winegard antenna

Kathi-27

Well-known member
has anyone got the winegard 2.0 wifi signal booster antenna? was wondering if its worth the money and does it really work as advertised. thinking about getting one so we can pickup campground wifi without having to go to office to get signal
 

danemayer

Well-known member
I wouldn't buy a device that only connects to WiFi using the old 2.4GHz protocols. You want a choice of 2.4 or 5.0 GHz.
 

danemayer

Well-known member
what do you recommend are suggest we should get
I use an Edimax BR6478AC.

It has 2 outbound radios: 5.0 GHz using the 802.11AC protocol, and a 2.4 GHz using 802.11b/g/n protocols. It also has 2 inbound radios, also 5.0 GHz and 2.4 GHz.

When we arrive at a campground, I'll use the survey function on 5.0 GHz first. More and more campgrounds are moving to add 5.0 GHz access points. If they have it, and the signal is good, I use 5.0. The channels are way wider and have far less interference. But the signal has to be good. 5.0 signals don't propagate as well as 2.4.

If they don't have a strong 5.0 signal at our site, I'll survey on 2.4 GHz and use that as the fallback connection to the campground WiFi.

On the inbound side, I'll have both frequencies active. Newer phones, tablets and computers will connect to the router on 5.0 GHz. Older equipment and stuff like printers with WiFi will typically only have 2.4 GHz.

If you have all your devices set up to connect to the router, you only have to find and connect to the best campground signal with the outbound radios.

The Edimax has high performance antennas, and fast radios on both sides, along with fast data transfer between radios.

At about $60, the Edimax only does WiFi connections - no cellular. So we use a Verizon MiFi where there's no campground WiFi. The Edimax gets pointed to the Verizon MiFi in those situations.

So why would you ever want the Winegard? I believe it has an external antenna, which in theory will help by getting a signal that isn't impeded by the walls of the RV. But I've tried external antennas, along with antennas in the window. I'll stick with the Edimax at $60, and fall back to the Verizon MiFi when necessary.

In my experience, signal interference in campgrounds is a much bigger problem than signal strength. And the interference is primarily on 2.4 GHz.
 

Lynn1130

Well-known member
What I have found with most campgrounds, as well as hotels and motels is that the Wifi is so slow, so as to be worthless. Boosting a signal to and from a slow Wifi still gets you a slow Wifi and a lot of frustration. Add to that that as the number of occupants in a campground increase the Wifi speeds drops even lower. Too many people surfing, and watching movies using the Wifi.

If you have a phone plan that has a larger data plan, or unlimited a phone hotspot is better. Luckily my plan does and I seldom if ever use the one provided by the park. Not to mention that many of those are pretty easy to hack from the outside.
 

WBG

WBGavin
What I have found with most campgrounds, as well as hotels and motels is that the Wifi is so slow, so as to be worthless. Boosting a signal to and from a slow Wifi still gets you a slow Wifi and a lot of frustration. Add to that that as the number of occupants in a campground increase the Wifi speeds drops even lower. Too many people surfing, and watching movies using the Wifi.

If you have a phone plan that has a larger data plan, or unlimited a phone hotspot is better. Luckily my plan does and I seldom if ever use the one provided by the park. Not to mention that many of those are pretty easy to hack from the outside.
You are so right. Getting a strong Wi-Fi signal is worthless if the campground has little bandwidth (as is true for the vast majority of them). A good data plan with a cell carrier that has good coverage seems the best way to go. Unless you are doing a lot or remote camping, a cell signal booster seldom seems to be necessary. At least that has been my experience.
 

porthole

Retired
I saw my first Winegard ConnecT WiFi - 4G antenna this week.
The older version without the dome.

As expected, at least one of the antennas was folded over
 
Top