Slashdot Mirror


London Tube Stations Finally Get Wi-Fi

judgecorp writes "After trials, Wi-Fi in the London Underground has gone live in two stations (Warren Street and King's Cross), with plans to fit 80 stations out before the Olympics, which are now only a few weeks away. From the article: '“Our new Wi-Fi service is a fantastic deal for Londoners, with live travel updates, entertainment and news freely available to everyone while they are on the move across the capital,” said Gareth Powell, London Underground’s director of strategy and service development. “Wi-Fi at Tube stations will help us improve the journeys of the millions of people that use the Underground everyday at no cost to fare or tax payers.”'"

28 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. ah, the free lunch by catmistake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    at no cost to fare or tax payers

    How?

    Virgin Media won the contract to supply Wi-Fi to the Underground earlier this year

    How were they paid?

    It will be free until after the Olympics have concluded, but customers of Virgin Media and other selected networks will continue to get it free afterwards. Others will be able to use the service on a pay-as-you-go basis.

    I don't get it. This can't be right. The contract isn't free, Virgin doesn't supply services for free... yet apparently, no one is paying for it except "others" after the Olympics.

    1. Re:ah, the free lunch by reub2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      How were they paid?

      I'm guessing they get to plaster their name all of the place. Connect to the network and your browser will be redirected to a page with Virgin's logo, where you have to click a button indicating that you agree to the TOS.

    2. Re:ah, the free lunch by __Reason__ · · Score: 2

      How were they paid?

      I don't get it. This can't be right. The contract isn't free, Virgin doesn't supply services for free... yet apparently, no one is paying for it except "others" after the Olympics.

      The only "payment" Virgin received was in the form of rights to access tube stations and install their equipment inside.

      Although the service will initially be free of charge, it'll no doubt carry some form of advertising on the login screen. Virgin have stated that it will eventually be charged for like typical WiFi services. Also, it'll be free to existing Virgin Media users, thus making Virgin services more attractive to users and benefitting their business.

    3. Re:ah, the free lunch by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a loss leader for Virgin to get their kit in there, and then they will run it after the Olympics in the same manner as BT run their existing nationwide OpenZone wifi network - some mobile networks users get access as part of their contracts, everyone else has to pay for access.

      It's not rocket science.

  2. Re:Wait a moment... by ljw1004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Presumably paid for through advertising, i.e. by consumers.

  3. Re:Wait a moment... by Nova77 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is going to be free under the Olympics, but afterward you'll have to be a Virgin customer or pay £££.

  4. Re:Wait a moment... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2

    A portal that displays entertainment recommendations sounds like advertising. There's an immediate revenue stream.

    The article also points out that later on it will be paid for by users, so this could also be a loss-leader foot-in-the-door move by Virgin. Direct payments by users would prevent it from being a burden on people who just pay a subway fare without using the service.

  5. Speaking as a Brit... by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...the London Underground, on a per-mile basis, is one of the most expensive transit systems in the world, so to say that the wi-fi is free is totally misleading as the cost is covered within the extortionate ticket prices.

    Just to give people outside the UK some idea, two weeks ago the missus and I went to a concert in London. I drove the car to Hammersmith in West London and parked there, we got on the Underground to travel two stops to Shepherd's Bush, no more than two miles up the road.

    The total cost for 2 return tickets was just under £14 or around $20.

    I think that speaks for itself...

    --
    Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
    1. Re:Speaking as a Brit... by lintux · · Score: 4, Informative

      While with an Oyster card it would've been £8 in total. Traveling on the underground with paper tickets seems like a bad idea..

    2. Re:Speaking as a Brit... by iserlohn · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's because you bought paper tickets which are priced artificially high at £4.30 each way to encourage people to use the oyster card. If you used the oyster (contactless payment) card instead it would have costed £1.50 (peak) or £1.40 (off-peak) for zone 3 only travel. TFL (Transport for London) may be expensive, but it isn't that expensive.

    3. Re:Speaking as a Brit... by isorox · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...the London Underground, on a per-mile basis, is one of the most expensive transit systems in the world, so to say that the wi-fi is free is totally misleading as the cost is covered within the extortionate ticket prices.

      Just to give people outside the UK some idea, two weeks ago the missus and I went to a concert in London. I drove the car to Hammersmith in West London and parked there, we got on the Underground to travel two stops to Shepherd's Bush, no more than two miles up the road.

      The total cost for 2 return tickets was just under £14 or around $20.

      I think that speaks for itself...

      Yes, it says you haven't got a clue how to travel in London.
      * Firstly, why not park at Westfield?
      * Secondly, why not take a taxi? That would be about the same price that you paid
      * Oyster would be £6 return for the two of you, even if you bought 2 new oyster cards in Hammersmith, and loaded each with £3, that would only be £12, and you can always return the cards later

      Single cash fares are deliberately expensive because it costs a lot to maintain the infrastructure that less than 1% of journeys are made with.

  6. Limited usefulness? by mdsharpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just at the stations and not on the trains? That's cool to a certain extent but how long does the average traveller spend standing around on the platform? I'd have thought that by the time you've got through any registration faff / entering your e-mail address it's time to get on the train.

  7. Sounds virtually useless ... by MacTO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article makes it sound that they are offering free access to a limited range of online services. It is only the "Internet" in the sense that these services are delivered over the Internet, but it is not the Internet in the sense that it only provides access to services approved by the service provider. Those services are in all likelihood revenue generating subsidiaries of Virgin, services paying Virgin for the privilege of being accessible on the subway platforms, or contractual obligations between Virgin and and the transit authority. In otherwords, it's utility as anything other than a propaganda machine is limited.

    On top of that, they are only offering platform service. Now I don't know about London's tubes, but every heavy and light rail public transit system that I've seen runs trains at 2 minute intervals (peak hours) to 15 minute intervals (at an hour that you wouldn't want to pull out a gadget). You may be able to pull down a transit schedule and maybe a couple of articles to read on the train, but not much else. Train arrival times will probably be posted on the platform anyhow and the only devices usable on platforms are cell phones and tablets. The former is a terrible reading device for anything more than plain text, the latter is an okay reading device but awkward to handle on a busy platform. People who want that type of service would be better served by their cell phone's data plan anyhow since chances are that it's unfiltered and may work on the platforms anyhow. (I can't speak for London's system, but Toronto and Vancouver have decent cell reception on the platforms).

    In other words, big freaking deal. Let me know when they offer real internet service and service that can be access in the place where you're spending most of your time: on the train.

    1. Re:Sounds virtually useless ... by captainpanic · · Score: 2

      Still, all the hardware is now in place. Software can be changed, and the system can be opened up to become real internet.

      And some travel information might actually be useful, even if you cannot get to your facebook.

    2. Re:Sounds virtually useless ... by locofungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it's to try and stop too many riots during the Olympics.

      Some stations are expected to have waits of 30 minutes plus to get onto a train due to the sheer number of people trying to use the station.

      Warren Street is probably at risk from people thinking "ah ha - I'll avoid Euston underground" but then being unable to get onto trains due to them being already packed.

      I'm an avid BBC proms goer and season ticket holder but I'm somewhat resigned to the fact that I might not actually go to very many concerts this year as getting to the Albert Hall from work could be interesting and getting from the Albert Hall to Euston could be almost impossible as I'm not sure it's even going to be possible to walk through hyde park along West Carriage Drive, let alone cycle, and the "zil" lanes on the other roads around that area are going to make the area all but impassable.

      While there are lots of exhortations to cycle during the olympics, I'm not sure that the inevitable frustrations and raised tempers of the motorists are going to make cycling either fun or safe. I hope I'm wrong but I'm not looking forward to this summer.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    3. Re:Sounds virtually useless ... by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      And all the indications are that tourist visits to London will actually be quite a bit lower than usual during the Olympics. Hotel bookings are down by a third because all the people who usually go to London to see Big Ben and shop at Harrods are going to Paris to see the Eiffel Tower and shop on the Champs Elyses instead.

      90,000 people went to see the Champion's League final at Wembley last year, and a similar number go to see the cup finals. 80,000 people go to see each of the 2 or 3 Six Nations matches at Twickenham each year. Up to 60,000 people go to the Emirates Stadium and 50,000 to Stamford Bridge every other week. Then you have the O2 arena and all the west end theatres. None of this is happening during the Olympics.

  8. Oystercard: transfer of costs to the passenger by fantomas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Trouble with the Oyster card, it's the forcing of costs onto the passenger. Previously, I only had to give London Transport my money when I actually travelled. Until that point, the money was in my pocket, for me to use as I want.

    Now with Oyster cards, I either get charged an extortionate rate for maintaining that privilege (buying higher priced paper tickets), or I have to get credit on my Oyster card that I might not use for a while. My money, given to London Transport, to use as an interest free loan.

    As a non-Londoner, I've got maybe ten pounds on a card that's tied up til next time I visit London. Add up the couple of million people who use the tube regularly and consider each of them has a few pounds spare credit on their Oyster cards and pretty soon you'll see that LondonTransport has done something pretty canny: getting 20 million or more GBP interest free loans from the public... and that's not to count the classic big bank win of another big chunk of money that they've effectively got for free from all those unused and lost Oyster cards owned and never to be used again by occasional users / tourists. How may tourists visit London and leave with a pound or two left on their Oyster card and just write it off?

    Very canny way of getting additional funding in micropayments from millions of people.

    1. Re:Oystercard: transfer of costs to the passenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its a myth:

      http://www.danielbowen.com/2012/05/07/myki-90-day-expiry/

    2. Re:Oystercard: transfer of costs to the passenger by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      The interest on your £10 for many years is still going to be less than difference between oyster prices and paper tickets.

    3. Re:Oystercard: transfer of costs to the passenger by Rakshasa-sensei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is funny that the GP seems to think London Transport company is charging higher paper ticket prices to get their hands on his unused Oyster card money, rather than the actual higher cost of handling physical money and paper tickets in non-centralized locations. As the proportion of physical paper tickets falls the unit cost of the service increases.

    4. Re:Oystercard: transfer of costs to the passenger by homsar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or you could take the card to a ticket office and exchange it for the remaining credit plus your deposit. I know someone who visits London every couple of months and does this every time.

    5. Re:Oystercard: transfer of costs to the passenger by Aceticon · · Score: 2

      1) They already have at least two persons per tube station entrance, one manning the ticket counter (since they don't have machines that sell Oyster cards, so people have to do it) and one manning the actual gates since there are often people with problems going in or coming out which need to be let through (or sent to the guy in the ticket counter to pay up).

      Thus the fixed costs are already being paid.

      2) Paper tickers are regularly sold through ticket machines in train stations. The cost is miniscule.

      3) This is England, worse, it's London - it's the nation of the "screw the customer" company policy (I should know, I live here). People are used to being screwed.
      Certainly I've seen TFL do things like opening the gates in turist intensive areas (while providing ZERO guidance) so that people go in without touching-in their Oyster cards, so that when they exit in the other side they get charged the maximum fare (£7.80).

      I would say the GP is spot-on with his/her accusations.

  9. Seoul by klaasb · · Score: 2

    In the subway of Seoul wifi has been available to passengers for years. Three public companies (olleh, offer wifi in the subway and many other public places for a price as low as 8000 krw (about 8 USD) per month.

    --
    if your pants fit well, it's not only because of the pants ...
  10. Re:Wi-Fi? Luxury! by nyctopterus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Err, you don't get mobile phone reception in the London Underground either (well, you do in the overground parts, obviously).

  11. Re:Wi-Fi? Luxury! by uweg · · Score: 2

    Incredible. AFAIR, Berlin underground has this since 1995 - and not only in stations but throughout the whole network.

  12. Re:Wait a moment... by isorox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Presumably paid for through advertising, i.e. by consumers.

    Once the olympics are over, you'll be charged. The contract would state Virgin have to wire up the stations, and provide free wifi for the plympics, but then get 5 years of ripping off passengers

    That said, I don't see the market. It's only at the platform, which on the whole is a sub-5 minute wait even at 11pm - at least in the centre where there's no phone signals. By the time you get to the platform, get your phone out, log on to the wifi, type your credit card number in, type in the capcha, accept the terms and condtions, and provide your phone number and email, your train will be there.

  13. Re:Not a revolution by Malc · · Score: 2

    Shanghai has working phone reception and 3G data on trains and stations throughout the underground - who needs WIFI? Time to catch up with China.

    Actually I'm glad there's no voice phone service on the Tube... I really don't want to be jammed in inches from somebody yammering on about their banal life and their dull X Factor hero worshipping.

  14. Re:so it can be shut off by shilly · · Score: 2

    I'm interested to know how living in London enables you to know what poor Londoners spend their benefits money on. Do you live in some special part of the city where you get free access to HMRC, DWP and individual household accounts records? I'm kinda guessing that the answer is:
    a) no
    b) you made shit up to support your unpleasant worldview and "thought" this was the same as quoting actual verifiable facts