unlimited service for 400 pesos monthly and coverage.. i tell em where i am going they cover me. if not, telcel gets back its wayward client.
unit cost 2200 pesos with unlimited service at 400 pesos monthly. remember dollar to peso is awesome these days.... right around 19 pesos to 1 usdollar.

[Suijin]

I have an access point range extender but no longer use it. Open WiFi is a thing if the past it seems. Now use Google Fi and tether to the phone.

Marina WiFi has become a joke because of all the interference and/or bandwidth saturation. The exception is marinas with onSpot WiFi systems, which is a company focused on building out and managing marina networks. Always seems to work.

Downside to cell tethering is that I think every carrier now caps tethering bandwidth even in unlimited plans.

[Sand crab]

T Mobile in the US has a plan for seniors, 55 and over: unlimited everything including streaming, hotspot, texting and data abroad and more. You get 2 lines for $70. When I signed up it was $60. The reception is spotty on land but really good in Puget Sound. I have learned to accept it with it's limitations because you do get what you pay for and I am happy with that.
https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/t-mo...e-unlimited-55