Using my phone hotspot for the tv.

[klutchdust]

Was discussing with a few friends that my TT does not have reception on the TV. I no longer have a satellite carrier and don't know much about the antenna on my 2012 work and Play trailer. One person commented he purchased a smart Tv with roku and uses his phone as a hotspot. So, what amount of data would it use. What are the downsides of this. Antenna upgrade? thanks in advance.

[udidwht]

T Mobile 5G wifi home internet

No contract and $50 per month. The device can be taken with you in your RV and used while on the road. I did just such (Renton - HB, Ca and back for 3.5 weeks) I purchased a 300w inverter that plugs into cigarette light. Worked great!

[austinjenna]

I saw a tiktok of someone in an rv that uses the t-mobile 5g unlilmited internet for 50 a month

Link

[d1h]

I have used my AT&T hotspot with my roku. As long as you have a decent cell signal it works really well.

[punomatic]

I started out to stream TV by tethering to my phone. I quickly discovered that Spectrum's "unlimited" plan throttles the data my phone uses as a hot spot at 5GB, even though I am supposed to get 20GB before throttling. I guess if I want to watch TV on my phone, I'm covered. Might check your provider for the details on how much unthrottled data you are allowed when using your phone as a hot spot.

[Acampingwewillg]

Dutch_12078 wrote:

Acampingwewillgo wrote:
Get on the "Visible" group rate for "unlimited" talk,data and hot spot. Granted its not really unlimited but I use it just as a back up when needed. My wife and my T-mobile phones on the geezer plan give you quite a bit of data/hot spot.

Back to Visible.....my plan is 25.00 a month on Verizon network but I think they still offer AT&T network, if that works better for you. I still do have Sat but streaming is nice to have when you want it/need it.

The Visible unlimited talk, text, and data is in fact unlimited. It is a prioritized service that can slow down on highly congested towers, but that only lasts as long as the congestion lasts.

Visible is wholly owned by Verizon and only works on Verizon towers. They do not offer any service on AT&T towers. Tracfone, also owned by Verizon, does offer phones on AT&T's and T-Mobile's towers, as well as there own, but no unlimited data service.

Thank you for setting the record straight on what "Visible" offers. I got in on the deal a few years back and the basic use of our Visible phone is as a back up to our T mobile phones during our RV'ing trip both for connectivity and streaming.

[valhalla360]

Gdetrailer wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

Gdetrailer wrote:
Digital broadcasting via ATSC (the digital TV standard now used) has a lot of flaws, local RF noise severely impacts the reception, rain, snow, trees all affect the distance and then with many more UHF frequencies available than VHF really impacts the distance. UHF is strictly "line of sight", doesn't bend with the Earths curvature, signal will skip over deep valleys between hills and buildings, trees or other solid obstacles simply block it..

Yes, much more sensitive and less range. Not technically correct but effectively the power that used to go into one channel is now split up.

Also, unlike the old analog where the picture might be a little fuzzy but you could watch it. Digital is there or it's not. So when you are at marginal range, it usually means nothing or frequent freezing of the image.

Actually all of the stations ATSC output power ....

As I said, "not technically correct".

[Tom_M1]

klutchdust wrote:
Was discussing with a few friends that my TT does not have reception on the TV. I no longer have a satellite carrier and don't know much about the antenna on my 2012 work and Play trailer. One person commented he purchased a smart Tv with roku and uses his phone as a hotspot. So, what amount of data would it use. What are the downsides of this. Antenna upgrade? thanks in advance.

The Winegard Sensar IV (aka Batwing) is considered about the best RV TV antenna available. It has the broad elements that are needed for receiving VHF channels well. Second choice would probably be the King Jack. It does not have the broad elements so it works poorly for the VHF channels but is on par with the Sensar IV for UHF channels. About 25% of TV stations are now broadcasting on VHF so for full coverage the Sensar IV would be the better choice.

A former forum member did an extensive test comparing the two antennas. Here's a link to his test: SCVJeff's test.

If you intend to go with the Sensar IV, make sure there is room for the antenna when it is stowed. I had to install mine so that it stowed to the side rather than to the rear. I have had this for many years and have had no problems.

Both antennas are directional and need to be aimed toward the TV transmitter. Antennas Direct is a good site to locate where the TV transmitters are.

I live in Minneapolis and all the network affiliates here stream their local news in real time. I suspect this is true for most TV markets.

For cellphone I use Visible. It is the only service I know of that has truly unlimited data including hotspot use. If you join a 'Party Pay' plan the monthly cost is $25/month total, no added fees. It has worked very well for me.

[Gdetrailer]

valhalla360 wrote:

Gdetrailer wrote:
Digital broadcasting via ATSC (the digital TV standard now used) has a lot of flaws, local RF noise severely impacts the reception, rain, snow, trees all affect the distance and then with many more UHF frequencies available than VHF really impacts the distance. UHF is strictly "line of sight", doesn't bend with the Earths curvature, signal will skip over deep valleys between hills and buildings, trees or other solid obstacles simply block it..

Yes, much more sensitive and less range. Not technically correct but effectively the power that used to go into one channel is now split up.

Also, unlike the old analog where the picture might be a little fuzzy but you could watch it. Digital is there or it's not. So when you are at marginal range, it usually means nothing or frequent freezing of the image.

Actually all of the stations ATSC output power goes into the same size as the old analog channel frequency allotment of 6 Mhz. The analog NTSC used the entire 6Mhz band allotment - upper and lower frequency guardbands (this was to reduce bleed over to adjacent channels) to deliver one channel.

NTSC vs ATSC

ATSC is all about transmitting digital data packets using very high digital compression (MPEG-2 which can be as much as 50 to 1 compression) which allows stations to decide to use all or only part of the 6Mhz band they are allotted. They can choose to have as many as 6 SD video streams or combination of one or several HD streams. Some may even elect to have only one HD stream and use the left over bandwidth to provide private data transmissions for other commercial use.

HERE is a good "primer" on ATSC and digital TV transmissions.

On edit..

From the last link I posted..


Click For Full-Size Image.

This is a representation of how the 6Mhz channel bandwidth use compares between ATSC and NTSC.. Ultimately and ironically the final output is more like AM (Amplitude Modulated) which if one has ever tried to listen to a AM radio transmission then one would understand the reason as why ATSC is much more sensitive to noise..

[valhalla360]

Gdetrailer wrote:
Digital broadcasting via ATSC (the digital TV standard now used) has a lot of flaws, local RF noise severely impacts the reception, rain, snow, trees all affect the distance and then with many more UHF frequencies available than VHF really impacts the distance. UHF is strictly "line of sight", doesn't bend with the Earths curvature, signal will skip over deep valleys between hills and buildings, trees or other solid obstacles simply block it..

Yes, much more sensitive and less range. Not technically correct but effectively the power that used to go into one channel is now split up.

Also, unlike the old analog where the picture might be a little fuzzy but you could watch it. Digital is there or it's not. So when you are at marginal range, it usually means nothing or frequent freezing of the image.

[way2roll]

klutchdust wrote:

enblethen wrote:
What antenna do you have?
Do you have in the wall power supply (booster)? Does if light up?
Make and model?
What is make and model of TT?

2015 Work and PlayUltra by Forest river. Second owner. TV that came with it did not have a remote. It's a brand that I have not heard of. The antenna looks like a flying saucer on a short pole. I travel solo fishing and attending desert racing events. I would like to have some reception of some kind even if it were some local news channel. As far as movies,netflix etc that is not important. There is a booster switch behind the TV . I have no problem replacing the TV and the antenna on the roof if necessary. Satellite TV I have no interest in.
So, what are my options. Having a TV is not a necessity but let's see whaat you guys come up with, thanks

If it's only local news you are after, streaming would be overkill. Add to that, many local channels don't stream anyway and if they do it's after the actual airing. Find a universal remote that works with your TV and scan the channels. that said, in the middle of nowhere you may have difficulty finding channels. You can always just get news on your phone.

BTW, you'll still need a remote for your TV even if you stream. At a minimum, power, channels, volume etc

[pbeverly]

We watch VERY LITTLE TV while camping. I have always been able to pull in a few local stations which I want mainly for local weather and news.

I use a Chromecast for movies or TV shows. The catch is I download content and stream it to the Chromecast on the TV. Wifi is required and I use my phone as a hotspot. The advantage is very little bandwidth is used as the content is on my phone.

As I said, we watch little TV, but if the weather is bad we have some things downloaded to watch. If we take grandkids I let them choose some movies prior to trip that I can download ahead of time.

[theoldwizard1]

Lwiddis wrote:
Do you know how to scan for available OTA TV channels? Rare I can’t find one, two or more.

BUYER BEWARE ! Most HD TV antennas are a SCAM !

You can buy a good one for around $50-$75 dollars. The better ones will have 2 or 3 "bow ties" on the front and a square "grid" (reflector) behind them. Getting it as high as reasonably possible off the ground IS IMPORTANT !

When you get to your campsite and have setup, go to antennaweb.org. It will show the closest stations and the general direction they are in.

[dodge_guy]

I e tried using my phone as a hotspot. It doesn’t do very good at that. What I did find was that mirroring my I phone with the Apple HD connector works great. I can watch You Tube, Hulu, Netflix or anything else without much of an issue. Every once in a while I’ll get some buffering, but it’s minor.

[Dutch_12078]

Acampingwewillgo wrote:
Get on the "Visible" group rate for "unlimited" talk,data and hot spot. Granted its not really unlimited but I use it just as a back up when needed. My wife and my T-mobile phones on the geezer plan give you quite a bit of data/hot spot.

Back to Visible.....my plan is 25.00 a month on Verizon network but I think they still offer AT&T network, if that works better for you. I still do have Sat but streaming is nice to have when you want it/need it.

The Visible unlimited talk, text, and data is in fact unlimited. It is a prioritized service that can slow down on highly congested towers, but that only lasts as long as the congestion lasts.

Visible is wholly owned by Verizon and only works on Verizon towers. They do not offer any service on AT&T towers. Tracfone, also owned by Verizon, does offer phones on AT&T's and T-Mobile's towers, as well as there own, but no unlimited data service.