LTE on a Fenix?

I saw this question asked recently, and it got me thinking. Is this a useful feature? Would I pay an extra $50-100 for it (and what about the data plan cost)?

As for myself, I certainly wouldn't care to be Apple-Watching it and holding up the watch to my face as I go for a run. And I could care less about real-time syncs to Garmin Connect while my phone or wifi is out of range. And I definitely do not want to see ANY kind of battery life hit for having LTE...

...but...

One of the reasons I got a Fenix is so I don't have to carry my phone on runs for me, it does my GPS run tracking and plays my music, plus a lot more. But now I don't have an emergency contact system anymore, and as I'm running farther longer, I'm often thinking if my wife will have enough information to find me if I pass out or bite it or whatever. And if I start traveling again and run in a new location, I might end up having to take my phone for emergencies anyways.

So, what if the Fenix 7 had LTE? I don't need a speaker or a mic, I don't need it to take calls, I don't need to get my regular notifications, and I certainly don't need it to be always on. But it would be great if it was integrated into some of the safety features on the current Fenix line, like emailing/calling your emergency contact with GPS location if your watch stops moving during a workout or experiences a high impact (that would even be helpful if you lose your watch). You could also have a duress mode where you could constantly send GPS updates to a preset email or contact 911 for you if you activate it with a hotkey. Or you could send preset, one-off SMS/emails if you need. Fine, it can even be active for that Live Track feature if you want.

The point is, if the LTE feature is emergency-only or limited functionality, it doesn't need to be a battery hog, and it'd still be useful enough for me to pay a premium, and even a reasonable monthly fee when I know I'll need it. And it would free me completely from carrying a phone around, because I know if anything happens, I'll be able to get critical information to someone straight from my watch.

That little bit of peace of mind might even be enough for me to straight up upgrade from the F6.

Thoughts?

  • My understanding is the Garmin LTE feature covers everywhere (at least in the countries it covers), so you could leave your InReach at home, or sell it. I don't know if that kind of coverage also applies to Apple watches or other LTE watches.

    According to the coverage map for the Forerunner 945 LTE on the Garmin site, there is a lot of uncovered area in the western United States (where I am) where the "Garmin LTE" would be useless:

    Everywhere that is shown in white on the map, is where the "Garmin LTE" will not work.

    My inReach still looks like a good bet Thumbsup

    HTH

    Edit to add: Link to Garmin coverage map: Coverage Map

  • It would be interesting to overlay a map of cellular coverage for comparison. For regions of British Columbia with which I'm familiar, the LTE coverage is superior to cellular. But there are definitely areas I may venture into that are not covered. You may want to hold onto your InReach. 

  • I circled the area where I spend most of my time doing activities. As it happens, the areas which are the most dangerous and I'm most likely to have an incident, are up in the higher mountains where there's no coverage.

  • It's definitely geographical/situational... Personally, I'd rather have the option than not.

  • Totally agreed, if you live in the mountains/wilderness or any area without LTE, a watch or phone won't help, and you may certainly need specialized technology/equipment (i.e., InReach). 


    Looking at the coverage map, a vast majority of the country has LTE coverage, and I suspect most urban/suburban areas, including local trails/parks, are nearly fully saturated. So I think the potential audience for an LTE watch is actually pretty broad, and the "you won't get signal anyways" argument seems fairly niche. 

  • I think it comes down to how much value one puts on not having to take a phone along. If you are fine with carrying a phone, it gives you almost as much coverage as LTE. And LTE doesn't cover a lot of backcountry areas people hike, climb or ski in, so it's not a replacement for specialized gear, unfortunately. And given Garmin's version doesn't turn your watch into a cellphone lite, its advantages are quite limited, IMHO.

  • If you are fine with carrying a phone, it gives you almost as much coverage as LTE.

    Well, usually a phone will give you way more coverage than LTE. Phones in the US nowadays support 3G (which is due to be deprecated, but is still active till end of 2022 or so), 4G (LTE), and now 5G. Though it's unlikely you'll ever be in a remote spot that doesn't support LTE but does support 5G, it's pretty safe to say the phone will have better coverage, and likely better reception too (bigger antennas). 

    I think it comes down to how much value one puts on not having to take a phone along.

    Absolutely right, I think.

  • Looking at the coverage map of LTE vs what I know I can get with my phone, it appears the LTE coverage is superior. For example, the area I x country ski at is covered by LTE, apparently, but I have never had cell service there. Neither reach where I hike or backcountry ski in the Rockies. 

  • How about an LTE version of the inReach mini, and a $10/month data plan? 

    Saves watch battery, works with existing devices.

  • fenix LTE + Iridium lets call it World edition or Global edition, for LiveTrack and Spectator voice messages via LTE, and Iridium (inReach) for special cases.