Wifi charges
Comments
-
I don't particularly object to paying an annual fee for Wi-Fi, I just wished it worked better, even Gold Standard sites! Whenever I have done a speed test on a Club site I rarely get a speed above 1MB but worse still is that I often find the signal is not consistent and tends to drop out and needs reconnecting. My demands on the Wi-Fi are pretty modest. Since having a Smart Phone with 4G I now find myself using that for online banking, news,e-mails etc so my demands on the Club Wi-Fi seem to be getting less and less. I do wonder with advances in 4G and in the future 5G whether the provision of Wi-Fi on Club sites will become redundant? Just in case people get the impression that elsewhere it is all milk and honey I recently stayed on a well known campsite near Poole which offers "free wifi" but it was so bad at times you wouldn't have paid for it anyway.
David
0 -
caveat emptor
0 -
Indeed people do provide their own wifi as they do their own showers etc..
My main gripe is that having paid for it, it has been very poor on a succession of sites to the extent that I had to revert to using 4G. That is nothing to do with caveat emptor, goods must be fit for purpose and be as described. Wifi that does not work is neither. I expect this is a temporary problem, which I am sure the CMC will resolve going forward.
My wider point is that to survive in the longer term the club must keep pace with the market place and at the higher end that is moving towards wifi provision as standard. With a customer base that has a good proportion who are aging (no offence intended), it has to ensure it is able to appeal to those entering the market or with young families. Increasingly these people are tech savvy and consider the internet as a necessary provision when chosing where to say.
2 -
It’s been a 'temporary' problem for some years now, TS.
The WiFi’s unreliability is the reason I make my own arrangements and why I believe it should not be included in site fees as standard.
caveat emptor
ˌkavɪat ˈɛmptɔː/Submit
noun
noun: caveat emptor
the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made.I think the above says it all. Check it out before you part with your hard earned so it does have a lot to do with the topic of the discussion.
0 -
If as said many times before people used the WiFi on sites as intended, then the "problems" that at times affect what in the majority of areas a rural location, that also affects several million other rural dwellers who pay far higher fees than the £25 annual cc contractor charges maybe it would not be such a perceived problem
Just this morning when fetching our paper from the site office ,a member of the site staff was trying to explain to a father and son that in this village of over 200 dwellings with rural internet they would not be able, as they expected, to stream games and films as they do at home in a city
0 -
As JVB rightly states a lot of folk pay a lot more than £25 per annum at home and still have a poor service in rural areas. Using it for what it is intended I don't generally have any problems. Perhaps I have just been lucky and others unlucky. Who knows. However, I have been paying the £25 since it started and was using it on the old tariff before that. To me it is a useful back up to our 4G phones.
Personally I think including it in the price would be a retrograde step. At many sites the WiFi just would not cope with the extra traffic this would almost certainly bring.
At least with the CAMC wifi you can try before you buy. On other sites you often have to part with your money before you have any idea of the quality.
0 -
that doesn't make sense at all, 'can I have a mars bar please?' 'Yes of course 80p please' 'can I have it?' 'no there isn't any'
What shops would do that? funny shops you go to?
The club has told you in advance that some sites do not have wifi and some have good/poor service, your choice to buy it based on that. Do your homework before buying, if you didn't then it's your own fault.
caveat emptor
0 -
It's called an analogy Corners, you pay for something that doesn't exist or hardly exists on sites that you might or might not be visiting. So when the OP suggests it should be free, should we all pay the hidden charges even if we can't or won't be using them?
0 -
Something no one seems to be considering is that every CMC site has a broadband connection for it's office, which presumably has it's computer connected via Wi-fi, therefore, the Wi-fi exists whether members are paying for it or not. I have a BT Wi-fi connection at home which provides a hotspot for any other BT Internet user to tap into if they are in range free of charge, in a similar way, why can't members be able to tap into the sites 'hotspot'? By charging a fee for using Wi-fi, the members are actually subsidising the site offices installations rather than the other way round. We have reached a stage where booking on-line everything from theatre tickets to holidays is the preferred method of dealing with customers, consequently the age of free Wi-fi is upon us, even Premier Inn now provides it. Private sites provide it, lots of Britstops provide it and the vast majority of European hotels provide it. It seems that CMC and C&CC are still hanging on to the good old British tradition of squeezing as much out of tourists as it can.
2 -
It’s not 'free', it’s simply not charged for separately.....🙄
Hot spots are starting to appear on sites where site wide Wi-fi is not available but the site wide Wi-fi is a very different kettle of fish to the use of broadband as we know it at home and most people want to use the internet in their vans rather than within a few feet of the office.
I think I’m right in saying that the site office broadband connection is a completely separate system from the Wi-fi installed and run by Air Angel. It’s not a case of using a single router and away we go but banks of equipment exist to run the Wi-fi. Subsidise the site office broadband - I don’t think so!
Anyway, I’ll continue using my mobi signal as it’s far more reliable.
0 -
+1
Also if everybody tapped into the office wifi, wouldn't that slow the office broadband?
0 -
Just returned from Grantown on Spey caravan site - a CL site. Wifi was awesome and included in the price, as many devices as you want - high speed always on.
Obviously a big pipe coming in but the key thing was boosters all around the park. From our pitch I could see 6 - yes six covering about 25 vans!!!
This setup is not dissimilar to the CMC site at Kendal.
So technology works and question is CMC commitment to installing it across all the sites.
0 -
It’s an AS and they charged separately for Wi-fi when I was there a few years back. Presumably it’s now included in the fees. Nice site but pricey and big.
PS. I think when I went there the Wi-fi was included in the price of the super-dooper pitches.
0 -
When we were there in 2016 it was just the super pitches for which it was included in the price. There was also a satellite connection as well.
It is a very good speed, but then they have installed fibre to the site. Probably a worthwhile investment when you consider the size of the site and the fact it includes some very nice but expensive cabins, which can be purchased, on the hill side behind.
As you say a nice site, we have stayed several times over the last few years. It was a bit more expensive than CAMC sites though, so I agree certainly not free.
0 -
Holiday at Southport this year and as usual we both renewed our wi fi for a year. What a waste of £50 that was. Wi fi so bad we have used our hot spots on mobile phones instead. we usually use the hotspot for the grandchildren and the wi fi for us. Our monthly allowance for hotspot will be used by the end of the holiday at this rate. The wi-fi mast is in line of sight and close to our unit so not even anything in the way to block the signal.
Next year we won't renew but will buy add ons for our mobile hotspots instead.
Used to be quite pleased with the wi fi but have had too many sites with work being done on the wi fi so it is out of use or poor quality and this experience is the final straw. Even this post is being composed in the awning connected via my mobile phone hotspot.
I don't mind paying £25 for a years wi fi access ( we are not away very much with the caravan in a year) but paying for no service is not really acceptable.
0 -
Exactly why I rely on my mobi data and tether my Pad to the phone, Ian.
0 -
I have just spent over two months "on the road" in England staying at a mix of CMC sites and CLs and private sites. Wifi is an integral part of life these days for getting information, buying things, searching and booking onward sites, etc. Without exception, every non-CMC site I stayed on had decent wifi provision in terms of speed, accessibility, number of devices that can be logged on, reconnection requirements and, importantly, price. On all private sites, wifi was included in the pitch fee. On most CLs it was fair to good although none were included in my £25/year CMC subscription, the fee being included in my pitch fees.
The wifi service on all CMC sites I used varied from poor to useless with consistently very low speeds, the signal dropping out far too frequently and needing to login repeatedly. For £25 I don't think that's good value for an important facility. I acknowledge some site users will not use wifi but then many of us don't use playgrounds, dog walks, veg prep and many other things which we have no choice but to pay for and from which others benefit.
Time for a major policy change to improve wifi across all sites.
0 -
"I acknowledge some site users will not use wifi but then many of us don't use playgrounds, dog walks, veg prep and many other things which we have no choice but to pay for and from which others benefit."
Indeed but all the things you list work as they should. Are you suggesting that site fees should be increased to include the cost of something, ie Wi-fi, that you say from experience varies from poor to useless? Really?
1 -
+1
To increase pitch fees, which is always a contentious issue anyway with some feeling they are too high and do not give value for money, to cover the cost of something which is not of good service and therefore not value for money seems very odd to say the least?
1
