On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:09:42 +0100, just as I was about to take a
herb, Adrian C disturbed my reverie and wrote:

In the past, there has been discussion about allowing mobile phone
operators to install base stations below ground and provide some
coverage for folks on trains.

It will get blocked by numpties worried about 'radiation'.
--

Cheers

DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose to dance
in the puddles (Jewish proverb).

On 12 Sep 2011 10:06:08 GMT
Huge wrote:
Good. Not because of "radiation", which is of course utter tosh, but
because it means normal human beings will not have to sit between 2 morons
having trivial conversations about utter ****.

Pity there can't be a numptie filter. Let normal people use the phone if
they're stuck in a tunnel and someone might be worried , but block idiots
talking about their recent makeover or whatever.

B2003

In message , at 11:03:48 on
Mon, 12 Sep 2011, DrTeeth remarked:
In the past, there has been discussion about allowing mobile phone
operators to install base stations below ground and provide some
coverage for folks on trains.

It will get blocked by numpties worried about 'radiation'.

Although the leaky feeder (rather than base-station) approach will
defuse that argument immediately.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:35:44 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:03:48 on
Mon, 12 Sep 2011, DrTeeth remarked:
In the past, there has been discussion about allowing mobile phone
operators to install base stations below ground and provide some
coverage for folks on trains.

It will get blocked by numpties worried about 'radiation'.

Although the leaky feeder (rather than base-station) approach will
defuse that argument immediately.

Do leaky feeders of the length that would be required work at 1800Mhz?

B2003

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 08:51:44AM +0000, Huge wrote:
On 2011-09-10, Paul Corfield wrote:
There was an announcement many months ago that mobile phone coverage
below ground would not be implemented.
Hurrah!

It's more a case of it *can't* be implemented. You can barely hear
someone shouting at you from a few feet away, let alone someone coming
over a tinny phone speaker.

--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

Eye have a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea
It planely marques four my revue / Miss Steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a quay and type a word / And weight for it to say
Weather eye am wrong oar write / It shows me strait a weigh.

In message , at 10:47:39 on Mon, 12 Sep
2011, d remarked:
Although the leaky feeder (rather than base-station) approach will
defuse that argument immediately.

Do leaky feeders of the length that would be required work at 1800Mhz?

For possibly the third time, they work elsewhere. In any event, you can
segment a leaky feeder if total length is an issue.

(There was also a plan to have them in the Channel Tunnel, but I suppose
the business case wasn't sufficiently made. There's also an
International Roaming issue to solve, and iirc they declared one tunnel
to be UK and the other to be France. Similar issues apply to Microcells
on an aircraft, how high off the runway does it have to be in order to
start charging at roaming rates, rather than UK?)
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 04:10:57PM -0700, Mizter T wrote:
On Sep 11, 8:39=A0pm, Roland Perry wrote:
Wrong. Rabbit installed base stations at many Underground stations. I'm
not sure how many, but it was at least Zone 1/2.
Fair point!
I imagine any signage on LU is long gone - but maybe there's something
lurking somewhere? (There's the odd forgotten sign still protruding
from shops in a few places.)

There was still a sign at Holborn a coupla years ago. The only other
one I've seen recently is at Brighton station.

--
header FROM_DAVID_CANTRELL From =~ /david.cantrell/i
describe FROM_DAVID_CANTRELL Message is from David Cantrell
score FROM_DAVID_CANTRELL 15.72 # This figure from experimentation

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:06:08 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2011-09-12, DrTeeth wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:09:42 +0100, just as I was about to take a herb,
Adrian C disturbed my reverie and wrote:

In the past, there has been discussion about allowing mobile phone
operators to install base stations below ground and provide some
coverage for folks on trains.

It will get blocked by numpties worried about 'radiation'.

Good. Not because of "radiation", which is of course utter tosh, but
because it means normal human beings will not have to sit between 2
morons having trivial conversations about utter ****.

http://goo.gl/U4RpK

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

In message , at 11:55:39
on Mon, 12 Sep 2011, David Cantrell remarked:
There was an announcement many months ago that mobile phone coverage
below ground would not be implemented.
Hurrah!

It's more a case of it *can't* be implemented. You can barely hear
someone shouting at you from a few feet away, let alone someone coming
over a tinny phone speaker.

Maybe what's needed is a data-only service (hence wifi being an option)
although when I had a Rabbit phone it worked fine in between trains on
the deep tube, and a conventional mobile phone is fine at sub-surface
stations if you can get a signal.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:01:15 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
to be UK and the other to be France. Similar issues apply to Microcells
on an aircraft, how high off the runway does it have to be in order to
start charging at roaming rates, rather than UK?)

Presumably the ones in aircraft communicate to ground via satellite so
how do they keep the dish aligned when in flight?

B2003