WiFi on Amtrak

[George K]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/amtrak-wifi-acela-20150423

Taking advantage of a slow news day, I rode the rails to New York, testing the Wi-Fi speed along the way. To do this absurdly unscientific research properly, I decided to test the Wi-Fi during peak hours. That meant a morning Acela out of Washington and an evening return from New York.

The Plan was pretty simple: Ideally, every 10 minutes or so, I'd launch a test on speedtest.net or testmy.net, while marking down my location based on the compass feature on my iPhone (which is pretty accurate).

Bottom line: It's horrible.

That said, I didn't take advantage of the WiFi on the CS last fall, preferring to use my phone as an LTE hotspot for my iPad. That worked fine throughout most of the trip, other than most of eastern Montana on the EB and much of Iowa on the CZ.

 

[andersone]

Last summer my Verizon phone worked pretty all the way to Minot,,,,,,

 

[Ryan]

Individually, the results are usually pretty decent as long as you have cell coverage.

Try to let a few hundred people share that connection, and the results are... predictable.

 

[SarahZ]

The Michigan trains have wi-fi, but, as Ryan mentioned, you often have a few hundred people trying to share that connection. I always get better speed on my phone.

The wi-fi is handy for using a laptop, though. It's sufficient for working on school assignments and has saved me from having to pay to make my phone a hotspot.

As others have mentioned, however, it really depends on the area. When we're near Dowagiac, even my phone can't get 3G/4G, so the wi-fi is pretty much worthless. The same thing happens in the cafe car (it takes a while for the credit cards to process).

 

[George K]

One of my co-workers commented (when we were discussing my experiences on the EB and CZ) that you generally get better cellular connectivity as long as there are roads nearby. I didn't really pay attention, but it makes sense. He also commented that I'll have much better connectivity this fall on the way from CHI to WAS.

I imagine that, had this author relied on cellular, rather than WiFi for his article, his results would have been remarkably different along the Acela corridor.

 

[Ryan]

The Cap doesn't really have that much better coverage.

 

[StriderGDM]

So let me get this straight. He ignored the parts of the WiFi Description:

"To maximize the amount of onboard bandwidth available to all passengers, AmtrakConnect blocks access to streaming media and limits file downloads to 10MB." and

" Engaging in web activities that use large amounts of bandwidth will negatively affect the online experience of other passengers. When using our network, please keep this in mind and be respectful of your fellow passengers."

I'm sure his fellow passengers appreciated his efforts.

(I'm actually surprised he was able to run the test at all, I thought the speedtest.net site was blocked, in part for this very reason.)

 

[jebr]

Also, if they were using testmy.net, I have no faith in the results. They're way lower than other speed test sites and download speeds testing with actual downloads. Below, I tested it (edit: tested my work's personal devices' wireless connection) with both of their websites, where testmy.net (top image) shows lower results than speedtest.net (bottom image) and a third site, DSL Reports (middle image.)

Basically, one of the two websites they used is inaccurate enough (in my unscientific testing, but it's consistent enough in my experience that I'm willing to make the judgement) that the results can't even be trusted for an "unscientific" study, much less an article.

 

[amamba]

I have definitely had the wifi go out on me or get really slow on the NEC. That is why I basically just use my phone data on the train and have given up on trying to use a laptop for anything other than VERY basic web browsing.

 

[TinCan782]

Coincidentally ...

http://consumerist.com/2015/04/23/amtrak-wifi-so-slow-it-might-as-well-not-exist/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

They mention the National Journal Article

 

[Bjartmarr]

Limited bandwidth services (and Amtrak WiFi-via-Cell qualifies) are often designed to identify abusive users (and anybody doing speed tests qualifies) and "throttle" their bandwidth in order to provide decent access for non-abusive users. That's probably what happened when tested speeds dropped down to 100Kbps - the system was working as designed.

To put things in perspective, he was getting 1-4Mbps before he got throttled. At 1Mbps, downloading a 5MB Word document takes less than a minute. I don't see a problem.

Also. Seriously? Don't do speed tests designed for fiber on a low-bandwidth shared connection. Your article is not that important. Think of other people. Don't be a jerk.

 

[trainman74]

Coincidentally ...

http://consumerist.com/2015/04/23/amtrak-wifi-so-slow-it-might-as-well-not-exist/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

They mention the National Journal Article

I'd say this is the opposite of "coincidentally."

The Consumerist post is nothing but a summary of the National Journal article.

 

[BCL]

My problem on Capitol Corridor is that often it won't even let me connect at all. And when it does connect, I can't even pull up stuff like the comments section of a newspaper article. A lot of them use Disqus or other providers, and they don't load up until you pull down to the bottom of the screen. I guess this is supposed to save bandwidth if you're not looking for the comments, but when you get there it must be one heck of a bandwidth hog.

As for cellular coverage dying, there's also this dead spot right around the salt ponds near Fremont, CA. It's the salt processing plant to west and cows to the east. I might get some bandwidth on my phone, but a shared connection like AmtrakConnect becomes more or less useless.

 

[jebr]

Also. Seriously? Don't do speed tests designed for fiber on a low-bandwidth shared connection. Your article is not that important. Think of other people. Don't be a jerk.

While I don't think this was pointed to me, I was doing my tests not on Amtrak but on our work's personal devices connection (which is fiber fed.) The tests they used for the article should scale to the connection (so when on a low bandwidth connection they failed over to a lower bandwidth test.)

 

[Ryan]

I think he was talking about the author.

 

[StriderGDM]

To be fair, the bandwidth CAN suck on Amtrak trains (and the more people using it, the worse it is) but I do think this article is very flawed.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

In my personal experience Amtrak WiFi is indeed very poor. Meanwhile internet service on domestic airplanes has become substantially faster and more dependable than Amtrak internet. My suggestion is to make Amtrak WiFi a paid service with hourly, daily, and monthly options. Some day Amtrak may be able to figure out a way to make their internet service fast and economical enough to support everyone on board, but until then they may be able to solve most of the problem by sharply reducing the number of casual users per train. Also, speedtest.net is not nearly the bandwidth hog some folks seem to think it is. Nor was it designed exclusively or primarily for fiber connections. I've used speetest.net to query WAN throughput on ancient T1 lines without issue. We're talking about connections based on 1960's technology here. Video, audio, images, and large documents are the true bandwidth hogs. Always have been and probably always will be.

 

[seat38a]

I personally don't use Amtrak Connect on my weekly roundtrips on the Surfliner. I use my own mobile hotspot and based on the SSD broadcasting, so are many other people on the train. Lots of people with laptops out doing work on the ride down to San Diego and a good portion of them have their cell phones throttled. I gave up on Amtrak Connect last year and have solely used my own connection.

 

[dlagrua]

My experience on the routes with wifi has also been poor. Last Acela trip was acceptable but that was on a Saturday when the passenger load was light. My normal procedure to get online is by using internet sharing on my small laptop via my Verizon Smartphone. Last June on the EB it was possible to watch some TV programs but when you reach ND the service becomes sporadic. There were also some extended dark areas though Montana, and through Glacier there is nothing. Got a trip booked on the Zephyr in a couple of months and hoping for good 4G LTE service along the way.

 

[Palmetto]

I'll chime in here, too. In January, I tried to connect around New Rochelle, NY. No luck at all. Disappointing.

 

[cassie225]

Don't know if this is wifi or not but on my trip from Newark to NO I was able to stream Hulu and Neflix from Charlottesville all the way to NO.

 

[MARC Rider]

As a point of comparison, on a recent cross-country flight on Southwest Airlines, I heard many complaints about the wi-fi not working. (And you have to pay for wifi access, except for a few free TV channels.) I was watching the channels, but gave up because the stream would drop too often. (Plus, I wasn't too thrilled about the channels on offer -- even the in-flight movies from days of yore were better.) They also did a poor redesign of the flight tracker map, though I did appreciate having continuous speed and altitude information -- couldn't Amtrak include speed information on its on-train tracker?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

My experience was that Hulu and Netflix are blocked on Amtrak and most/all airlines. So I'm guessing that this was on your personal cellular service and that you met or exceeded your monthly allotment in short order.

 

[StriderGDM]

Amtrak Wi-fi definitely depends on how full the train is.

On Empire Service, I find it tends to be fast enough (keep in mind those trains are still using the 3G service I believe.)

The main reason I use my own hotspot often is for the VPN access.

But there are times, even on the core trunk NEC where Amtrak Wi-fi is fast enough for me.

 

[Guest]

Amtrak should not be responsible for wifi on the trains nor should have to pay multiple providers and their wifi network or system seems to be in need of replacement.

Amtrak should however work with the wireless carriers or satellite firms to acquire new technologies and sell access rights for those customers which are profitable so that Amtrak would not have to pay anything for services. Plus Amtrak and the providers would get a cut of profits from those technologies as they are used.

For satellite broadband and television, process would just require external mounted dish that was specially designed and they could have technology built out in the tunnels and the like where dead spots exist to extend reach into the train. Does not require much work from Amtraks end for implementation.

For wireless, they can work with any of the carriers in dead spot zones who have licenses who can use right of way on the tracks to utilize existing dark fiber assets or lay down new fiber cables and build new antennas that are designed to give amtrak the best signal.

But Amtrak should not be the firm paying the capital for this project and they seem to be making the project too complex when they do not need a separate network, they just need dead spots of existing carriers filled in.