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

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...)

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

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.

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

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

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 )

B2003

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 )

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

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.

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 )

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