docj

If you're looking at an Aspen without LTE functionality then you might as well save a few dollars and buy a Spruce. The processor is the same in both. All these routers can connect to hotspots using WiFi but many people like the sense of stability provided by a hardwire connect. More importantly, if the hotspot and Ranger are communicating via a tether the WiFi broadcast from the hotspot won't interfere with the Ranger even if you leave the SSID enabled. When they are linked via WiFi there can be a risk of interference if all your electronics are close together. Through the use of an inexpensive USB hub, WiFiRanger products can USB-tether up to 3 cellular devices and use them all in a Load Balanced connection. As for the use of USB 2.0 rather than 3.0, the max rated throughput speed of USB 2.0 is 480 Mbps. I haven't encountered any internet connection lately that would be anywhere near that fast. 😂 This is a case where there's no practical need to upgrade the spec and no particular benefit to doing so.

I don't see what's so unusual about what your're looking for. In your Variation #1 you use a cellular hotspot device as your primary method of connecting your "local network" of devices to the internet. In your Variation #2 you use the park's WiFi. At present, I use my WiFiRanger Aspen router for both of those purposes. I have three cellular hotspots connected to it via USB and Ethernet tethers and I have our park's WiFi connected via 2 GHz WiFi. Rather than limiting myself to your two cases I use all of my sources in a Load Balanced configuration, but I could easily use them one at a time as you propose in variations 1 and 2. If I'm missing some aspect of your situation, please explain. There are a number of other brands of routers with WIFi as WAN capability that could do the same thing. I'll mention Pepwave and Cradlepoint as two examples

Herd immunity requires that, at a minimum, >60% of a entire population need to be immune to a disease for future outbreaks not to spread. That's because transmission of a disease is a probabilistic process and when herd immunity is achieved each infected person transmits to fewer than one other person. In other words, if you're a sick person what are the odds that the people you will meet and potentially transmit the disease to are already immune? This is pretty standard epidemiology; it's not "new thinking" created for the current COVID-19 situation.

Those anecdotal examples have no significance with respect to what benefits any individual person will receive.

I'm not sure why you treat this as a 7.5% chance of contracting the disease. The infection rate isn't static--the number of infections increases daily. Herd immunity doesn't take place until at least ~60% have been infected. Given the higher death rate of this virus compared to the flu, that means that a significant number of people are yet to die as the virus continues to spread.

The trouble is that using anecdotal examples doesn't provide a basis for being able to know what any specific individual's benefits would be. Just because you know of two people who were treated this way, doesn't provide a precedent for any future benefits for others, particularly since that's not the way the benefit language is written. I, for one, sure wouldn't want to make the assumption that I would receive those benefits since they exceed what the plan is obligated to pay for.

Verizon assigns numeric codes to all its plans. Make sure that the folks at FMCA give you the plan number. That's what you need to give the next Verizon CSR you speak with. Calmly keep telling the CSR to look up the plan by number regardless of whether or not they've ever personally heard of it.

As noted previously, the table is secured to the sidewalls with large screw eyes and heavy-duty zip ties.

Now that we have a storage shed on our own property in TX we have taken so much out the of the MH that I'm not the least concerned about our load capability. 200 lbs is the weight of a person; not a big deal IMO.

What's not all that visible in the photo is that there are two large shelves under the counter on which we've placed a set of large baskets which provide a huge amount of easily accessible (just slide them out) storage. The counter itself has a hinged "breakfast bar" which hangs out over the edge of the "platform" which provides us room to eat meals. The massive weight of the entire piece makes it very stable even with the cantilevered section. The biggest challenge was getting the counter top into the MH. Thank goodness for a somewhat younger neighbor! 😂

I realize that this probably isn't most people's way to redo the dining area, but it works for us. The counter-height work surface is a superb addition to the kitchen work area. The butcher block is solid inch and a half maple. It stands on 3x3 posts and weighs >200 lbs. I'm not at all worried about it tipping over but it is anchored to the wall to keep it from sliding.

Sweden is reporting 2,941 deaths on 23,918 cases. I'm not sure where you get 0.03 percent. When I do the math I get ~12%.

If people would agree to wear masks when out in public this would significantly reduce the chance that asymptomatic individuals would spread the virus to others. If you wait until you have symptoms before you wear a mask, you may have infected many others unknowingly. But asking people to wear masks to protect the health of others appears to be an infringement of a person's civil liberties or that's how it's perceived by some. So some will wear masks and others won't and the net benefit will have been negated.

We use Ramblin' Pines when we visit family in the Balto-DC area. Most sites are heavily wooded and some can be a bit tight (we have a 40' Class A) but we actually like the sites out front that they label as "FR" which are open and have trees only in the back. Unfortunately, I just checked Campground Reviews and it states that this park was closed because of the virus. But that was 6 weeks ago and things might have changed: Ramblin' Pines. It's possible that the "friend" referred to in the previous post is a long-term resident who was permitted to stay in place although the park may be closed to new people.

Yes, we have been full-timers for ~10 years and have travelled >65k miles around North America. In "normal" years we travel for ~5-6 months and winter in south TX. We have a site in an "ownership RV park" where we spend the winters (and our COVID-19 isolation).

I agree that these sorts of events might attract some people who currently aren't interested in "more traditional" RV rallies. Of course, an organization structured around such events still might not be of interest to those RVers who don't see rallies, of any sort, as being an integral part of RVing. I have no idea what percentage of RVers fall into this category, but we exist. We're not antisocial but we don't necessarily assume that we have common interests with other people just because we both happen to own RVs. Our MH is a way for us to be able to travel all over North America but it has little or no influence on our personal interests, hobbies, religious or political views, etc. JMO

I said that this was the percentage of dues revenue that the Beaver Ambassador Club was spending on mileage allowances. I never said that it was true of FMCA itself. I was taking my information directly off of the published annual budgets. And BAC justified its payments because the parent organization, FMCA, paid them also. And for those who say that being an officer is a huge expense, my response is that it is ridiculous that an organization would define a role for a "volunteer" officer that requires this much effort and expense. Essentially, you've created a construct where mileage allowances seem necessary but nothing says your construct is mandatory.

One of the reasons I dropped out of the Beaver Ambassador Club (an FCMA affiliate) was that I thought the practice of providing officers travel allowances was obscene. At the time I quit somewhere between 25-50% of dues revenue was being spent on such allowances. I guess it's a good gig if you can get it. Get yourself elected as an officer, then do a "woe is me" that the costs of going to all those rallies is a lot of money, so get everyone else to chip in to help pay you for what you signed up for as an officer. For those of us who have no interest in rallies in the first place it appears to be a scam. JMO

Remco Towing's website says that 2018-2019 Fusion Hybrids can be towed 4-down. The OP didn't state the year of his nor did I check other years.

Texas State Parks will be open for day-use only. Reservations (for day use) have to be made in advance. The RV sites will remain closed.

Personally, I might consider something like a two-tier organization. The low-cost-of-entry primary tier would be a broadly based organization focused on providing useful information to the RV community. Since Good Sam looks like it is finally on its last legs, maybe FMCA could take over the discount function that attracted so many people to GS. The online-only magazine would contain information covering all aspects of RVing. I don't think there currently exists any broadly-based entity that serves this role. I'd be willing to pay $30-40/year for such an organization if it included GS's discounts. It would have to change its name from FMCA to something that reflected an appeal to a broader base. Then, inside this first tier there would exist a smaller organization which is focussed on staging rallies and other activities for members who like to participate in them. There are some RVers who consider such events central to their concept of RVing and others who aren't the least bit interested. At present, FMCA's cost structure is built to sustain such an organization but the membership numbers don't support the superstructure. I suggest that the entire enterprise be rebuilt from the ground up. In other words, figure out what a stable membership number would be at a dues rate <$100/yr and then create an organization to fit it. When thinking about what benefits to price into these two organizations, one needs to step back and analyze how its members use their RVs and what benefits they would be interested in. For example, since many (most?) RVs are used by many owners for only a limited number of trips each year and most of those trips aren't all that far from home (RVIA data), maybe TravelAssist isn't all that important to them. Furthermore, Michelin tire discounts may not be all that important to people buying tires sized for most towables. Scaling back benefits will permit the organization(s) to better use their dues revenues. I'm sure this proposed organizational structure will appeal to some and will be antithetical to others. But if FMCA is to survive I think that it has to engage in a "bottoms up" rethink of its entire raison d'etre. Several of you challenged me to come up with ideas; here they are.

Of course, this is a classic accounting tactic by which revenues from future years are used to resolve a current cash flow problem. It doesn't fix any problems; it simply delays them.

When I first read it, I thought it was a joke, like something from The Onion! 😂

If you choose to believe that insurance companies routinely pay benefits beyond their stated policy documents, I'll never convince you otherwise. But for those who believe that insurance companies only pay what they're obligated to pay. I've attached the words from the Travel Assist policy (as written by Lloyds) which describe the medical evacuation benefit. As I previously stated the requirement is to take the patient to the closest medical facility at which an appropriate level of care can be provided. As for FMCA having "gone the extra mile" for some people, that may possibly be true (although I'd want to see evidence, not anecdotal recollections), but, if it is, it's something that FMCA did outside the coverage provided by its insurance policy and, therefore, can't be assumed to be a benefit available to others in the future. I find it interesting that on the FMCA website the full benefits description is only available if you log in, which is a Catch-22 way of saying "you can't see the member benefits unless you're a member!" Fortunately, the company that actually runs Travel Assist posts the benefits here: FMCA Travel Assist

With all due respect, the fine print says that FMCAssist will take you to the nearest medical facility that can provide you adequate care. There is no guarantee that you will be taken home. If you're outside the US there's no obligation to get you back to the US. Furthermore, having someone return your RV home for you is dependent on you first being approved for transport. Don't get me wrong, these limitations are pretty much the same for SkyMed and MASA. That's one of the reasons I haven't bothered to subscribe to them either. MASA appears to build its subscriber base by scaring seniors in group settings at snowbird parks. Personally, I find that kind of marketing offensive. Personally, I'm more likely to purchase health insurance for when we're in Canada. Our medicare supplement covers us for $50k of coverage outside the US and that's on a reimbursable basis. If we spend another summer up there I think I'd like to have "real" health insurance that would cover us for accidental injury and other concerns. Of course, that assumes we're ever going to go away like that again!