Read more.Government initiative aims to make rail broadband services 10 times faster.
Read more.Government initiative aims to make rail broadband services 10 times faster.
Since I live in Newcastle, this story is pretty much pointless to me. This is just another 'much needed' investment in London. It blows my mind that this is what the investment will be about. Surely if your work want to you work whilst travelling somewhere, they will provide a 3g USB dongle. My 'backwater' employer in Newcastle does, can't see why London folk don't pull there fingers out. (End the angry rant of a Northern. I'm probably just being bitter anyways )
Steam - ReapedYou - Feel free to add me!!
You make a good point Jowsey but I still think it was an inevitable and necessary development. Eventually it will spread north, how that takes I'm not sure
Gotta laugh when they said "free Wi-Fi" Who do they think ends up paying for this £70 million fine, or giving the government the money so they can invest in it ?
It's like saying the NHS is free, we may not pay at the time of use but that doesn't mean it's free.
I think it's about the speed you can get. Kind of like when using the WiFi on an airplane, it's dog slow, by having lineside repeaters, rather than using sat data, it can be faster.
Also, there is one good reason why you need this it's a good wheeze to not have to travel in scum class. I can easily daisy chain my phone, but would not tell anyone so I get to have a bit of leg room.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Track side coverage tends to be patchy on trains anyway away from towns, especially where trains run in cuttings. Putting repeaters in carriages is all very well, but the signal still needs to get to a point of presence, either through a cellular network or some other form of wireless connection.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
The money would be better spent replacing 30+ year old rolling stock.
Because nobody has 3G/4G if they need to get work done...
In 4 years time 4G will cover most of the country, unless they are going to run a ground based gigabit level network with line side transmission that works through tunnels then it's pointless and I bet that'll cost a whole lot more than £70 million to cover any significant portion of the network. Better off just paying the mobile providers to cover tracks with 4G and put femtocells in the tunnels.
I'm not going to lie, it's nice to get a first class seat ( and my company kindly provide these without me having to lie if the journey is more than an hour or so) but my real issue is the localisation of the investment of money once again.
While I can see this improvement was a necessary step to an improving system but like mentioned the two main issues are:
a) Is this an appropriate way to spend a money received from a fine because of poor performance.
b) Once again there serious localisation of money invested. There is business "Up North". It would be nice for some large government investment come this way. On the news this morning Nick Clegg was talking about his investment of millions in the north for local infrastructure. This sounds perfect but I'm sure something is not right... it's like there positions in parliament are about to be challenged... as if it's a thing that's done every few years. I wouldn't know. I'm just a bitter northerner
3G connection on trains even around London is virtually non-existent. Certainly in my experience it simply doesn't work - so this would make a big difference.
However, I am inclined to agree that 4G should be the focus, rather than hurling huge amount of money at WiFi.
Was thinking about this this morning...
I would rather have a good cell coverage (4G) over my journey and not bother with Wifi. I mean I get LTE all around work and mostly in London and haven't even bothered looking for a hotspot since... give it a couple more years and this can easily be the norm and then the Wifi infrastructure is pretty redundant.
Also I couldn't help but think that with them getting fined £53-70million what are the chances of them actually improving their service now? Or are they now going to put the prices up YET AGAIN to cover for this missing money and say once again its for improvements that never come.
They should of 'punished' them by reducing fares and then maybe forcing them to invest XX% more than they were planning into improvements. I don't see any of that money for the delayed services but I damn well am effected by them all the time.
www.leonslost.com
Steam: Korath .::. Battle.net: Korath#2209 .::. PSN: Korathis .::. Origin: Koraths
Motivate me on FitBit .::. Endomondo .::. Strava
I've never quite got this fines business for something like Network Rail or a train company. Why take resources away from the company? Hiow does that help them to impriove? I suppose it might get the shareholders to put pressure on the Directors, but it seems counter-intuitive to me.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Network Rail has no shareholders, it's owned by the government. This is a story that is about a government department fining a government owned company, and as Network Rail owns the railway infrastructure the investment will go to them.
So one government department fines another government department for late running trains and the answer is to install faster broadband?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)