If and when WiFi is enabled, the car will be on the Internet via WiFi. The biggest difference between when it is using 3G and when it is using WiFi is that the external IP address will be NATed via your WiFi router (or tethered smart phone). This is likely the reason for the delay in rolling out WiFi. With 3G, the car does not have to maintain a continuous connection with Tesla in order for the app and updates to work. It has an external IP address for Tesla and the app server to reach. When you are NATed through a router, unless you open up ports in the router, Tesla and the app server will have no way to reach the car directly, so the car will need to maintain an open connection through which it can communicate bidirectionally. That's a real hassle, and much different from what the car is able to do now (and will even use more battery in the car!). The alternative, as I mentioned, would be to instruct the owner to open up ports on the WiFi router, but that's a bit complicated for the masses. In terms of normal Internet functionality outside of updates, TM monitoring, and the app, there is no problem using WiFi via a NATed address. But I assume that they don't want to roll it out until they can use the connection for updates, monitoring, and the app.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
If and when WiFi is enabled, the car will be on the Internet via WiFi. The biggest difference between when it is using 3G and when it is using WiFi is that the external IP address will be NATed via your WiFi router (or tethered smart phone). This is likely the reason for the delay in rolling out WiFi. With 3G, the car does not have to maintain a continuous connection with Tesla in order for the app and updates to work. It has an external IP address for Tesla and the app server to reach. When you are NATed through a router, unless you open up ports in the router, Tesla and the app server will have no way to reach the car directly, so the car will need to maintain an open connection through which it can communicate bidirectionally. That's a real hassle, and much different from what the car is able to do now (and will even use more battery in the car!). The alternative, as I mentioned, would be to instruct the owner to open up ports on the WiFi router, but that's a bit complicated for the masses. In terms of normal Internet functionality outside of updates, TM monitoring, and the app, there is no problem using WiFi via a NATed address. But I assume that they don't want to roll it out until they can use the connection for updates, monitoring, and the app.
Most cellular providers now are providing NATted private IPs to cellular data connections. For OVMS, we originally thought of doing it with no permanent connection (just a dynamic IP style), but it was very quickly shown to be unworkable. TM might be able to make a special arrangement with AT&T, but globally expecting a public IPv4 address from the cellular provider would be difficult.
Systems like Carwings seem to use a SMS message to wake-up the car and get it to connect back. OVMS maintains an always-on tcp/ip connection. If, as has been reported, the TM Apps are connecting to the cars within seconds, then it is always on. OVMS connections are usually ~1second, and CarWings perhaps ~30seconds.
From a power usage point of view, there is very little extra load in maintaining that tcp/ip connection. The real load is maintaining the GSM network and GPRS tunnel - tcp/ip comes almost for free after that.
Now, WiFi is in general much higher power usage than cellular. The cellular chipsets have been optimized for small phones with tiny batteries. WiFi chipsets have been optimized for access points and PCs on mains power. Some low-power standby chipsets have been released, but keeping the WiFi up is generally more power intensive.
The last point is what does a wifi capability in the car mean? Is it (a) hotspot for cellular connection sharing, or (b) car as a wifi client for no-cellular-in-the-garage-home situation. Each has very different requirements. Given that TM are swallowing the data plans, at least at the moment, I doubt that they will allow (a).
Ah, didn't know about GSM networks being NATed. In some sense that will make it easier to implement WiFi. In terms of your last question, at various times Tesla has definitely promised that both (a) and (b) will be features. But who knows what will actually happen.
Todd,
How far are you from having any AT&T network coverage? There are products which allow you to place a higher gain directional antenna outside on your roof and then provide improved cellular reception within your home or garage. If there is any chance of reaching a cell tower, then one of the products such as the zBoost could be worth a shot. I've never used any of these myself.
Example: http://www.wi-ex.com/YX560P.aspx
They have a few different models. This one claims a 65db improvement and retails for ~$500USD.
Al Sherman
It's about THIS car.
Wow. Silly me. It never occurred to me that we do not have 3G out here either. I guess I'll patiently wait for WiFi.
KKlabunde
Member
+1 We have absolutely no AT&T coverage in our area. I can live without running the iPhone app while near home and don't care about web access in the car. But I am concerned about Tesla not being able to access the car for diagnostics if any problems develop. If anyone from Tesla is reading here, PLEASE activate the car's ability to connect to WiFi. (Of course, I'm a little unsure of how I will manage to download any software updates once they make it available. Hrmmm..... )
Al Sherman
It's about THIS car.
This may be a good answer. Does anyone have experience with this device? I wonder if they'll let me try it to see if it works. Is it like a Voip type thing?
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Thanks all for the suggestions.
I have a microcell. The problem is that you need to enter the car's phone number into it in order for its signal to be boosted. Tesla won't hand out that number.
The booster looks promising, but I'm not willing to spend several hundred bucks for it.
I have a microcell. The problem is that you need to enter the car's phone number into it in order for its signal to be boosted. Tesla won't hand out that number.
The booster looks promising, but I'm not willing to spend several hundred bucks for it.
From what I'm reading, you'd need to create your own base station just for the purposes of sniffing the number. Tesla should just give out the number. There's a valid reason for people to have it.
Al Sherman
It's about THIS car.
It's getting over my head a little(which isn't hard) but why would Tesla NOT give out the number. It would be a huge convenience item for us "boon docks" types.
If you're willing to be creative, I believe there may be a way to obtain this information using a picocell/femtocell and some call manager software. I'll go do some digging for you. I have a verizon extender at home, but it will associate with anyone who happens to be in range.
Last edited:
Al Sherman
It's about THIS car.
I'm not whining by any means. You make sacrifices to live out here. It's what we prefer. I DO wish Tesla can find a way to make the app and updates work at home for those of us out here. I'm certain I'd pay for it. Was really looking forward to amazing my friends with the app while we sat on the deck. :smile:
Either it was suggested or I'm suggesting it now: something about the agreement with the provider (AT&T) doesn't allow it.
I asked for it, to attach it to my 3g Microcell. I was told that AT&T's contract with Tesla prohibits disclosure of the number.
LuckyLuke
Model S P90DL
My understanding is that the sim card is non-removable. I suppose if someone wanted to go through all the trouble, one could devise an adapter that contains wires and pins that get connected to the hard-wired sim, and goes to a circuit board that is then plugged into a phone to read the phone number.
Similar threads
- Question
