Tube Wifi
 

Wifi seems to have been launched at Kings Cross St Pancras and Warren Street today.

Tube Wifi
 

On 08/06/2012 15:04, Matthew Dickinson wrote:
Wifi seems to have been launched at Kings Cross St Pancras
and Warren Street today.

Press release dated 1 June:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/24177.aspx

(Future archived URL will be:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/24177.aspx)

"[...] around 80 stations WiFi enabled by the end of July"
"Service on track for up to 120 stations connected by end of 2012."

The footnote of the press release has a list of stations "planned for
installation by the end of July 2012" - I'm not sure if the order of the
list has any significance, but if it has I can't see what it is!

Tube Wifi
 

But how do you actually get it?

Tube Wifi
 

In message , at 17:20:59 on Fri, 8 Jun 2012,
Mizter T remarked:

Press release dated 1 June:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/24177.aspx

The footnote of the press release has a list of stations "planned for
installation by the end of July 2012" - I'm not sure if the order of
the list has any significance, but if it has I can't see what it is!

I can't see a pattern yet.

Notable omissions (either because nearby stations of similar importance
are covered, or they are on/within the Circle):

Heathrow T5, Whitechapel, Baker St, Great Portland St, Farringdon,
Moorgate, Aldgate, Monument, Cannon St, Blackfriars, Sloane Square,
South Ken, Gloucester Rd, Notting Hill, Bond St, Tottenham Court Rd,
Bank, Knightsbridge, Russell Square, Earl's Court, Hammersmith (H&C),
Paddington (H&C).

[They seem to be positively shunning stations on Crossrail!)
--
Roland Perry

Tube Wifi
 

I think free WiFi has a potential to increase the time passengers spend in
stations, leading to increased crowding levels. Has this been discussed?

--
jhk

Tube Wifi
 

On 09/06/2012 13:28, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 12:05:44 +0200, Jarle H Knudsen
wrote:

I think free WiFi has a potential to increase the time passengers spend in
stations, leading to increased crowding levels. Has this been discussed?

Interesting observation. Don't know if it has formed part of any
discussion or safety risk assessment.

Your comment though has made me wonder what will happen if the tube
service goes "tits up" and loads of people stand around trying to log
into the wi-fi system. People go into "mindless mode" readily enough
on the surface when fiddling with their phones. Having people paying
no attention on escalators or close to platform edges doesn't bare
thinking about.


There's a town in New Jersey that has started levying fines on people
who are walking about on the street, with their noses buried into their
iPhones.

Tube Wifi
 

On Saturday, 9 June 2012 11:05:44 UTC+1, Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
I think free WiFi has a potential to increase the time passengers spend in
stations, leading to increased crowding levels. Has this been discussed?

--
jhk

That was my first thought - that platforms will be full of freeloaders with iPads and the exits to stations will be crammed with lunatic lefties with laptops.
Very dangerous.

Tube Wifi
 

On 09/06/2012 21:15, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:04:02 -0700 (PDT), Matthew Dickinson
wrote:

Wifi seems to have been launched at Kings Cross St Pancras and Warren Street today.

Victoria and Euston have apparently been brought into service.


Say, instead of installing wi-fi and having hipsters cram stations
looking at their "really cool" websites or blogs, why don't the mobile
service providers simply work on installing regular service -- at least
within stations.

Tube Wifi
 

On 10/06/2012 11:57, wrote:
Say, instead of installing wi-fi and having hipsters cram stations
looking at their "really cool" websites or blogs, why don't the mobile
service providers simply work on installing regular service -- at least
within stations.


Because said providers didn't want to pay for it.

Last two abandoned attempts...

2011:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/01/tube_ditches_mobile_plan/

2009:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/tube_mobile_cancelled/

Tube Wifi
 

In message , at 11:57:27 on Sun, 10 Jun
2012, " remarked:
Say, instead of installing wi-fi and having hipsters cram stations
looking at their "really cool" websites or blogs, why don't the mobile
service providers simply work on installing regular service -- at least
within stations.

They did, but it proved to be too expense. And if there were all
networks represented, with no domestic roaming, it would be up to 4x
that expensive :(
--
Roland Perry

Tube Wifi
 

On 10/06/2012 13:04, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:57:27 on Sun, 10 Jun
2012, " remarked:
Say, instead of installing wi-fi and having hipsters cram stations
looking at their "really cool" websites or blogs, why don't the mobile
service providers simply work on installing regular service -- at
least within stations.

They did, but it proved to be too expense. And if there were all
networks represented, with no domestic roaming, it would be up to 4x
that expensive :(

It was only ever going to be a single installation, with the system
likely being shared by the networks. (IIRC on the T&W Metro, coverage
was initially Orange only, but the other networks got a look in after a
short while.) There's no chance on the Tube of there being 2/3/4/5
competing installations from different networks.

Tube Wifi
 

In message , at 13:45:41 on Sun, 10 Jun
2012, Mizter T remarked:
Say, instead of installing wi-fi and having hipsters cram stations
looking at their "really cool" websites or blogs, why don't the mobile
service providers simply work on installing regular service -- at
least within stations.

They did, but it proved to be too expense. And if there were all
networks represented, with no domestic roaming, it would be up to 4x
that expensive :(

It was only ever going to be a single installation, with the system
likely being shared by the networks.

Domestic roaming, or multiple antennae?

--
Roland Perry

Tube Wifi
 

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:45:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 10/06/2012 13:04, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:57:27 on Sun, 10 Jun
2012, " remarked:
Say, instead of installing wi-fi and having hipsters cram stations
looking at their "really cool" websites or blogs, why don't the mobile
service providers simply work on installing regular service -- at
least within stations.

They did, but it proved to be too expense. And if there were all
networks represented, with no domestic roaming, it would be up to 4x
that expensive :(

It was only ever going to be a single installation, with the system
likely being shared by the networks. (IIRC on the T&W Metro, coverage
was initially Orange only, but the other networks got a look in after a
short while.) There's no chance on the Tube of there being 2/3/4/5
competing installations from different networks.

This has of course all happened before with Rabbit back in the early 90s
(or was it late 80s? Can't remember). That turned out well.

B2003

Tube Wifi
 

Very fast wick at the moment at Victoria.
From the platform surely I could make a phone call using say Skype for android?

Tube Wifi
 

On 11/06/2012 09:51, d wrote:
[...]
This has of course all happened before with Rabbit back in the early 90s
(or was it late 80s? Can't remember). That turned out well.

I'm in little doubt this will be successful - lots of people can't
handle being offline these days...

(That's leaving aside that the terminology of 'online' and 'offline' is
rather inaccurate for wireless devices...)

Tube Wifi
 

In message , at 08:51:53 on Mon, 11 Jun
2012, d remarked:
This has of course all happened before with Rabbit back in the early 90s
(or was it late 80s? Can't remember). That turned out well.

Rabbit was 1992-4. It suffered from a bad press because it was outgoing
calls only, but I found it useful because it was cheaper and more
convenient than finding a phone box, and worked at tube stations.

Where I would sometimes call a client and say why it was (train delays)
that I was going to be a bit late getting to their office.

It was also a very high-functioning cordless phone for use a home.
Despite several attempts, I don't think there's yet a comparable
solution that's caught on (a single phone to use cordless at home and
wireless at large).
--
Roland Perry

Tube Wifi
 

In message , at
03:46:04 on Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Offramp remarked:
From the platform surely I could make a phone call using say Skype for android?

If you can authenticate (still not sure if you have to "sign in") then
there's the possibility to use Skype-wifi phones. Although like Rabbit,
these didn't catch the imagination of the public.
--
Roland Perry

Tube Wifi
 

The only rabbit sign I know still attached to a building is in a street very near Euston Square. I like making phone calls directly under it, then pretending to lose reception and angrily shaking my fist at it.

Tube Wifi
 

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:09:56 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
It was also a very high-functioning cordless phone for use a home.
Despite several attempts, I don't think there's yet a comparable
solution that's caught on (a single phone to use cordless at home and
wireless at large).

That sounds like a solution that no longer has a problem. A lot of people
don't even have landlines at home now , they just rely on their mobiles.
Which is probably fine until there's an emergency and you can't find it.

B2003

Tube Wifi
 

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:11:32 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:46:04 on Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Offramp remarked:
From the platform surely I could make a phone call using say Skype for
android?

If you can authenticate (still not sure if you have to "sign in") then
there's the possibility to use Skype-wifi phones. Although like Rabbit,
these didn't catch the imagination of the public.

A friend of mine is into Skype. Unfortunatly when he calls me from all of
7 miles away it sounds like he's calling on a CB radio from Mars. The call
quality is utterly abysmal. You'd think in the 21st century it would be
possible to come up with something that had better sound quality than an
system designed 100 years ago.

B2003

Tube Wifi
 

In message , at 08:39:16 on Tue, 12 Jun
2012, d remarked:
It was also a very high-functioning cordless phone for use a home.
Despite several attempts, I don't think there's yet a comparable
solution that's caught on (a single phone to use cordless at home and
wireless at large).

That sounds like a solution that no longer has a problem. A lot of people
don't even have landlines at home now , they just rely on their mobiles.
Which is probably fine until there's an emergency and you can't find it.

Mobiles are much more common now, the Rabbit was withdrawn at the same
time as Hutchison PCN was launched - you probably know it as "Orange".

And it was several years after that before PAYG was introduced, so
mobile phones weren't just more per minute than a Rabbit, but typically
also needed a £30/month subscription. And obviously you had to but two
phones - a mobile and a cordless, because mobiles weren't free.

As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.

--
Roland Perry

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:11:01 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.

Thats true - unless they're using free minutes on another mobile of course :o)

B2003

Tube Wifi
 

We were about to embark at Dover, when (Roland Perry)
came up to me and whispered:

As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's
a bit rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive
mobile number rather than a landline.

That's easy - my Sipgate voip number routes to my Nokia mobile phone.

£6 a month is half what BT charge for a second line, and it keeps my fax
line freed up.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:11:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 08:39:16 on Tue, 12 Jun
2012, d remarked:
It was also a very high-functioning cordless phone for use a home.
Despite several attempts, I don't think there's yet a comparable
solution that's caught on (a single phone to use cordless at home and
wireless at large).

That sounds like a solution that no longer has a problem. A lot of people
don't even have landlines at home now , they just rely on their mobiles.
Which is probably fine until there's an emergency and you can't find it.

Mobiles are much more common now, the Rabbit was withdrawn at the same
time as Hutchison PCN was launched - you probably know it as "Orange".

And it was several years after that before PAYG was introduced, so
mobile phones weren't just more per minute than a Rabbit, but typically
also needed a £30/month subscription. And obviously you had to but two
phones - a mobile and a cordless, because mobiles weren't free.

As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.

According to this [1] article in Norwegian, the landline voice network in
Norway will be decommissioned before 2017. Telenor says spare parts are in
practice not produced any more and the suppliers will end support in 2017.
New telephones that looks like and is operated like a traditional
telephone, but with a mobile antenna, will be on sale, and also boxes you
can plug your old phone into. These will have much better antennas than
regular mobiles.

Apparently, the biggest challenge lies in converting systems relying on the
landline network, like burglar alarms, and safety alarms for the elderly.

[1] http://www.amobil.no/artikler/over-o...lefonen/110094

--
jhk

Tube Wifi
 

In message , at 10:25:45 on Tue, 12 Jun
2012, d remarked:
As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.

Thats true - unless they're using free minutes on another mobile of course :o)

I'd be expecting most of the calls from other landlines.
--
Roland Perry

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:41:54 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

A friend of mine is into Skype. Unfortunatly when he calls me from all of
7 miles away it sounds like he's calling on a CB radio from Mars. The call
quality is utterly abysmal. You'd think in the 21st century it would be
possible to come up with something that had better sound quality than an
system designed 100 years ago.

The sound quality you get is highly dependent on available bandwidth, his
outging and your incoming. For example, when I have called home from London
the other person usually complained about sound quality when I used the
mobile data network but not when I used the hotel WiFi.

--
jhk

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:57:35 +0200
Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
According to this [1] article in Norwegian, the landline voice network in
Norway will be decommissioned before 2017. Telenor says spare parts are in
practice not produced any more and the suppliers will end support in 2017.
New telephones that looks like and is operated like a traditional
telephone, but with a mobile antenna, will be on sale, and also boxes you
can plug your old phone into. These will have much better antennas than
regular mobiles.

Apparently, the biggest challenge lies in converting systems relying on the
landline network, like burglar alarms, and safety alarms for the elderly.

Sounds a very stupid decision made by people who only care about the bottom
line. Land lines allow emergency services to pinpoint someone precisely,
mobiles don't. The "we can't get the parts argument" usually means "we don't
want to pay to upgrade the parts".

B2003

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:09:38 +0200
Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:41:54 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

A friend of mine is into Skype. Unfortunatly when he calls me from all of
7 miles away it sounds like he's calling on a CB radio from Mars. The call
quality is utterly abysmal. You'd think in the 21st century it would be
possible to come up with something that had better sound quality than an
system designed 100 years ago.

The sound quality you get is highly dependent on available bandwidth, his

Yes it is. Home internet connections are a poor medium for real time voice and
video. Real time data needs a minimum fixed bandwidth. The POTS service with
its dedicated lines provides this.

B2003

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:20:52 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Sounds a very stupid decision made by people who only care about the bottom
line. Land lines allow emergency services to pinpoint someone precisely,
mobiles don't. The "we can't get the parts argument" usually means "we don't
want to pay to upgrade the parts".

Telenor is currently loosing about 6,000 landline customers every month.
Norway has a population of just over 5,000,000.

--
jhk

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:29:15 +0200
Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:20:52 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Sounds a very stupid decision made by people who only care about the bottom
line. Land lines allow emergency services to pinpoint someone precisely,
mobiles don't. The "we can't get the parts argument" usually means "we don't
want to pay to upgrade the parts".

Telenor is currently loosing about 6,000 landline customers every month.
Norway has a population of just over 5,000,000.

So what? Is that a good reason to abandon the entire system and rely on
cellular systems which are unreliable and can be jammed by anyone with a 20
quid device off ebay?

B2003

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:23:33 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

The sound quality you get is highly dependent on available bandwidth,

Yes it is. Home internet connections are a poor medium for real time voice and
video. Real time data needs a minimum fixed bandwidth. The POTS service with
its dedicated lines provides this.

Dedicated or prioritized (QoS) bandwidth for VoIP over DSL is no problem.
My DSL router is configured with a dedicated port for the VoIP adapter to
achieve this, together with some configuration on the DSLAM side.

POTS does not have sufficient bandwidth for video.

--
jhk

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:55:03 +0200
Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:23:33 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

The sound quality you get is highly dependent on available bandwidth,

Yes it is. Home internet connections are a poor medium for real time voice
and
video. Real time data needs a minimum fixed bandwidth. The POTS service with
its dedicated lines provides this.

Dedicated or prioritized (QoS) bandwidth for VoIP over DSL is no problem.
My DSL router is configured with a dedicated port for the VoIP adapter to
achieve this, together with some configuration on the DSLAM side.

QoS won't help you if there is congestion at the exchange or anywhere along
the line.

B2003

Tube Wifi
 

Roland Perry wrote:

I'd be expecting most of the calls from other landlines.

A generational thing I think. I have a landline but pretty much never use
it. As soon as I can get Internet access to my house without it (not a
cabled area) I will get rid of it.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

Tube Wifi
 

Roland Perry wrote:

As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.

Not expensive if they are calling from their mobile and are also on a
contract with free minutes.

Indeed my latest O2 contract is for unlimited (no doubt with fair use
policy) calls to landlines and mobiles.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

Tube Wifi
 

In message

..net, at 13:01:50 on Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Neil Williams
remarked:
As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.

Not expensive if they are calling from their mobile and are also on a
contract with free minutes.

Indeed my latest O2 contract is for unlimited (no doubt with fair use
policy) calls to landlines and mobiles.

If you spend enough money each month, then you get things free. Not many
of my callers are that kind of user. Indeed, not all are in the UK.
--
Roland Perry

Tube Wifi
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 10:25:45 on Tue, 12
Jun 2012, d remarked:
As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.

Thats true - unless they're using free minutes on another mobile of
course :o)

I'd be expecting most of the calls from other landlines.

In our generation maybe but not in our kids'. Mine make all their calls from
mobiles.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Tube Wifi
 

In article

, (Neil Williams) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

I'd be expecting most of the calls from other landlines.

A generational thing I think. I have a landline but pretty much never use
it. As soon as I can get Internet access to my house without it (not a
cabled area) I will get rid of it.

Even if you were in a cabled area you'd have to pay for a Virgin Media
landline even if you didn't use it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Tube Wifi
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message


, at 13:01:50 on Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Neil Williams
remarked:
As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.

Not expensive if they are calling from their mobile and are also on a
contract with free minutes.

Indeed my latest O2 contract is for unlimited (no doubt with fair use
policy) calls to landlines and mobiles.

If you spend enough money each month, then you get things free. Not
many of my callers are that kind of user. Indeed, not all are in the UK.

My brother in the USA usually calls my mobile these days. He uses Skype.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Tube Wifi
 

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:01:06 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Dedicated or prioritized (QoS) bandwidth for VoIP over DSL is no problem.
My DSL router is configured with a dedicated port for the VoIP adapter to
achieve this, together with some configuration on the DSLAM side.

QoS won't help you if there is congestion at the exchange or anywhere along
the line.

While this is true, if you get a VoIP number from your internet provider,
the calls will not be routed over the regular Inernet, so this will not be
a problem. The point beeing that it's perfectly possible to provide the
same quality as POTS over IP.

--
jhk

Tube Wifi
 

Jarle H Knudsen wrote:

While this is true, if you get a VoIP number from your internet provider,
the calls will not be routed over the regular Inernet, so this will not be
a problem. The point beeing that it's perfectly possible to provide the
same quality as POTS over IP.

Most office telephone systems are run over IP these days, indeed. Much
cheaper to install only one set of wiring.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.