Just to add a piece of data to support this: > It turns out the phone signal inside the station can be better than the one above ground I was surprised when I noticed I had 5G in the tunnel, ran a speed test and hit 641Mbps down! https://www.speedtest.net/result/i/6831252952
How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
111–120 of 179 posts
Re: How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
#112Re: How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
#113> There’s another distance limit at work here, and that is the speed of light. It takes milliseconds for the signal in your phone to reach the hotel above ground and be handed over to the mobile network. It takes roughly 100us for light to travel 30km – Can you explain how the speed of light is relevant here?
Re: How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
London, increasingly common. I’d say a third of the time when I take the tube. Combine that with people making loud calls, 100% of the time. But I find people imposing their music or tiktok videos more obnoxious than a builder discussing his next job a bit loudly.
A third of the time? Sorry, nonsense. I use the tube several times a day and it's a real rarity. I do worry about the tube becoming a cacophony of phone calls, but really? Everyone message now anyway so I reckon that'll be a rarity too.
Re: How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
#115Re: How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
That directly goes against the earlier post where you said you lived in a particularly nice part of town
There are a good number of places in the world where people of varied incomes live relatively close.
Hundreds of years ago, before the rail or underground network, you still needed plenty of working class to live near where the rich people lived as the rich people still needed shops, servants, etc.
Having the city split into individual boroughs means that each borough had to provide for the full economic spectrum. The really expensive boroughs still have plenty of social housing and arbitrary divisions of land mean that things but up against each other from different boroughs.
However, new developments don't always get it right, when big green-field or brown-field sites are converted to residential they often struggle to get the correct right, and you end up with bigger areas that only cater for a subset.
National planning laws are also circumvented or gamed. If a new site requires a certain percent of "affordable housing" the developers will often agree (with the local borouhgh/council) to roll that over with another couple of projects and then build most of the "affordable housing" all in one place, and the diversity of individual areas is diminished.
As you say, there are plenty of other places in the world where this is the case, most of them in countries/cities that have existed for hundreds or thousands of years.
Re: How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the thing with people using phones without headphones? And making calls on public transport? When did that become a thing? It’s the most obnoxious selfish behaviour and it shocks me every time. It’s not just Gen Z either, I’ve seen a few boomers do it and even a couple of millennials.
Ten of so years ago I was on a train and the women opposite me gave all her credit card details to someone over the phone — anyone close by could have had fun with them
In the EU we have psd2 mandating a second factor. Usually an app where the transaction has to be confirmed.
Re: How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
#118I'm old enough to remember the first attempt at 'mobile underground'. Maybe I've forgotten the name but it was something like BT Phone Zone, though google returns zero relevant results, so perhaps it was called something else. In lieu of public call boxes, BT trialled a base station that was installed in some tube stations (almost certainly Oxford St and Tottenham Court Rd), and with the correct 'wireless handset' as…
Re: How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
#119I'm old enough to remember the first attempt at 'mobile underground'. Maybe I've forgotten the name but it was something like BT Phone Zone, though google returns zero relevant results, so perhaps it was called something else. In lieu of public call boxes, BT trialled a base station that was installed in some tube stations (almost certainly Oxford St and Tottenham Court Rd), and with the correct 'wireless handset' as…
https://www.engagingwithcommunications.com/publications/THG_...
Re: How London cracked mobile phone coverage on the Underground
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the opposite problem where I can only get HyperOptic. Not even OpenReach stuff. No problem with bandwidth but zero price competition, and 5G broadband isn’t viable either. Going from £70/mo for gigabit to £65/mo for 500mb is insulting.
Urgh hyperoptic is dog shit as well. CGNAT or pay extra on top of already insulting prices.