Unsatisfactory Voyager Internet Experience

[hondorner]

...If passengers want internet that works well, then Regent "needs" to appear as if they are doing something to make it work...

"Appear" is the operative word. If it woild make guests happy if Regent staff ran around appearing to make the internet better, I suppose they should do it. BUT, that couldn't actually accomplish a thing. Several knowledgeable folks have been knocking their heads trying to find a way to explain that the internet is NOT run by Regent or any other cruise line, but by MTN, which operates the internet on the vast majority of cruise lines.

 

MTN has various levels of service and bandwidth, each with a higher cost. PCH already purchases the highest levels offered, more recently on the Oceania ships and before that on Regent ships. There is nothing more they can do (except "appear" to be doing something) until new technology is invented.

 

Internet service on any cruise line seems to be the number one complaint among non-technical guests. It ain't gettin' better any time soon. The advice to stick to land-based travel in well-developed parts of the world is appropriate.

[newlondon]

Great post Hondorner!

[Emperor Norton]

I'm not sure what the relevance of the distinction between need and want is on a luxury cruise line. I did not "need" elegant desserts, good food, alcohol, pleasant staff, hot water or most other services provided on the ship. In fact I did not need food and water for 24 hours and I would have been okay, but I would not have been happy.

 

For some reason there seems to be a focus on whether passengers "need" internet as if passengers should be content no matter what they are served and that Regent is doing the best it can. I have no evidence that Regent is doing the best it can with regard to internet service. If they are then they need to find a way to get that message out on board the ship with all the unhappy users.

 

If passengers want internet that works well, then Regent "needs" to appear as if they are doing something to make it work. Otherwise passengers will go with other choices. Telling customers that they don't "need" something they want such as internet, wine, entertainment, good food, etc., doesn't make for happy customers.

 

It was clear to me that passengers had different expectations of the level of internet service than they had in past years. Regent can either try to meet their expectations or let the customers move on to other types of travel where the expectations can be met.

 

If passengers "need" Internet that works well they wouldn't be on a cruise.

 

Sent via squirrels and a rotary phone

[Emperor Norton]

For those people that have zero clue as to how the Internet works at sea: you are guaranteed no service and no speed. If you get either you're lucky.

 

Sent via squirrels and a rotary phone

[Emperor Norton]

A more simple translation any employee that claimed to be at sea would be fired.

 

Sent via squirrels and a rotary phone

[Emperor Norton]

"Appear" is the operative word. If it woild make guests happy if Regent staff ran around appearing to make the internet better, I suppose they should do it. BUT, that couldn't actually accomplish a thing. Several knowledgeable folks have been knocking their heads trying to find a way to explain that the internet is NOT run by Regent or any other cruise line, but by MTN, which operates the internet on the vast majority of cruise lines.

 

MTN has various levels of service and bandwidth, each with a higher cost. PCH already purchases the highest levels offered, more recently on the Oceania ships and before that on Regent ships. There is nothing more they can do (except "appear" to be doing something) until new technology is invented.

 

Internet service on any cruise line seems to be the number one complaint among non-technical guests. It ain't gettin' better any time soon. The advice to stick to land-based travel in well-developed parts of the world is appropriate.

 

You're more amusing when referring to Oceania. On Regent you make my head hurt.

 

Sent via squirrels and a rotary phone

[hondorner]

... On Regent you make my head hurt.

Take two aspirin, but don't call me in the morning :p

[Verystormy]

I work in an occupation that means my job is entirely reliant on satalite communications for internet and telephone. I am an exploration geologist. I work all over the world in very remote locations - i am writing this from a remote part of Tanzania. Our internet is almost as fast as i get at home in Perth.

 

The fact that internet on board ship is via satelite should be of no concequence. My guess is they simply are not buying enough bandwidth or are using a cheap and poor quality provider. It is today cheap and easy to arrange sat systems with enough bandwidth. The system here copes very well with a camp of up to 50 people on at the same time and costs peanuts.

[Travelcat2]

While I do not want to argue this point further (it is what it is), I do have a question for those of you that are computer savvy. Does uploading photographs, videos, etc. slow down the speed when onboard a Regent ship (or any other ship for that matter that subscribes to the same ISP)? What about using Skype? I know that Skype is frequently used by officers on the ships.

 

If there is something that users are doing that slows it down, perhaps these items can be limited to hours when the majority of passengers are not onboard or when they are asleep. This obviously won't solve satellite issues or areas where the signal is blocked, but it could possibly help during the busy times of the day in many places.

 

As many know, I post a LOT from our cruises. When the speed is slow, I just do something else and return when it is better. Being on a luxury cruise ship, cruising amazing places in the world is why most of us cruise. I doubt if any of us cruise just to be on the internet:D

Edited February 16, 2014 by Travelcat2

[indigosea]

It hasn't been a long time since searching for an internet cafe ashore was one of my main missions (and actually I enjoyed looking for one! and found crew there usually). It seems Regent and the other luxury Lines should buy more bandwidth and it would be a real incentive for those who need to use internet for work or to check up on an aging mother like I have to. I love being Gold and getting unlimited usage and phone. We use a PC netbook and iPad. I especially use my iPad when awake in the middle of the night and Message my 93 year old Mum on her iPad.

[Travelcat2]

As stated previously, Regent has already purchased the highest level of bandwidth available.

[nana541]

. I especially use my iPad when awake in the middle of the night and Message my 93 year old Mum on her iPad.

 

 

Service in the middle of the night was great, very few if any users online.... You should get darn good connection speed. However, unless things have changed my iPad (and others) seem to get thrown off every 10ish minutes or so, this was a real pain but I just learned to live with it.

As we are Silver, wifi was included and not an extra charge fee so having to repeatedly log back on was a nuisance I could live with. This seemed to be just an iPad issue.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[rallydave]

As stated previously, Regent has already purchased the highest level of bandwidth available.

 

A simple Google search show internet speeds of 10 GB and higher which is 2 1/2 times the DSL speed I currently have and sure a lot faster than what I have seen on board on good days.

 

Highly doubt that there aren't higher speeds and more bandwidth available, perhaps not from MTN but, without the specific information from MTN about the availability of bandwidth and the contract specifications that Regent has with MTN, no way anyone not employed by MTN and Regent can state that Regent has purchased the highest level of bandwidth available as a statement of fact.

 

Based on a previous poster who is in a camp in Tanzania and has bandwidth equal to his home internet, there has to be better internet available should Regent choose to pay for it.

[computerworks]

A simple Google search show internet speeds of 10 GB and higher which is 2 1/2 times the DSL speed I currently have .

 

...check those numbers for orders of magnitude. Neither sounds right. ;)

[Responder]

As stated previously, Regent has already purchased the highest level of bandwidth available.

 

Do you know this for sure? What is your source?

[Travelcat2]

Do you know this for sure? What is your source?

 

Post #26!

[rallydave]

...check those numbers for orders of magnitude. Neither sounds right. ;)

 

I stand corrected, see up to 16 Mb downloads from one source and 6 to 8 Mb from another. I'm getting on my DLS about 3.5 Mb download.

 

You are correct, got my Gb confused with Mb but, still higher rates are available than what Regent buys. And still can get higher rates from Satellite providers than I get at home and fine for me.

 

Of course, cable can be higher than Satellite but, pay your money and get higher.

[Responder]

Post #26!

 

This is not really a source. What is Don's source?

 

Allow me to post a couple of sites that will better explain more about the world of cruise ship internet and maybe indicate that Regent doesn't have the latest and greatest yet.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/cruiselog/2012/11/19/fast-internet-cruise-ships/1713927/

 

==================

 

http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/37924as-harris-makes-waves-in-the-cruise-ship-bandwidth-business-rival-mtn

 

=================

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2014/02/12/MM54719

 

=================

[CruisetheCs]

I don't see evidence that Regent is doing everything possible to improve the internet experience or that the problems lie only with MTN as some have suggested. I don't think MTN is going to accept responsibility for weak signals in cabins when passengers cannot log on in their suites. Regent can address such an issue by fixing the problem (e.g., have a technician on board who can actually tweak the wifi signal strength or by providing an explanation of why the problem can't be fixed). If I were in a cabin with an unusable signal I would not be a happy camper. If IPads have a problem Regent should get a technician to figure out what it is, what to do about it, and disclose that to passengers. (I had no IPad-specific problems on Voyager.)

 

Silence is rarely a good PR response to recurring complaints. Regent should get out front on this and be frank with its customers rather than simply advertising that it will be offering free internet. If there are cabins where the internet does not work, that needs to be disclosed or fixed. There is no reason why Regent cannot produce FAQ sheets that explain why some people can't sign on in their room, why the cluncky interface can't be simplified, why passengers are being logged off after 45 minutes, or how passengers can readily tell if the internet is working.

 

If Regent has the best internet available from MTN then they need to put that message out in their PR material. Regent ought to address the different issues in writing, for example about purchasing additional bandwidth. If they can purchase it, then they are not doing everything. If they can't or if additional bandwidth would not improve functioning then explain that to customers. [MTN has posted an interesting article (now two years old) explaining some of the intricacies of satellite internet http://www.mtnsat.com/mtn-news/signal-sea]

 

Regent headquarters needs to set an example that gives greater importance to internet services and filters down to its ships.

[Travelcat2]

IMO, this issue simply does not carry enough importance to require Regent to explain themselves. Most of us need Regent to provide the best possible safety, service, food and amenities. Again, if internet is that important, I personally would not sail on any of the luxury cruise lines (since they are all pretty much the same).

 

Responder: Don's source is the CEO of Regent/Oceania. BTW, thank you for posting the link to the USA Today article. I have referenced that article many times (including on this thread).

 

The fact is simply that the internet is what it is on luxury cruise ships (as of this date -- will improve in 2015/2016). When they can change (probably using the same ISP), they will. CruisetheC's, hopefully the new Norwegian ship should meet your requirements until then.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Travelcat2

[fizzy]

As someone who is not internet dependent for every aspect of my life, and IF the need/want/must have component were removed from the equation, did these continuing complaints begin to pile up once the FREE part of usage was introduced in the advertising? FREE becomes valuable to some if it works and an immense irritant to others who feel they are not getting what is advertised. I find it bad PR to promote something and then not deliver it...whatever the subject matter is. Perhaps if people knew in advance that their access was not going to be available they might choose their vacation differently and not have to be advised by other customers not to sail on Regent ships.

My question is...was the past system better when some people were given free internet after X amount of sailing days and the rest of the passengers chose a package of minutes at a $ rate that worked for them? If that is the case, is it conceivable that it is a better scenario for Regent to withdraw the offer until better workability can be figured out, with an honest response to those that question the decision? It's not unthinkable that a well-intentioned experiment can fail.

[Suite Travels]

This is not rocket science. Just e-mail Regent just like Jackie does and wait for a response.

 

Years ago we had no Internet and forget about cell phones and we still cruised and enjoyed.

Crystals Internet is the same as Regent's sometimes good and sometimes very slow. I am glad we all have it, but it is what it is for now.

[fizzy]

I don't feel that the amount of times one has sailed on Regent and in our case, Radisson has any connection whatsoever to what is being advertised and apparently not delivered. What I said was that a graceful way of diminishing the problem might be to withdraw the offer that is apparently not working. As an aside, perhaps there needs to be a list of what is allowed to be discussed on this board or change the name from Cruise Critic to Cruise Opinion. I have zero interest in knowing or hanging out with "important" employees once on the ship. All I want is to get the product I have paid for and relax. There should not have to be all this angst on any cruise.... luxury or otherwise.

[Travelcat2]

:)

I don't feel that the amount of times one has sailed on Regent and in our case, Radisson has any connection whatsoever to what is being advertised and apparently not delivered. What I said was that a graceful way of diminishing the problem might be to withdraw the offer that is apparently not working. As an aside, perhaps there needs to be a list of what is allowed to be discussed on this board or change the name from Cruise Critic to Cruise Opinion. I have zero interest in knowing or hanging out with "important" employees once on the ship. All I want is to get the product I have paid for and relax. There should not have to be all this angst on any cruise.... luxury or otherwise.

 

I agree that there should not have to be angst on any cruise. I also understand wishing that Regent would withdraw an offer -- for me that would be included excursions but that would probably upset people as much as losing included internet:-)

 

Knowing a person's background with Regent is helpful (IMO) because there are people posting on the Regent board that have not cruised Regent in quite a long time (or at all) and, as you know, things change. Anyone can post on Cruise Critic -- even if you have never stepped foot on a ship (a good thing IMO). However, when I post about Crystal and Seabourn, for instance, I state that I have not sailed that particular cruise line and also what my information (or opinion) is based on.

 

I really do not remember what started us getting to know the crew of the ships we are sailing (Regent and Oceania only) and certainly not just important people. It seems odd to some but we find the lives of the crew (officers, crew -- everyone working on the ship) to be extremely fascinating (apparently more fascinating than some passengers):D These hard working people sail around the world -- have certainly seen and done more than we have. Some raise families that they see all too seldom but work on ships as this is the best way they can support them. Yes -- I am friends with some employees of Regent but not in a way that has anything to do with the operation of the company or even cruising. Our friendships are based on families - life - traveling........ There are times that I learn something that may be of interest to readers of Cruise Critic and I share the information (much as Hondorner does as he, too has friends at Regent).

 

Anyway, that was a bit off topic but does play into some of the posts that I make. Fizzy, you certainly do not need to be a long time Regent customer to post that you think Regent should withdraw or cease advertising included internet..... I personally feel that it would not be a popular opinion. And, I do feel it helps to know that you have sailed on Regent since it was Radisson.

 

P.S. I just remembered that there is information posted somewhere on Regent indicating that the internet is slower than when you are on land.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Travelcat2

[CruisetheCs]

IMO, this issue simply does not carry enough importance to require Regent to explain themselves. Most of us need Regent to provide the best possible safety, service, food and amenities. Again, if internet is that important, I personally would not sail on any of the luxury cruise lines (since they are all pretty much the same).

 

Responder: Don's source is the CEO of Regent/Oceania. BTW, thank you for posting the link to the USA Today article. I have referenced that article many times (including on this thread).

 

The fact is simply that the internet is what it is on luxury cruise ships (as of this date -- will improve in 2015/2016). When they can change (probably using the same ISP), they will. CruisetheC's, hopefully the new Norwegian ship should meet your requirements until then.

 

I guess our point of agreement is that we have different opinions.

 

I'm not satisfied with either a Regent declaration or a third party declaration that Regent is doing all it can. It is in my nature to seek specifics that address the issues that I and others experienced.

 

I'm not particularly interested in switching to another line. I'd just like a few things to be improved or an explanation of why they can't be fixed.

 

I considered giving my opinion of the overall cruise but decided to avoid side-tracking the discussion in this thread. Whether overall I loved or hated the cruise doesn't change the fact that many people were unhappy with the internet for reasons I've outlined.