3 ms·

"The DfT is also considering the cost of replacing or upgrading some on-train wifi equipment installed in the middle of the last decade, and whether passengers

by rcarmo 3y ago

"The DfT is also considering the cost of replacing or upgrading some on-train wifi equipment installed in the middle of the last decade, and whether passengers on shorter journeys use their own mobile phones or data rather than connecting to an operator’s wifi." Well, based on my experience dealing with in-train coverage both working at a telco and as a traveler, if their hardware was deployed nearly ten years ago, then it is quite likely that their passengers _are_ using their own data plans instead of it.

eutectic 3y ago
My experience in London has been quite positive.
- rcarmo 3y ago
  In London you can rely on good coverage _outside_ the train, and I suspect (having visited 3 years ago) that the hardware is OK. The real trouble is when you do suburban/intercity trips, often through routes that have less coverage than motorways (which are prioritised by operators).
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    Why would motorways be prioritized? Maybe streaming music is more common than I think, but rail passengers have a lot more attention available to dedicate to a phone screen.
    - rcarmo 3y ago
      Because business people place calls from cars and they may represent thousands of users in a corporate mobile contract.
      - Symbiote 3y ago
        At least in Britain, a first class train ticket is generally considered fairly luxurious for longer trips -- mostly used by people travelling for business. Take a taxi to the station, the train to the required city, and another taxi to the destination. Manchester to London tomorrow morning is £184 in standard class, £255 in first class. People/businesses who can afford that are choosing it because it's better than driving. (Both tickets are significantly cheaper if booked in advance.) I any case, there's voice service over almost the entire country. It's the fast data coverage that can be a little patchy on some more remote bits of railway lines.

by rcarmo 3y ago

eutectic 3y ago

My experience in London has been quite positive.

rcarmo 3y ago
In London you can rely on good coverage _outside_ the train, and I suspect (having visited 3 years ago) that the hardware is OK. The real trouble is when you do suburban/intercity trips, often through routes that have less coverage than motorways (which are prioritised by operators).
- Symbiote 3y ago
  Why would motorways be prioritized? Maybe streaming music is more common than I think, but rail passengers have a lot more attention available to dedicate to a phone screen.
  - rcarmo 3y ago
    Because business people place calls from cars and they may represent thousands of users in a corporate mobile contract.
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      At least in Britain, a first class train ticket is generally considered fairly luxurious for longer trips -- mostly used by people travelling for business. Take a taxi to the station, the train to the required city, and another taxi to the destination. Manchester to London tomorrow morning is £184 in standard class, £255 in first class. People/businesses who can afford that are choosing it because it's better than driving. (Both tickets are significantly cheaper if booked in advance.) I any case, there's voice service over almost the entire country. It's the fast data coverage that can be a little patchy on some more remote bits of railway lines.