New Wifi system on Oceania

[pingpong1]

What wonderful examples of "deflection"!

 

I.e., Since Carnival is not a "luxury line" (presumably, that means they're not a competitor), it makes no difference if the Internet service they provide to their customers is better than that of Regent's.....and......

 

If the internet service provided by other "luxury lines" is no better than that provided by Regent, then Regent need not have any incentive or obligation to try to "do better".

 

Makes it all very simple. Now I understand, completely!

[docmark]

What wonderful examples of "deflection"!

 

I.e., Since Carnival is not a "luxury line" (presumably, that means they're not a competitor), it makes no difference if the Internet service they provide to their customers is better than that of Regent's.....and......

 

If the internet service provided by other "luxury lines" is no better than that provided by Regent, then Regent need not have any incentive or obligation to try to "do better".

 

Makes it all very simple. Now I understand, completely!

 

It is sad to see that someone who is respected for her opinions and helpfulness, goes beyond REASONABLE limits to defend a situation that is criticized and "condemned " by everybody else...

[BarbarianPaul]

What wonderful examples of "deflection"!

 

I.e., Since Carnival is not a "luxury line" (presumably, that means they're not a competitor), it makes no difference if the Internet service they provide to their customers is better than that of Regent's.....and......

 

If the internet service provided by other "luxury lines" is no better than that provided by Regent, then Regent need not have any incentive or obligation to try to "do better".

 

Makes it all very simple. Now I understand, completely!

 

 

 

Also, I’m not sure the constant differentiation between “luxury lines” and “non-luxury lines” is particularly helpful on these boards, especially when discussing amenities common to most if not all cruise ships. With the explosion of new ships, features and cabin categories, the terms themselves seem increasingly outdated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[CruisetheCs]

What wonderful examples of "deflection"!

 

I.e., Since Carnival is not a "luxury line" (presumably, that means they're not a competitor), it makes no difference if the Internet service they provide to their customers is better than that of Regent's.....and......

 

If the internet service provided by other "luxury lines" is no better than that provided by Regent, then Regent need not have any incentive or obligation to try to "do better".

 

Makes it all very simple. Now I understand, completely!

Pingpong1, you seem to be trying to use logic. That could be a mistake. Instead I think their is a secret rule book hidden in the universe that says it is okay to criticize Regent for some things and not okay to criticize Regent for other things on CC. I'm still looking for the that book.

 

I gather that criticizing the internet service on Regent is not okay. One prior post hints that the abysmal state of the internet may not be Regent's fault. Apparently it is guests who use the internet for work that cause the internet problems or maybe those guests who download or upload things, except at 11 PM when it is probably the officers. I think uploading things to CC is okay though I don't yet fully understand how that is different than uploading something for work.

 

But I'm patient and I'm sure someday I'll find the rule book.

[mikenbob]

I think that we may be close to solving the issue. If everyone would just stop using the Internet, then it will be faster for all of us to not use equally. Problem solved!

[LynnRuns]

Pingpong1, you seem to be trying to use logic. That could be a mistake. Instead I think their is a secret rule book hidden in the universe that says it is okay to criticize Regent for some things and not okay to criticize Regent for other things on CC. I'm still looking for the that book.

 

I gather that criticizing the internet service on Regent is not okay. One prior post hints that the abysmal state of the internet may not be Regent's fault. Apparently it is guests who use the internet for work that cause the internet problems or maybe those guests who download or upload things, except at 11 PM when it is probably the officers. I think uploading things to CC is okay though I don't yet fully understand how that is different than uploading something for work.

 

But I'm patient and I'm sure someday I'll find the rule book.

 

 

If you read the large number of posts, it once again comes down to one person's view that their loyalty "benefits" have been diluted. Missing the point completely that there is a new generation that will not accept poor internet access regardless of whether they work or not.

I am sure Regent does get it but as others have pointed out, this is a very large investment. Regent is making trade offs and will have to balance the ROIC across the multiple pulls for capital (and right now, I am guessing building a new ship won).

[rallydave]

See my post #78 above - re Silversea (surprisingly good and no extra charge) and Seabourn (v poor).

 

We were on Seabourn for 45 nites including about a week in Antarctica where we expected to have problems accessing the internet but, the only time we had issues during the entire cruise was when we had mountains in Antarctica in the line of sight between our Satellite Dish and the Geo Stationary Satellite which that far south is very low on the horizon since it is virtually stationary over the equator. Connection and speed was probably the best we've ever had on any cruise line including Regent. Internet is not included on Seabourn but, they have a great unlimited plan no matter the cruise length at with only about 425 passengers the Internet was great no matter the time of day.

[Travelcat2]

If you read the large number of posts, it once again comes down to one person's view that their loyalty "benefits" have been diluted. Missing the point completely that there is a new generation that will not accept poor internet access regardless of whether they work or not.

I am sure Regent does get it but as others have pointed out, this is a very large investment. Regent is making trade offs and will have to balance the ROIC across the multiple pulls for capital (and right now, I am guessing building a new ship won).

 

It seems that you missed my point. It simply is that Regent gave everyone included internet (and took loyalty benefits away) before learning whether or not their “new” upgraded system would work. Had it been tested with 400+ logins, they would known that. So, rather that upset guests with slow internet, it may have been best to keep it the way it was ...... at least until a fix could be found.

 

Keep in mind that no one was complaining that they had to pay for internet before but once it became “free”, there appears to be no going back.

[Travelcat2]

On a recent Silversea cruise to the Galapagos, internet was included and surprisingly very good. I was able to stream Netflix while working out in the gym (didn’t try ‘streaming’ anywhere else. There was a router in our closet (very front of the ship) not sure if that improved our performance?

 

On my recent Seabourn cruise, internet was virtually impossible to use. We resorted to ATT Global $10 per day data plan as it was a port intensive cruise.

 

Again, thank you for posting about Silversea and Seabourn. Although you had such poor internet on your Seabourn cruise, another poster had a different experience which is not unlike the posts that we get about Regent. So, even though Seabourn does not have included internet, they are subject to the same issues that Regent has.

 

Now it would be nice to hear from some Crystal customers.

[Jonoro7]

Much has been written about Wifi and how slow it is butunfortunately none of the contributors have quoted any measurements. I suggestthat most are confusing the Wifi system with their internet or emailexperiences.

I have measured the wifi signal strength on the Navigator (March2018), the Voyager (late in 2017) and the Explorer (late in 2016) at a whole rangeof different places from in my suite to most of the public areas, on the stairsand along a few corridors. The signal strength is excellent in all areas beingbetter than -50dBm.

Any system is limited by its weakest, or in this case“slowest” link. In the case of internetconnectivity for all main websites will be the up/down satellite link. It is this link that is throttling theconnection experienced on your computer on-board.

Talk of the connection being better on the port or starboardside, or near the computer area, or in the corridor, or on the stairs, or evenwith your suite door open is just plainly wrong. There is to all practical purposes nodifference whatsoever depending where you are. The real problem and which has got worse inthe last year or so is the integrity of the service. By integrity I mean thereliance that you can place on it.

When people find that the service is goodsay on the port side it’s just that at that moment the service is good (and itwould be on the starboard side too) Some of the time the internet connectivityis “good” and other times its virtually non-existent. What has got worse is theproportion of the day time (I exclude the night as I don’t stay up just to usethe internet!) that there is no practical internet connectivity at all. On the lastvoyage and obviously on sea days there were hours at a time when I tried theconnectivity and found none of practical use. This did not happen just 2 yearsago.

At home I have a 100Mb/s fibre service and this has acontention ratio of 50:1. I believe thatit is the contention ratio that is key to the poor connectivity. The contentionratio is the number of other users that you share your connection rate with, soin my case at home I share it with 49 others. If no others are using theservice I enjoy the full 100Mb/s but if all 49 others decided to max out theiruse at the same moment then I would only have a 50th of the 100Mb/s,i.e. 2Mb/s. This is very relevant on theships. Two years ago (I don’t know if there has been a change since then)Regent was buying a 50Mb/s service and this was not just for passengers butalso for company use. I suspect that more data is now being used foroperational purposes. Now at times there may be just a handful of peopleon-board using the internet but at other time there could be hundreds and ofcourse all this is being squeezed into this same “pipe” of the satelliteup/down link. So the contention ratio on the ship is many hundreds to one. This is the reason why at times it is soslow.

There are other technical matters which exacerbate theproblem. All internet traffic is sent in packets. These packets include the internet addressesof both the sender and the recipient as well as what type of packet it us (webtraffic, voice, email, skype etc). Thepackets don’t all follow the same route to the destination and so they canarrive out of order, in addition to which they can be corrupted or get lost.The receiving equipment has to reorder them as well as checking if they are notcorrupted. If one is corrupted it can ask the sender to resend that packet. Butthe big issue is how long to wait for a missing packet or for the retransmissionof a corrupted one? Ground based internet traffic takes milliseconds to reachthe destination, but when a satellite is involved it is often half a second ormore. This delay quickly renders a transmission unusable in the event of just afew errors or missing packets. The round trip transmission time of a link caneasily be measured, I found times of around 1.2 seconds (called the ping time),whereas at home I see around a hundredth of that.

Another topic on this thread is over Regent’s streaming policy.This may have been influenced by the current debate over “net neutrality” (the“rule” that required internet service providers to treat all data trafficequally, they could not speed up just their own user’s traffic or slow downstreaming packets – they had to treat all data packets equally). It wasdecided, in the USA, in December 2017, to rescind net neutrality rules, thusallowing prioritisation of internet traffic. A search on Google for “netneutrality” will reveal the angst and strife that this new policy ispermitting. So was this policy change what prompted Regent? I don’t know. It is easy for Regent using packet inspection to either block streamingpackets or give them a low priority. (And it’s just as easy for us to overcomethis with a VPN). But of course Regent could be prioritising packets from userswho have coughed up the extra money for a streaming service, I don’t know ifthey are doing this.

Back to the beginning about “slow” internet speeds. I havemade a number of measurements and there is a good correlation between sea-days(busy time) and popular shore excursion times with slow/unusable times andquite respectable speeds. Good times Ifind download speeds upto 5Mb/s (uploads generally a tenth of download speeds)but on a busy day I can spend an hour or more just trying to send a short textemail; speed tests being not practical.

[Travelcat2]

Jonoro7 - thank you so much for the detailed explanation. I am still trying to understand each part of it but what you posted made more sense than those of us who just complain and have no idea what is going on!

[pingpong1]

Knowing "what's going on" (to the technical degree that Jonoro7 and others do), still doesn't "resolve" the problem of having a slow internet connection on Regent. It doesn't "get Regent off the hook" for not paying for/providing for a "larger connectivity pipe" that is correctly sized for the data demands of the ship/s. The whole point was that if "mega-ships" can do it, so can Regent.

 

In other words, in order to have faster internet service, "end to end" for everyone on the ship (no matter whether there are only 50 or 500 users trying to "get online" at the same time), the data capacity ("size", if you like) of the "pipe" (between the ship and satellite) has to be large enough to handle the "amount of water" (i.e., data) that's trying to be forced through the "pipe" at all hours of the day.

 

It all still comes down to a spending priority/financial decision (as others here have correctly said) and the "size of the pipe" that Regent is willing to pay for (and which would be available if the bill was paid) on it's ships. As technically comprehensive an explanation as Jonoro7 has provided (correct in every way), it "solves" nothing, and "the complainer's" issues are just as valid as they were before.

[BarbarianPaul]

Again, thank you for posting about Silversea and Seabourn. Although you had such poor internet on your Seabourn cruise, another poster had a different experience which is not unlike the posts that we get about Regent. So, even though Seabourn does not have included internet, they are subject to the same issues that Regent has.

 

 

 

Now it would be nice to hear from some Crystal customers.

 

 

 

Jackie...

 

As you know, I was on the Crystal Serenity prior to sailing on the Explorer, in the Mediterranean as well, and it was far superior. It certainly wasn’t blazing fast, but it was reliable and it didn’t take forever to send emails, download pics, etc. And the Serenity is a well maintained but relatively old ship.

 

Celebrity for us has been the best, but for some odd reason this information is meaningless to you because it’s not a “luxury line.” But in this day and age, the inability to deliver even workable internet is for some people a substantial negative, so an argument can be made that Regent isn’t a “luxury line” either.

 

Of course I’m exaggerating to make a point, but shouldn’t Regent respond to this discussion? Their silence just doesn’t bode well, no?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Jonoro7]

Perhaps the C Serenity's connectivity was so good was because it was used less? This would improve its integrity.

I see that until very recently you got 60 or 90 mins free then it was a hefty 27.50 USD per hour. Now that would cut down the use a lot and hence improve the integrity.

What is it like now on C Serrenity since its "unlimited"?

Regent used to be "good" but since its now free.....

[Travelcat2]

Paul, I keep harping on luxury ships because, using logic only, what would work ideally on a 500-700 passenger ship, a 1000-2000 passenger ship and 2000+ passenger ships is not the same. So, what may work well on Seabourn or Silversea in particular could be the right fit for Regent.

 

There are obviously going to be differences in how many people are online when internet is free and when there is a charge. There is also a difference in how many log-ins (on different devices) are offered “free”. Regent may have 490 - 750 passengers on their ships but when you add in the four log-ins per person that are Gold and above Seven Seas Society members get plus the one log-in per suite for the rest of the passengers, there is the potential for a lot of activity.

 

Jonoro7 — although some of what you posted goes over my head, you seem to have a good insight into the situation.

 

Another thing that cruise lines need to consider is “what’s next?” If/when Regent upgrades their system yet again, what new “thing” will be introduced this year, next year or in 2020 that will make today’s technology obsolete? In my opinion, is it a bit easier for us to upgrade our personal equipment (phones, laptops, desktops, tablets) every 2-3 years than it is for a cruise line to do the same.

[Travelcat2]

On the subject of wifi, it might work better if the computers in the computer room were actually working. Half of them don't (or need to be rebooted by the computer guru frequently).

[CruisetheCs]

If you read the large number of posts, it once again comes down to one person's view that their loyalty "benefits" have been diluted. Missing the point completely that there is a new generation that will not accept poor internet access regardless of whether they work or not.

I am sure Regent does get it but as others have pointed out, this is a very large investment. Regent is making trade offs and will have to balance the ROIC across the multiple pulls for capital (and right now, I am guessing building a new ship won).

Lynn, I am not so sure that Regent gets it. Whether improving the internet is a large investment for Regent relative to other costs (like the CEO’s salary) or not, I have no idea so I won’t comment. (Well, maybe I just did :) )

 

But so many things that relate to communication are simply off track with Regent that it makes me think that some level of management is simply out of touch with modern day business practices. Just for example, the web site was problematic for years (I gather it is better in the past few months, though I have recently rarely used it). Only an incompetent management team could launch a new ship (the Explorer) with all the hoopla surrounding the most luxurious ship in the world and have a web site showing that it was still under construction weeks after its inaugural cruise.

 

The internet is yet another example of a communication-related problem. Regent presumably has known for a long time that guests wanted better internet speeds. The problems were presumably to be fixed by an upgrade back in 2016 or thereabouts. And guests were told on the website that Regent then provided fiber-optic speeds onboard. This went on for months if not longer despite reports on CC that this simply wasn’t true. The language eventually got changed. But no competent communications division is going to leave that kind of false hype up on the internet after it is clear that the service is not remotely close to fiber-optic speeds. Nor would anyone have put up that hype in the first place without a guarantee that such would be the case.

 

Now we have “free unlimited” wifi. Problem is, it isn’t free (it is included in the high fares) and it isn’t unlimited. If it was unlimited there wouldn’t be a high-price additional cost for streaming. Again a competent communications division would fix the wording immediately, not leave an obviously contradictory and illogical classification in place. (Though maybe a court of law could find that free unlimited wifi is not inaccurate. Guests get a wifi signal--it just isn’t always connected to the internet—clever marketing, Regent)

 

Flossie009 mentioned that there is not even a question about the internet on the cruise evaluation forms, only a question about the internet manager. This again gets to the point that internet service is just not a priority like other services.

Another example of the lack of attention to communication is this thread that goes on and on because no one from Regent intervenes to either explain what is going on or to apologize or to say something about what Regent intends to do, etc., A modern day competent communications division would quickly be on a festering thread like this that questions a corporate entity's integrity.

 

These examples (and I could go on with more) bring me back to why I doubt that Regent’s management can or does assess the value of communication-related services when considering spending priorities. It is difficult to balance priorities if management gives no little or no value to something that guests have come to value.

[flossie009]

On board Explorer now.

We find that Wi-Fi is much better in the public areas than in our suite, where it is very difficult to connect and then keeps dropping out. So annoying!!

 

Just did a speed test (4:15pm) in the Cafe - upload and download speed both only 0.12 Mbps; very poor :(

Thus far on Mariner the Wi-Fi connectivity and speed has been consistently better than the abysmal service we got on Explorer.

Just did a speed test (5:30pm) in our suite:

Download speed 1.91 Mb/s

Upload speed 4.37 Mb/s

All the talk about other cruise lines, luxury or mainstream, and the technical wizardry is all very interesting but totally irrelevant to those of us who like cruising with Regent.

All we want is an internet service on board that works well most of the time ................ not just in the middle of the night with the door open :rolleyes:

[UUNetBill]

Thus far on Mariner the Wi-Fi connectivity and speed has been consistently better than the abysmal service we got on Explorer.

Just did a speed test (5:30pm) in our suite:

Download speed 1.91 Mb/s

Upload speed 4.37 Mb/s

All the talk about other cruise lines, luxury or mainstream, and the technical wizardry is all very interesting but totally irrelevant to those of us who like cruising with Regent.

All we want is an internet service on board that works well most of the time ................ not just in the middle of the night with the door open :rolleyes:

Don't forget "While wearing a tinfoil hat" :cool:

[flossie009]

Don't forget "While wearing a tinfoil hat" :cool:

Totally forgot that :D

So that is why we are getting better Wi-Fi on Mariner. We left our tinfoil hats on Explorer ;)

[Travelcat2]

A friend onboard with over 1,000 nights works from the ship on a daily basis and said that there have been no issues whatsoever with the wifi onboard. It seems that while many people are complaining about wifi, the rest of us are just using it - mostly without issues.

[mikenbob]

A friend onboard with over 1,000 nights works from the ship on a daily basis and said that there have been no issues whatsoever with the wifi onboard. It seems that while many people are complaining about wifi, the rest of us are just using it - mostly without issues.

 

So, that settles it. The slow WiFi is obviously a figment of our imaginations. Thanks for straightening out the issue.

[CruisetheCs]

A friend onboard with over 1,000 nights works from the ship on a daily basis and said that there have been no issues whatsoever with the wifi onboard. It seems that while many people are complaining about wifi, the rest of us are just using it - mostly without issues.

"No issues whatsoever"! Sounds fabulous! I guess all the people posting about internet problems on CC over the past 1000 days have just made things up--apparently that fake news stuff is everywhere! :D Thank goodness we now have a credible, though unnamed source, to verify that there are no issues whatsoever. Was the source wearing a tinfoil hat by any chance?:)

 

As for complaining about wifi, some people complain about wifi, some complain about special lines at check-in, some complain about other posters who complain about the wifi. I think the secret is out, CC really stands for Complain, Complain.That's why CC is just really one big happy family ;)

Edited April 6, 2018 by CruisetheCs

[Travelcat2]

Due to CC guidelines, I cannot identify the person but this is a TA that posts from Regent and Silversea ships all over the world. No one is saying that there is no problem on any of the ships. What I am saying (and have said for a long time) is that it depends where you are in the world and the direction of the satellite as well as how many people are online at the same time.

 

I doubt if anyone would say that the internet is bad on all Regent ships, in all areas of the world, all of the time.

[Jonoro7]

What should we expect in terms of internet connectivity andwhat would that cost Regent?

Very approximate order of magnitude calculations only.

What is acceptable?? Very subjective but in UK 10Mb/s is deemed by government to be virtuallya “right”. (Expected to increase to 20Mb/s in 2 years and then some time beforefurther increase as limit on non-fibre reached)

Contention ratio is fundamental (number of subscriberssharing this same “supply pipe). Generally,for domestic consumers the ratio is 40:1 and for small/medium commercial 20:1with large users having no contention at all. The rationale behind this thatdomestic users are disparate with non-aligned usage whereas commercial usersare far more aligned, thus concentrating their usage patterns. Large commercialmanage their own contention. At higher speeds, the contention ratio can beincreased as uploads/downloads take up less time. Latency (delay) also has aneffect and at long latency times (i.e. satellite) the contention ratio shouldbe decreased to give the same service integrity. Taking all this into account, I suggest thatcontention ratios should be say 30:1 for an “average” service on board and 20:1for a “good” service.

So taking the above two aspects together I put forward thesuggestion that:

10Mb/s and 30:1 wouldbe average

20Mb/s and 20:1 wouldbe good.

Next to calculate what capacity of link would supportthat:

Number of users – (Navigator) – 500 pax of whom say 2/3 goldor above so get log in each and 1 log in per cabin for the rest - 400 in total – Figures for other 3 ships willbe 50% greater.

Average Service- 400 users, 10Mb/s and 30:1 results in 130Mb/sservice being required (again 50% more for non-Navigator)

Good service – 400 users, 20Mb/s and 20:1 results in 400Mb/s(+50% for non Navigator)

Cost

Costs of purchasing satellite time vary significantlydepending on frequency band, contract length, delivery point etc, but are generally in therange of 600 USD to 2,500 USD per month per Mb/s. Using a figure of 1,500 USDthis would incur costs to regent of:

200,000 USD per monthfor an “average” service for the Navigator. Plus 50% for each other ship

600,000 USD per monthfor a “good” service for the Navigator, plus 50% for each other ship

What Regent appear to have done is open up the service toall and as a result the integrity of the service has suffered. I do not believe that the service isacceptable, due to its integrity (unreliability) for anything more than casualuse. If you need to rely on internetconnectivity during your cruise then Regent do not provide it at present.