Amtrak Wi-Fi (WiFi) Availability

[wigwagfan]

The Wi-Fi on the Cascades works pretty good...the drops in service are due to weird spots I know that normally don't have cell service but the carrier that WSDOT uses for the Cascades is working on adding better coverage anyways. And yes, the Cascades Wi-Fi works even in Canada! It roams on Telus up there.

Your experience is quite different from mine; from Centralia to Tacoma there is very spotty to zero wi-fi service at all; this is roughly a good hour of travel time. This is due to the fact the BNSF main strays from I-5 and passes through rural, heavily wooded areas (south of Fort Lewis to Centralia) to the shore of Puget Sound often with no development in the immedate area.

However, Boltbus, which stays on I-5, had consistent coverage with no drops at all. And I'm sure wi-fi coverage south of Portland is much better where the UP mainline is almost always within sight of either I-5 or 99E, but frankly I have no need to travel to Eugene late at night.

[jstolberg]

Millennials Say They'd Give Up Their Cars Before Their Computers or Cell Phones

Once a week or so we come across yet another sign that Millennials care much less about car ownership than previous generations. They're less likely to drive than their parents. They've got less debt tied up in cars. They'd rather hang out with their friends on Twitter than get in a car to go see them.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commut ... ones/4841/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, would you rather give up your car or your internet connection?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tVzdUczMT0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AgentSkelly]

The Wi-Fi on the Cascades works pretty good...the drops in service are due to weird spots I know that normally don't have cell service but the carrier that WSDOT uses for the Cascades is working on adding better coverage anyways. And yes, the Cascades Wi-Fi works even in Canada! It roams on Telus up there.

Your experience is quite different from mine; from Centralia to Tacoma there is very spotty to zero wi-fi service at all; this is roughly a good hour of travel time. This is due to the fact the BNSF main strays from I-5 and passes through rural, heavily wooded areas (south of Fort Lewis to Centralia) to the shore of Puget Sound often with no development in the immedate area.

However, Boltbus, which stays on I-5, had consistent coverage with no drops at all. And I'm sure wi-fi coverage south of Portland is much better where the UP mainline is almost always within sight of either I-5 or 99E, but frankly I have no need to travel to Eugene late at night.

The actual spotty coverage area now has been reduced to just between Chehalis to Tumwater. The Carrier WSDOT/ODOT is using is AT&T and if you look at their coverage map that's the only consistent spot. Also the Cascades now have 4G support which AT&T covers pretty well in Western Washington now.

And the reason WSDOT/ODOT is using AT&T is because they have agreed to provide data roaming on the Canadian portion at no extra rate. Apparently, Amtrak in the Northeast and Midwest uses Verizon.

[Arlington]

Here is an interesting survey of WiFi users on airlines shows basically that they'd trade away food, water, legroom, or recline to get Wifi:
http://aerospace.honeywell.com/~/media/ ... FINAL.ashx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, it says that the coming generation of train riders--the car-free 20-somethings who have been powering growth over the last few years--are more addicted to the net than to, well, diners and sleepers.

[jstolberg]

Coming to the state-supported midwest routes.

AmtrakConnect® cellular-based Wi-Fi service is arriving soon on Amtrak trains in the Midwest, with eight corridors offering this free amenity to Amtrak passengers by early February of 2014. Collectively, these routes carried nearly 3.3 million passengers in the last year (Amtrak FY 2013, Oct. 2012-Sept. 2013).

Amtrak is now installing the equipment on railcars under contracts with the states of Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/92/472/Amtr ... 13-154.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lately MegaBus has been gaining younger generation riders at Amtrak's expense. With the wi-fi, Amtrak will offer a more comfortable ride without sacrificing connectivity.

[Greg Moore]

Lately MegaBus has been gaining younger generation riders at Amtrak's expense. With the wi-fi, Amtrak will offer a more comfortable ride without sacrificing connectivity.

Well, can't sacrifice what only works like 50% of the time.

Yes, I continue to be underwhelmed by the on-board Wi-Fi preformance along the NEC. The gradual change to 4G is helping, some. But there's just too many people trying to use the same bandwidth.

[Tadman]

As FAA moves to relax device restrictions, ridership on gadget-friendly trains and buses surges

Professor Joe Schwieterman at the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at De Paul University and his researchers annually stalk transit passengers to document how many of them are using devices onboard. From 2010 to 2013, his latest study found gadget use on Greyhound Bus Lines went up from 17.9 percent to 43.6 percent. On Amtrak it rose from 34.4 percent to 52.1 percent.

Schwieterman partially attributes the recent increases in rail and bus ridership to how much friendlier they are towards whipping out a laptop or iPhone and getting online.

http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/gadget-fr ... 6C10368995" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And those little LED screens become even more compelling after the sun goes down.

Interesting post - if you notice my little picture at right, it's for the Fullerton station on the CTA, which is probably within visual distance of Professor Schwieterman's office at DePaul. I wonder if he's ever observed me using a device while waiting/onboard a train. That station is prime spotting area for a bored Tadman on email or facebook while waiting for a train.

[Arlington]

Wifi in the air is going to be a win for the Airlines. What can "terrestrial" carriers do? Well, It would be really good to work on "faster and more reliable" by increasing the density of cell towers along major Amtrak routes. My last Acela trip still had better coverage from my Virgin Mobile Hotspot than from Acela

For this, I'm surprised that Amtrak and the States have not already gotten together to systematically entice cell carriers to use rail ROWs as places to put cell towers the same way that transit operators have gotten cells into tunnels.

For AMtrak and State-owned ROWs, they're ideal:
1) Probably have fiber optic cables "right there" already for the "back haul"
2) Probably freer from local regulation on height / zoning (or it is already industrial zone)
3) Probably good usage from "locals" and delivers good experience to customers

I suspect that if they properly "bundled" the sites (made it easy to deploy as a package) that they could even make money charging rent. IF the carriers balk, it would probably worth giving them a little pad "for free" to encourage infill cells.

[Greg Moore]

Regarding the above post, there's definitely some precedent for railroads working with communications companies: e.g. Sprint.

[justalurker66]

Regarding the above post, there's definitely some precedent for railroads working with communications companies: e.g. Sprint.

That is a good example of a railroad BECOMING a communications company. The railroad took their network, installed solely for use by the railroad, and sold excess capacity to other businesses. Southern Pacific created the company.

[ApproachMedium]

Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications.

Amtrak already provides its own in house data and network telecommunications for phones, data and etc. I dont understand why they cant just use this to their advantage. Maybe not enough bandwidth.

What amtrak really should have done was made individual cars wifi systems instead of using cab cars and cafes as brain cars to provide the service to the rest of the train. That in itself creates a bottleneck. Their intentions were though that if one car had the GPS, etc in it they could use that car to track the train location and all other cars in the consist would report back to that car so they knew what cars were where and on what trains. Again there are probably a hundred more efficient ways this could have been done similar to how NJT has the DTN system for the Multilevel vehicles which runs over the existing COMM cables using a digital over analog system.

[25Hz]

Here is an interesting survey of WiFi users on airlines shows basically that they'd trade away food, water, legroom, or recline to get Wifi:
http://aerospace.honeywell.com/~/media/ ... FINAL.ashx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, it says that the coming generation of train riders--the car-free 20-somethings who have been powering growth over the last few years--are more addicted to the net than to, well, diners and sleepers.

Yea, i dunno bout any of you, but i want food on board, i'm fine without wifi.

[H Street Landlord]

The difference, of course, is that you can use phones/tablets/mobile hot spots on trains regardless of if there is wi fi. In the air wi fi is your only way to access the internet.

[Greg Moore]

The difference, of course, is that you can use phones/tablets/mobile hot spots on trains regardless of if there is wi fi. In the air wi fi is your only way to access the internet.

"For now". That may soon change if the FCC changes their rules.

[justalurker66]

The difference, of course, is that you can use phones/tablets/mobile hot spots on trains regardless of if there is wi fi. In the air wi fi is your only way to access the internet.

"For now". That may soon change if the FCC changes their rules.

The change that the FCC is looking at is to allow micro-cells on planes. They are looking at it from a technical/interference standpoint - basically ruling that a micro-cell above 20,000 ft will not interfere with the ground based wireless networks. It would be up to the airlines to install the technology on each plane. At the end of the day having cellular/wireless service on planes would be similar to having wi-fi on planes - the service would still run through equipment installed on the aircraft. It would just use different bands than wi-fi. And (if permitted by the FCC) could permit standard voice calls (not just voip over wi-fi).

Once the technical hurdle is removed (the FCC ruling that micro-cells above 20,000 feet will not cause interference with ground networks and can be used) it will then be in the FAA's hands to decide whether or not - for the sake of the traveling public - voice and/or data usage would be allowed on planes.

Micro-cells would be harder to use on the ground. Trains passing through areas licensed to different wireless carriers would need to be able to operate without interfering with normal cell service. Airborne micro-cells would be less of an interference problem as ground networks are designed to serve people close to the ground and the airborne micro-cells would not be powerful enough to reach the ground. But a micro-cell on a train would be within the licensed coverage area of every system it passed through.

A cellular repeater system on a train might work. Boosting the signals received on an outside antenna to the repeater antennas inside the rail cars. But it could not be easily monetized.