Slashdot Mirror
Cell Service At US Airports Varies From 1st Class To Middle-seat Coach
alphadogg writes with this NetworkWorld story about the wide disparity in wireless coverage available at airports across the U.S.. Atlanta scores very high while Los Angeles International is less than mediocre. According to the story: You can download an episode of your favorite show in less than a minute and a half on Verizon Wireless at Atlanta's airport—or spend 13 hours doing the same over T-Mobile USA at Los Angeles International. The comparison of 45-minute HD video downloads illustrates the wide variation in cellular service at U.S. airports, which RootMetrics laid out in a report for the first half of 2015 that's being issued Thursday. Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson is the best place to go mobile and Verizon covers airports best overall, but just like security lines and de-icing delays, it all depends.
Can we get some ACTUAL numbers instead of just some bullshit article describing some vague numbers? As T-Mobile has already pointed out, according to Ookla (ya'know, speedtest.net and a few other services that provide data to the Ookla database), they come out on top on average in the nation. Granted average doesn't mean they're the best at every given location, but being a frequent traveler, I can easily attest that, no, T-Mobile's network isnt anywhere NEAR that slow at LAX. Also, what handsets were they using and in which modes? While other networks offer LTE server, T-Mobile has both LTE and HSDPA+ if the handset supports it. So which of these two networks were they testing?
In Soviet Russia cell coverage same in all location .. .. No coverage
That's why, when capital gets overly concentrated and constrained the cooperative infrastructure on which it rests begins to collapse and we have increasingly chaotic socio-economic upheavals. The stability of the world financial markets is tenuous at best if not outright illusory.
I blame airline consolidation.
Fewer airlines, each hiding out in their fortified monopoly hub airports, means less gate competition and less gate competition means airports can probably charge less for gate access. It's probably even worse, because with fewer airlines overall a lot of airports worry about losing their hub status and probably charge even less to the big carrier left providing service or provide other accommodations which save the hub carrier money.
This revenue pinch causes them to turn to commercial providers to install and run their wifi networks or if they run their own, to charge for service.
Flying sucks.
In my travels I have found that US airports vary widely in availability of electric outlets for charging devices. For a while a lot of them were making them only available on a pay-per-use basis. Others had outlets freely available but not enough of them.
Cell service is nice and all, but being as I'm flying steerage class where I pretty well never get an outlet to plug anything in to, I'm more interested in what I can do to charge my devices before the cattle call for boarding comes up. Doubly so at hub airports where I am connecting.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.