On 19/07/2019 15:52, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/07/2019 11:09, John Williamson wrote:
On 19/07/2019 07:41, Roland Perry wrote:
A spin-off from the 4g replacement for Airwave, it says. Which could
mean only EE customers will benefit. [Heigh ho, another reason for
getting a dual-SIM phone].

Or another reason not to go for EE. ;-)

Especially not at 15p for a text message, when I can send one for 2p on O2.

I think, for a lot of people, WhatsApp has replaced testing. And on Virgin
(perhaps others, too?), WhatsApp data is free. And texts themselves are
also free on any monthly contract.

Inclusive, not free. And for anyone on a low income, £10 a month is a
lot of money which could better be spent on other things, like food or
electricity. Which is why PAYG with no requirement to regularly top up
is essential.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/07/2019 15:52, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/07/2019 11:09, John Williamson wrote:
On 19/07/2019 07:41, Roland Perry wrote:
A spin-off from the 4g replacement for Airwave, it says. Which could
mean only EE customers will benefit. [Heigh ho, another reason for
getting a dual-SIM phone].

Or another reason not to go for EE. ;-)

Especially not at 15p for a text message, when I can send one for 2p on O2.

I think, for a lot of people, WhatsApp has replaced testing. And on Virgin
(perhaps others, too?), WhatsApp data is free. And texts themselves are
also free on any monthly contract.

Inclusive, not free. And for anyone on a low income, £10 a month is a
lot of money which could better be spent on other things, like food or
electricity. Which is why PAYG with no requirement to regularly top up
is essential.

But as I showed, SIM-only deals can be cheaper than £10pm. £7pm gets you a
perfectly usable deal, with more bundled minutes than most people could
use. People who can't afford food or electricity would be much better off
ditching their overpriced land lines (and most probably already have).

In message , at 20:39:40 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:02:37 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

the kit will be installed by a third party,

It's hardly likely to be done by TfL themselves. No budget for that kind
of thing, or something would have happened years ago.

I meant that the equipment will be installed by a company other than the
networks or TfL.

Sounds like it'll be someone like Ericsson who are betting on getting
more than EE as a customer.

But we know networks already lease some of their infrastructure from
such organisations, so this is not a great surprise. Look on it more
like TfL providing a wayleave for their tunnels (rather than a tall
building renting out some roof-space).

They also share it (so at last one of the partners didn't install it
themselves). See RAN sharing:

https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp...012/09/Mobile-
Infrastructure-sharing.pdf

who then charges mobile phone operators to use it, and shares the
profits with TfL. There's no suggestion that only one operator will
have access.

"Although the UK’s four mobile phone networks are is still in
negotiations about accessing the new equipment in London's tube
tunnels, TfL expects that customer demand will ensure they all
provide services on the move."

Well, EE is going to, but are-is(sic, well it is the Grauniad) the other
three going to follow suit. Who will blink first over the cost.

Where does it say that EE is committed to providing access? I could see no
mention of it.

Why wouldn't they, when they've got a contract with the Home Office
which requires them to provide EE coverage for the emergency services.
Their business proposition for wider public coverage than other networks
is based very heavily on the extra infrastructure required for the
emergency services contract.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:39:40 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:02:37 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

the kit will be installed by a third party,

It's hardly likely to be done by TfL themselves. No budget for that kind
of thing, or something would have happened years ago.

I meant that the equipment will be installed by a company other than the
networks or TfL.

Sounds like it'll be someone like Ericsson who are betting on getting
more than EE as a customer.

Yes


But we know networks already lease some of their infrastructure from
such organisations, so this is not a great surprise. Look on it more
like TfL providing a wayleave for their tunnels (rather than a tall
building renting out some roof-space).

Exactly, though financially, it looks like a profit-sharing arrangement.


They also share it (so at last one of the partners didn't install it
themselves). See RAN sharing:

https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp...012/09/Mobile-
Infrastructure-sharing.pdf

who then charges mobile phone operators to use it, and shares the
profits with TfL. There's no suggestion that only one operator will
have access.

"Although the UK’s four mobile phone networks are is still in
negotiations about accessing the new equipment in London's tube
tunnels, TfL expects that customer demand will ensure they all
provide services on the move."

Well, EE is going to, but are-is(sic, well it is the Grauniad) the other
three going to follow suit. Who will blink first over the cost.

Where does it say that EE is committed to providing access? I could see no
mention of it.

Why wouldn't they, when they've got a contract with the Home Office
which requires them to provide EE coverage for the emergency services.
Their business proposition for wider public coverage than other networks
is based very heavily on the extra infrastructure required for the
emergency services contract.


Ah, so that was just your guess?

In message , at 07:44:37 on Sat, 20 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:

Where does it say that EE is committed to providing access? I could see no
mention of it.

Why wouldn't they, when they've got a contract with the Home Office
which requires them to provide EE coverage for the emergency services.
Their business proposition for wider public coverage than other networks
is based very heavily on the extra infrastructure required for the
emergency services contract.

Ah, so that was just your guess?

You might need to guess about such things, but the rollout of the
airwave-replacement network is sufficiently well understood in other
quarters for me not to need to.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:41:10 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

"Transport for London confirmed to the Guardian that 4G mobile
phone technology would go live in tunnels on most of the Jubilee
line from March 2020 and on other lines in the coming years."

Wouldn't it be more forward-thinking to go for 5G?

--
jhk

In message , at 12:27:14 on
Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Jarle Hammen Knudsen remarked:
"Transport for London confirmed to the Guardian that 4G mobile
phone technology would go live in tunnels on most of the Jubilee
line from March 2020 and on other lines in the coming years."

Wouldn't it be more forward-thinking to go for 5G?

No, because the emergency services contract (which this is piggy-backed
upon) is 4G.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:13:17 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:


No, because the emergency services contract (which this is piggy-backed
upon) is 4G.

Is this something to replace the tetra based network in the UK?

--
jhk

In message , at 13:55:47 on
Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Jarle Hammen Knudsen remarked:

No, because the emergency services contract (which this is piggy-backed
upon) is 4G.

Is this something to replace the tetra based network in the UK?

Yes. And it's also much delayed. But that's not really a surprise for a
large government IT project!
--
Roland Perry

On Tue 30/07/2019 14:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:55:47 on
Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Jarle Hammen Knudsen remarked:

No, because the emergency services contract (which this is piggy-backed
upon) is 4G.

Is this something to replace the tetra based network in the UK?

Yes. And it's also much delayed. But that's not really a surprise for a
large government IT project!

It's also going to be a total waste of time and money. Tetra just
worked, why change it..?

Ria in Aberdeen