Cell booster

[garmp]

In hopes of finding less crowded parks we've been going to more remote ones. And there lies the issue. Cell Signal.
Are affordable cell boosters effective? Key word, affordable. We are not full timers, but try to head out 4 - 5 times a year for 2 - 4 weeks at a time.
And which if any would you recomment? We generally run ATT, if that matters.

[TXiceman]

cell boosters only work if there is sufficient signal to boost. WE use a WeBoost with the omnidirectional antenna and also carried a directional Yagi for use in really weak signal areas. Often, we could not get a good enough signal for a data connection and forget streaming.

More remote areas are more cell signal challenged than larger more populated areas.

You might want to look at StarLink, but the initial cost and monthly rates are expensive. But you can turn it on and off based on a monthly rate.

Ken

[Persistent]

Cell boosters work but are often troublesome. A cellular WiFi tends to be less troublesome.

Both work better with an antennae that is up high above surrounding obstacles. So on the RV roof, or on a pole above the RV. Cell tower communication is mostly "line of sight". Any objects in between greatly blocks signal.

Use of a directional (high gain) antennae improves range, but is more troublesome to aim at a cell tower. Remember, cell connections are two way. The cell phone both sends and receives transmissions.

Cell boosters do not need their own cell sim card or account. So cheaper per month.

The cell booster communicates with the cell tower and rebroadcasts the signal inside the RV. The interior broadcast is weak but still can interfere with the communication with the tower unless the antennae are properly set up. A cell booster can open only one channel to the tower.

Cell boosters have lower data throughput than say an iPhone direct to tower. Cellular WiFi can have very fast data throughput and have strong connections to WiFi devices inside the RV. (Phone calls must be made using WiFi.)

Cellular WiFi can open multiple channels to a tower. They communicate with the tower the same as the phone. Cellular WiFi rebroadcast on WiFi frequencies that do not interfere with tower communications.

Cellular WiFi can have one antennae or MIMO multiple antennae. (One channel or multiple channels.) Once installed, there is rarely any additional set up required.

Most owners prefer Cellular WiFI. Many cell booster owners are unhappy with it. Cell boosters are tricky and require understanding of the system to set up at each new location.

Neither system is fool proof for remote connection. No nearby tower means no connection either way. Insufficient tower capacity means insufficient connection either way.

StarLink is probably better than either of the above methods for remote connection. However, cost is excessive.

[Elwood58]

We have the WEBOOST Drive Sleek. We installed it near the emergency window and stuck the antenna on the side of the coach just outside the window. It does a fairly good job. We just spent last week traveling out west through Great Basin, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Had enough signal to stream everywhere we stopped. We use Visible (Verizon) for cell service.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...e?ie=UTF8&th=1

[hclarkx]

We have a WeBoost with yagi antennas inside and out. It works. Sort of. Generally we are far enough from cell towers that we get no bars on the cell phone (Verizon) or the truck (OnStar with AT&T). However, the WeBoost usually gives us a semblance of texting even starting with no bars. It may take hours to get a text through, but usually it eventually goes and texts eventually come in.

We've never had much luck with more than email (i.e., no luck with streaming) even when we have one or two bars to start with. And email can be slow. I think the problem there is remote towers that are overloaded because they are set up for just a few users on farms in the area. That and the fact that having a bar or two of incoming signal does not mean that the tower's receiver can "hear" us with our low transmit power.

We have Starlink now and it always works. Even in congested areas it's fast enough to stream.

[Stuff-Happens]

WeBoost & look no further! They have been In all my RV’s & trucks. You HAVE TO HAVE a signal for it to work & it boosts the signal; might go from barely signal to 1-3 bars. Full time on the road for over 5 years… ifs you are WAY OUT THERE you might need a Yagi & an extendable pole…..

[creativepart]

Define affordable. And are you trying to do it to make calls or stream internet?

In general, cell boosters in a RV are a product whose time has passed. Boosters can work and help you get signal sometimes, but not the majority of times. One thing to be aware of, all current cell phones and cellular data hotspots use multiple antennas to max performance by using multiple channels simultaneously, but cell boosters only boost one antenna’s single channel signal.

You’re likely not going to be happy with your cell booster purchase.

We have the WeBoost Drive 4g X. It comes in handy less than 5% of the times we’re on the road… maybe less.

[docj]

Originally Posted by creativepart

In general, cell boosters in a RV are a product whose time has passed. Boosters can work and help you get signal sometimes, but not the majority of times. One thing to be aware of, all current cell phones and cellular data hotspots use multiple antennas to max performance by using multiple channels simultaneously, but cell boosters only boost one antenna’s single channel signal.

Many people still apply "analog thinking" to what is today a totally digital problem. By this I mean that many of us are old enough to have been raised in an analog world where the best way to get a reliable signal was to make it stronger. So amplifying a weak cell signal seems like a reasonable thing to do.

However, being purely digital devices, cell phones can operate over a range of more than 50 dB in signal strength. That corresponds to a factor of 100,000x variation in signal strength. We're all so used to looking at those relatively meaningless bar graph displays on our phones that we fail to realize that those displays are a very crude depiction of the variation in signal strength seen by the phone. There's really no way to show a factory of 100,000 on a simple bar graph; you'd have to make the graph much, much larger to come anywhere close to being able to accurately show a strong signal compared to a weak one.

The bottom line is that if your phone has enough signal to work, then, most likely, making it stronger won't improve your performance. Furthermore, as has been stated, using an amplifier will negate important cellular features such as carrier aggregation and MIMO.

Yes, there's still a role for cellular amplifiers but only when the signal is very, very weak and barely usable.

[okin4]

Originally Posted by docj

Many people still apply "analog thinking" to what is today a totally digital problem. By this I mean that many of us are old enough to have been raised in an analog world where the best way to get a reliable signal was to make it stronger. So amplifying a weak cell signal seems like a reasonable thing to do.



However, being purely digital devices, cell phones can operate over a range of more than 50 dB in signal strength. That corresponds to a factor of 100,000x variation in signal strength. We're all so used to looking at those relatively meaningless bar graph displays on our phones that we fail to realize that those displays are a very crude depiction of the variation in signal strength seen by the phone. There's really no way to show a factory of 100,000 on a simple bar graph; you'd have to make the graph much, much larger to come anywhere close to being able to accurately show a strong signal compared to a weak one.



The bottom line is that if your phone has enough signal to work, then, most likely, making it stronger won't improve your performance. Furthermore, as has been stated, using an amplifier will negate important cellular features such as carrier aggregation and MIMO.



Yes, there's still a role for cellular amplifiers but only when the signal is very, very weak and barely usable.

If it is "the line of sight" which allows / limits the cellular signals, one would need a large pole and a directional (Yagi) antenna directed to the cell tower. RIGHT?
If no tower in sight of the Yagi antenna (mountains in the way) NO cell signal ...
Hence, some special setup seems to be necessary.
Has anybody found any good solutions?
Peter

[docj]

Originally Posted by okin4

If it is "the line of sight" which allows / limits the cellular signals, one would need a large pole and a directional (Yagi) antenna directed to the cell tower. RIGHT?
If no tower in sight of the Yagi antenna (mountains in the way) NO cell signal ...
Hence, some special setup seems to be necessary.
Has anybody found any good solutions?
Peter

If you don't have a line of sight to a cellular tower you're never going to have a decent connection. You might be able to occasionally get a connection using reflected signals but those aren't very stable. I once had a house that had no tower within sight; we never had decent cell service.

[Persistent]

Magic things sometimes happen with reflection.

Many years ago in Big Bend National Park in Southwest Texas there was no cell service in the campgrounds. However, if you drove part way down the canyon to the Chisos Basin, there was a pull-off where you could get cell service.

I presume the canyon walls were just right to reflect the signals in and out. There was clearly no line of sight to a tower there.

[ArtJoyce]

We camp at a lot of spots wit none or almost no service.
Years ago we got an anntena and amplifier. Had very mixed results. At times I could increase performance because it made it more reliable and was not dropping packets. But because I was of the fringe or service a cloud would move and the service would drop.

My conclusion was it was not a reliable improvement. It's been years since I played with it.

[hclarkx]

Originally Posted by docj

If you don't have a line of sight to a cellular tower you're never going to have a decent connection. You might be able to occasionally get a connection using reflected signals but those aren't very stable. I once had a house that had no tower within sight; we never had decent cell service.

We have a Wilson amp with yagi's at 20', and a yagi inside as well; usually have zero bars before putting it up. Have almost never had a decent connection, but a fleeting connection that will get a text in or out given an hour or two has always been better than nothing. Aiming the antenna is always a nuisance because more often than not we were looking for a reflected signal. Again, better than nothing.