I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some years 
ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?

KW

Ken Ward wrote:

> I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some years
> ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
> I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?
>

Some CT 158s have/had signs showing the way to the payphone on the
train so I guess they were around post-privatisation.

I think I may have seen one on a Holyhead HST once but it was a long
time ago so not sure (may have just been all the information and
instructions with the phone removed)

peter

"naked_draughtsman"  wrote in message 
news:1124472568.963960.87690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Ken Ward wrote:
>> I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some 
>> years
>> ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
>> I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?
>>
> Some CT 158s have/had signs showing the way to the payphone on the
> train so I guess they were around post-privatisation.
>
> I think I may have seen one on a Holyhead HST once but it was a long
> time ago so not sure (may have just been all the information and
> instructions with the phone removed)


Thanks Peter, maybe it was on a HST.  Memory is on way out!

KW

"Ken Ward"  wrote in message
news:7KoNe.13322$1F5.1147@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

>
> "naked_draughtsman"  wrote in message
> news:1124472568.963960.87690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Ken Ward wrote:
> >> I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some
> >> years
> >> ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
> >> I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?
> >>
> > Some CT 158s have/had signs showing the way to the payphone on the
> > train so I guess they were around post-privatisation.
> >
> > I think I may have seen one on a Holyhead HST once but it was a long
> > time ago so not sure (may have just been all the information and
> > instructions with the phone removed)
>
> Thanks Peter, maybe it was on a HST.  Memory is on way out!
>
> KW
>
>


until recently these were on swt 159's but I seem to recall that they
removed due to persistent vandalism/attempted removal of the cash boxes.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:55:06, "james matterface"
 wrote:

>
>until recently these were on swt 159's but I seem to recall that they
>removed due to persistent vandalism/attempted removal of the cash boxes.


Eh?  Are you sure there were cash boxes on them?

The 158s had cardphones fitted.

Paul Harley

-- 
Remove "eeek" to contact me!

"Paul Harley"  wrote in message
news:fm7cg1hc31i8o7qr001nfgr2tgb7guf9ra@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:55:06, "james matterface"
>  wrote:
> >
> >until recently these were on swt 159's but I seem to recall that they
> >removed due to persistent vandalism/attempted removal of the cash boxes.
>
> Eh?  Are you sure there were cash boxes on them?
>
> The 158s had cardphones fitted.
>
> Paul Harley
>
> -- 
> Remove "eeek" to contact me!


hence *attempted* ;-)

they still tried to take the damn things apart to try and find the money ,
of course there wasn't any but that didn't stop the buggers trying !

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:20:47 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
wrote:


>I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some years 
>ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
>I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?


Until very recently (circa 2000, I think).  Remember that just about
nobody had a mobile as late as 1997-8.  They only really took off with
the coming of affordable pre-pay on digital networks in early 1998.

The phones concerned were Cellnet (now O2) analogue mobiles, and
charged at an offensive rate.  I suspect they finally died when the
Cellnet analogue network was turned off.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:55:06 +0100, "james matterface"
 wrote:

[Payphones on trains]


>until recently these were on swt 159's but I seem to recall that they
>removed due to persistent vandalism/attempted removal of the cash boxes.
>

I think most, if not all, trains have now had them removed. Not exactly
surprising considering it was something silly like 1 a minute. Service
in later years being provided by Vodafone IIRC.

Cheers,

Barry

-- 
Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:04:01 +0100, Paul Harley
 wrote:


>The 158s had cardphones fitted.


All the ones I've seen were of the same type, and were card (phonecard
or credit card).  You had them on most WCML Mk3 stock (HST and
hauled), and 158/159.  Probably others, as well - I'm sure the
original 170 design accommodated one, but I'm not sure if one was ever
installed in any such units.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:

> ...Probably others, as well - I'm sure the
> original 170 design accommodated one, but I'm not sure if one was ever
> installed in any such units.


Pretty sure that the original ScotRail 170/4s had them fitted but now 
removed

eat

-- 
<><|"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
....|   -- President Merkin Muffley
ScR|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail/
Pix|http://photos.eatnet.org.uk/Latest <- Highland Spoons & Tractors

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:430624df.1543319@news.tesco.net...

> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:20:47 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
> wrote:
>
> >I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some
years
> >ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
> >I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?
>
> Until very recently (circa 2000, I think).  Remember that just about
> nobody had a mobile as late as 1997-8.  They only really took off with
> the coming of affordable pre-pay on digital networks in early 1998.


I remember the big 1999 switch-over. In January 1999, only 1 in 10 adults in
the country had a mobile, but by the end of the year it was estimated that
only 1 in 10 adults DIDN'T have one.


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:26:55 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
 wrote:


>I remember the big 1999 switch-over. In January 1999, only 1 in 10 adults in
>the country had a mobile, but by the end of the year it was estimated that
>only 1 in 10 adults DIDN'T have one.


Indeed.  It also coincided with another communications revolution -
the oft-ignored 1998 "Freeserve Revolution", in which, spurred on by
Internet services for which the only charge was a local-rate phone
call, domestic Internet use exploded.

Two events that were probably as significant as, or possibly more
significant than, the original invention of the telephone.

It's almost scary to think that the first time I ever sent a text
message was about 2000, and that was a mail->SMS thing I set up myself
rather than to other people.  I had a mobile since Christmas 1997,
mainly due to the poor service on the Liverpool-Manchester railway
making me late for things a lot, but on my first phone I didn't even
know how to send one!

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Ronnie Clark"
 wrote in
news:de5iph$jj6$1@newsm1.svr.pol.co.uk: 


> 
> I remember the big 1999 switch-over. In January 1999, only 1 in 10
> adults in the country had a mobile, but by the end of the year it was
> estimated that only 1 in 10 adults DIDN'T have one.


Seems rather unlikely. I'm sure more than ten percent of adults of my 
acquaintance even in 2005 are non-mobile phone-owning. 

This 2003 set of statistics suggests yours is more of an urban myth:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7202

Rick.

"Rick Hughes"  wrote in message
news:Xns96B7E73B4E33Arjhtalk21com@217.158.240.23...

> "Ronnie Clark"
>  wrote in
> news:de5iph$jj6$1@newsm1.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> >
> > I remember the big 1999 switch-over. In January 1999, only 1 in 10
> > adults in the country had a mobile, but by the end of the year it was
> > estimated that only 1 in 10 adults DIDN'T have one.
>
> Seems rather unlikely. I'm sure more than ten percent of adults of my
> acquaintance even in 2005 are non-mobile phone-owning.
>
> This 2003 set of statistics suggests yours is more of an urban myth:
>
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7202


It's probably a statistic for *young* adults that became more popularly
repeated without the "young" part. :)


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

Ken Ward wrote:

> 
> I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some years
> ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
> I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?


From memory, these came in round about the time that the Pullman
services were relaunched, which was roughly 1985. Pullman trainsets were
made up with a higher than usual ratio of first to standard
accommodation. On the WCML the first class carriages were Mark 3b. I
/think/ the mobile phone was fitted in the restaurant/buffet car. Now,
did they use phonecards, or credit cards, or both? I can't remember. No,
hang on, you could buy phonecards in the buffet so they must have taken
those at least.

Anyway, I do remember using such a phone, just for the novelty of the
experience, and it was indeed both hideously expensive and imperfect and
irregular in its reception. Come to think of it, mobile phone reception
is still pretty poor on trains.

I can't imagine anything being available on trains or anywhere much else
in the 1970s, unless you were a Double O agent. I /do/ remember the
"mobile phone" that was issued to traffic inspectors in the early 1980s
though. It was the size of a desktop computer nowadays and twice as
heavy, it was carried about in the back of a yellow van, and it depended
on an enormous great aerial to achieve anything.

(And don't get me started on pagers! The trouble I had explaining the
concept of a pager to Traffic Control in 1982 - "you see, it lets me
know that you're trying to contact me, even when I've nipped out to the
shops, and then I can ring you back". Could I get the rental money back
on expenses? Could I 'eckers like.)
-- 
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Do something amazing. Give blood.
<http://www.blood.co.uk/>

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:20:39 +0100, Ewan  wrote:


>Neil Williams wrote:
>> ...Probably others, as well - I'm sure the
>> original 170 design accommodated one, but I'm not sure if one was ever
>> installed in any such units.
>
>Pretty sure that the original ScotRail 170/4s had them fitted but now 
>removed


If memory serves, so did the Anglia 170/2s, with the phone "unit" being
able to be "swapped out" with something like a bike rack IIRC....

Cheers,

Barry

-- 
Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!

In message <de5iph$jj6$1@newsm1.svr.pol.co.uk>, at 22:26:55 on Fri, 19 
Aug 2005, Ronnie Clark 
 remarked:

>I remember the big 1999 switch-over. In January 1999, only 1 in 10 adults in
>the country had a mobile, but by the end of the year it was estimated that
>only 1 in 10 adults DIDN'T have one.


It didn't happen quite that suddenly. Here are some numbers for the 
period you mentioned:

         Phones   % population
1998     9.0M       27
1999    14.9M       33
2000    30.5M       54
2001    44.7M       73

-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:39:35 on Fri, 19 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:26:55 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"
> wrote:
>
>>I remember the big 1999 switch-over. In January 1999, only 1 in 10 adults in
>>the country had a mobile, but by the end of the year it was estimated that
>>only 1 in 10 adults DIDN'T have one.
>
>Indeed.  It also coincided with another communications revolution -
>the oft-ignored 1998 "Freeserve Revolution", in which, spurred on by
>Internet services for which the only charge was a local-rate phone
>call, domestic Internet use exploded.


0845 calling with revenue for the ISP came into being in 1996, the local 
call access for all (albeit with a monthly subscription) was a huge 
incentive for domestic Internet access. Freeserve wasn't launched until 
late 1998.


>It's almost scary to think that the first time I ever sent a text
>message was about 2000


Oddly enough, I used to send a lot of texts on Orange when they first 
launched (I had one of their phones from just before the public launch 
ten years ago), but drifted away when I started using email (with mobile 
Internet access) and when they started charging for them.

-- 
Roland Perry

"Ken Ward"  wrote in message 
news:PxoNe.13319$1F5.8613@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

>I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some years 
>ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
> I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?
>


SWT 442's still have a booth at the end of the 1st car. No telephone in it 
though.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:22:29 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>It didn't happen quite that suddenly. Here are some numbers for the 
>period you mentioned:
>
>         Phones   % population
>1998     9.0M       27
>1999    14.9M       33
>2000    30.5M       54
>2001    44.7M       73


Depending on the source of the stats, the number of "throwaway" phones
could also affect this.  I have 3 in my junk drawer and have 2 (one
work and one my own) that I actually use.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 08:58:54 on Sat, 20 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>It didn't happen quite that suddenly. Here are some numbers for the
>>period you mentioned:
>>
>>         Phones   % population
>>1998     9.0M       27
>>1999    14.9M       33
>>2000    30.5M       54
>>2001    44.7M       73
>
>Depending on the source of the stats, the number of "throwaway" phones
>could also affect this.  I have 3 in my junk drawer and have 2 (one
>work and one my own) that I actually use.


I'm sure the respectable sources involved in the above figures have 
taken that into account. There's clearly some people with more than one 
subscription in there because if you multiply the figures up you get a 
total "population" of 33M, 45M, 56M and 61M.

About half of all subscription phones sold to consumers weren't used 
more than once (most people make a test call, usually home, to see if 
it's working). That's because they were bought for emergencies, in the 
car, etc, and never actually required. But at least you know they are 
"there" because someone's paying a subscription. The status of 
ex-subscription (not traded in) and Prepay phones is much more difficult 
to track, though. I've still got all the [GSM] phones I've ever had, but 
only use a particular one of them most of the time!
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
          Joyce Whitchurch  wrote:


> Ken Ward wrote:
> > 
> > I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some years
> > ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
> > I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?
> 
> From memory, these came in round about the time that the Pullman
> services were relaunched, which was roughly 1985. Pullman trainsets were
> made up with a higher than usual ratio of first to standard
> accommodation. On the WCML the first class carriages were Mark 3b. I
> /think/ the mobile phone was fitted in the restaurant/buffet car. Now,
> did they use phonecards, or credit cards, or both? I can't remember. No,
> hang on, you could buy phonecards in the buffet so they must have taken
> those at least.
> 


Only took phone-cards and the lowest denomination the buffet had was the 5
quid one.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:06:47 +0000 (UTC), Joyce Whitchurch
 wrote:


>From memory, these came in round about the time that the Pullman
>services were relaunched, which was roughly 1985. Pullman trainsets were
>made up with a higher than usual ratio of first to standard
>accommodation. On the WCML the first class carriages were Mark 3b. I
>/think/ the mobile phone was fitted in the restaurant/buffet car. Now,
>did they use phonecards, or credit cards, or both? I can't remember. No,
>hang on, you could buy phonecards in the buffet so they must have taken
>those at least.


Yep, it was 1985. I remember that my father had had something to do
with some of the interior trim, and came home from a press/guest trip
one day with a small wallet containing a 'BREL TrainPhone' information
card and complimentary 5 unit green BT phonecard. I still have the
information card somewhere...


>
>Anyway, I do remember using such a phone, just for the novelty of the
>experience, and it was indeed both hideously expensive and imperfect and
>irregular in its reception. Come to think of it, mobile phone reception
>is still pretty poor on trains.


I only used one once. Bought a 20 unit card at Paddington, and just
about managed to make two short calls on it on a westbound HST -- the
call unit meter looked more like a stopwatch running! I probably did
it more for novelty reasons than any communication need -- "I'm on the
train!..."

Matt

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:20:47 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
wrote:


>I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some years 
>ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
>I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?


Can't confirm - but I definately remember using one on the WCML
service in the mid 80's just out of sheer curiosity. How did the air
interface work? - FM VHF I guess

Some of the Mk 2 stock on the GEML has the old fittings where the
payphones were


--

regards

Tex

In message , at 11:23:05 on 
Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Tex  remarked:

>Can't confirm - but I definately remember using one on the WCML
>service in the mid 80's just out of sheer curiosity. How did the air
>interface work? - FM VHF I guess


A someone mentioned earlier: Cellnet (now O2) analogue cellphone.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:34:16 +0100, Graeme Wall
 wrote:


>Only took phone-cards and the lowest denomination the buffet had was the 5
>quid one.


Because that would only last 5 minutes...

The ones in the 158s took credit cards as well, but I hope all the
users had a high credit limit!

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Tex wrote:

> Some of the Mk 2 stock on the GEML has the old fittings where the
> payphones were


The 322s have the remains of the phone area as well. And most of them 
look like the phone was removed by vandals rather than anyone official.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:39:35 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:



>It's almost scary to think that the first time I ever sent a text
>message was about 2000, and that was a mail->SMS thing I set up myself
>rather than to other people.  I had a mobile since Christmas 1997,
>mainly due to the poor service on the Liverpool-Manchester railway
>making me late for things a lot, but on my first phone I didn't even
>know how to send one!
>
>Neil


I doin't think you could send them from my first mobile phone. I also
recall when you couldn't send x-net SMSs!

Roland Perry wrote:


> 0845 calling with revenue for the ISP came into being in 1996, the local 
> call access for all (albeit with a monthly subscription) was a huge 
> incentive for domestic Internet access. Freeserve wasn't launched until 
> late 1998.


Yes, but IIRC until Freeserve we also had to pay a monthly 
standing fee as well.

Tom Cumming  wrote in message
de78n5$42r$1@inews.gazeta.pl

> Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> 0845 calling with revenue for the ISP came into being in 1996, the
>> local call access for all (albeit with a monthly subscription) was a
>> huge incentive for domestic Internet access. Freeserve wasn't
>> launched until late 1998.
>
> Yes, but IIRC until Freeserve we also had to pay a monthly
> standing fee as well.


Nope, Freeserve was definitely the first no-subscription fee ISP.  A 
revolution at the time.  To think that we used to pay around a tenner a 
month for the privelege of 0845 Internet access!  It doesn't seem that long 
since the massive phone bills.

-- 
Ian McMillan
ian@NOSPAMimcmillan.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotrail - Scotland's online railway group
http://www.railpic.co.uk - now updated with regular mobile snapshots

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:42:18 +0100, "Ian McMillan"
 wrote:


>Nope, Freeserve was definitely the first no-subscription fee ISP.  A 
>revolution at the time.  To think that we used to pay around a tenner a 
>month for the privelege of 0845 Internet access!  It doesn't seem that long 
>since the massive phone bills.


And in my case having to trawl through my parents' phone bill
highlighting the calls...

Seriously, my Dad now pays 18 quid a month for a broadband connection,
and considers it worthwhile, as do many other non-techies.  Had it not
been for Freeserve, he'd have been unlikely to risk that kind of money
on what was usually a 12-month contract - plus phone bills - to try
something he thought was just for techies like me.

Much as I don't like to give Dixons Group credit for very much, they
were right on the ball with this one.  That said, I don't think even
they realised how big it would end up being.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message <de78n5$42r$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, at 13:45:47 on Sat, 20 Aug
2005, Tom Cumming  remarked:

>> 0845 calling with revenue for the ISP came into being in 1996, the
>>local  call access for all (albeit with a monthly subscription) was a

                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>huge  incentive for domestic Internet access. Freeserve wasn't
>>launched until  late 1998.
>
>Yes, but IIRC until Freeserve we also had to pay a monthly standing fee
>as well.


Yes, that's why I wrote the highlighted text above.

But even with the "free" subscription, Freeserve only got a 30% share of
the residential market, at the same time 35% of homes claimed to have
two ISP accounts (so many of those Freeserve users were probably paying
someone else a subscription).

Freeserve was important, and opened up a new tranche of consumers, but
it wasn't the *only* reason for the growth in Internet access.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <43074f5c$0$22905$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, at 
16:42:18 on Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Ian McMillan  
remarked:

>Freeserve was definitely the first no-subscription fee ISP.


It was the only one which caught on. However there many people in the 
market, some offering (an unsustainable) 0800 access as well!
-- 
Roland Perry

>I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) >trains some years
>ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
>I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?



Talking of being cut off in tunnels, the technology is evidently
available for mobile phone use in deep tube tunnels, but isn't
advertised much that I've noticed.

There is a mobile phone signal for a long stretch of the tube tunnel
leading to Bank on the DLR.  Is this a system that is likely to be
extended?

MIG wrote:

> Talking of being cut off in tunnels, the technology is evidently
> available for mobile phone use in deep tube tunnels, but isn't
> advertised much that I've noticed.
> 
> There is a mobile phone signal for a long stretch of the tube tunnel
> leading to Bank on the DLR.  Is this a system that is likely to be
> extended?


Mobile coverage in the tunnels of the Tyne and Wear Metro started last 
year IIRC.  Lots of underground lines around the world already have 
mobile reception, don't they?

"Tex"  wrote in message 
news:h01eg1lahr4f07dk51s1d7fd5bvumknd6p@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:20:47 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
> wrote:
>
>>I remember using Pay Phones on London - Manchester (WCML) trains some 
>>years
>>ago and being cut-off in tunnels!
>>I guess it was in the 1970's.  Anyone confirm when they were in use?
>
> Can't confirm - but I definately remember using one on the WCML
> service in the mid 80's just out of sheer curiosity. How did the air
> interface work? - FM VHF I guess
>
> Some of the Mk 2 stock on the GEML has the old fittings where the
> payphones were


Thanks to everyone with the information. It must have been in the 80's and I 
do remember them using Phonecards.

KW

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:TI6vc7phI1BDFAdG@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message <43074f5c$0$22905$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, at 
> 16:42:18 on Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Ian McMillan  
> remarked:
>>Freeserve was definitely the first no-subscription fee ISP.
>
> It was the only one which caught on. However there many people in the 
> market, some offering (an unsustainable) 0800 access as well!


I used ic-24.net 0800 connection from an Orange Mobile Phone without charge. 
Wonderful service but, bloody slow.

KW

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:52:49 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>But even with the "free" subscription, Freeserve only got a 30% share of
>the residential market, at the same time 35% of homes claimed to have
>two ISP accounts (so many of those Freeserve users were probably paying
>someone else a subscription).


I've got three Freeserve accounts, to run web sites for clubs to which
I belong.
-- 
Terry Harper
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~terry.harper/
http://www.rotary-sxvale.fsnet.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.claytonw-probus.fsnet.co.uk/
http://www.wd21club.fsnet.co.uk

>I've got three Freeserve accounts, to run web sites for clubs to which
>I belong.



I'm sure that Freeserve was a bit cunning about making sure that you
dialled up using their expensive phone number though.  That is, you
couldn't access your Web space or your mailbox unless you had a
Freeserve IP address, having dialled up through them.

Not so free in the end.

"Mark Morton"  wrote in message 
news:3mpd1lF180gckU1@individual.net...

> MIG wrote:
>> Talking of being cut off in tunnels, the technology is evidently
>> available for mobile phone use in deep tube tunnels, but isn't
>> advertised much that I've noticed.
>>
>> There is a mobile phone signal for a long stretch of the tube tunnel
>> leading to Bank on the DLR.  Is this a system that is likely to be
>> extended?
>
> Mobile coverage in the tunnels of the Tyne and Wear Metro started last 
> year IIRC.  Lots of underground lines around the world already have mobile 
> reception, don't they?


And it works well - on a recent visit I got a near-full signal in Newcastle 
Central, and on a train heading north through Monument, Haymarket etc. On my 
last Metro trip in April 2004, there was no signal until West Jesmond.

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at 11:23:05 on
> Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Tex  remarked:
> >Can't confirm - but I definately remember using one on the WCML
> >service in the mid 80's just out of sheer curiosity. How did the air
> >interface work? - FM VHF I guess
>


Next to the buffet car there was a payphone with a cuboard next to it

In that cuboard there was a motorola 4800x (on cellnet/vodaphone TACS
analogue network) with a modem adapter which has the payphone pluged in
to it

That gave a dialtone to the payphone next to it

I'm sure there were other configurations but this was common

In message , at 22:36:14 on 
Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Terry Harper  remarked:

>>But even with the "free" subscription, Freeserve only got a 30% share of
>>the residential market, at the same time 35% of homes claimed to have
>>two ISP accounts (so many of those Freeserve users were probably paying
>>someone else a subscription).
>
>I've got three Freeserve accounts, to run web sites for clubs to which
>I belong.


Yes, that's the sort of thing. However, the figures I quote were 
researched by asking householders if they had an ISP account, and which 
one(s). Rather than asking Freeserve how many accounts they claimed to 
have, and dividing them into some assumed population of households.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 
16:50:57 on Sat, 20 Aug 2005, MIG  
remarked:

>I'm sure that Freeserve was a bit cunning about making sure that you
>dialled up using their expensive phone number though.  That is, you
>couldn't access your Web space or your mailbox unless you had a
>Freeserve IP address, having dialled up through them.


Their scheme was that you *had* to dial up their number to maintain your 
website, but email could be collected from anywhere. Plus the threat 
that if you didn't dial in at least once every three months your account 
would be closed.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 
11:43:34 on Sat, 20 Aug 2005, MIG  
remarked:

>Talking of being cut off in tunnels, the technology is evidently
>available for mobile phone use in deep tube tunnels, but isn't
>advertised much that I've noticed.
>
>There is a mobile phone signal for a long stretch of the tube tunnel
>leading to Bank on the DLR.  Is this a system that is likely to be
>extended?


I thought there was a scheme to cover the whole of the London 
Underground, by now. The consumer access was a way to pay for the 
installation that was primarily for train crews. But it's all gone a bit 
quiet.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:02:13 on Sat, 20 Aug 
2005, Mark Morton  remarked:

>Lots of underground lines around the world already have mobile 
>reception, don't they?


The much maligned Heathrow Express has mobile coverage from at least one 
network through its tunnels, as does the extremely long tunnel used by 
the Oslo airport express train.
-- 
Roland Perry

In article ,
   MIG  wrote:

> >I've got three Freeserve accounts, to run web sites for clubs to which
> >I belong.


> I'm sure that Freeserve was a bit cunning about making sure that you
> dialled up using their expensive phone number though.  That is, you
> couldn't access your Web space or your mailbox unless you had a
> Freeserve IP address, having dialled up through them.


My freeserve subscription included the cost of telephone calls.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

In message , at 10:43:53 on Sun, 21 Aug 
2005, David H Wild  remarked:

>> I'm sure that Freeserve was a bit cunning about making sure that you
>> dialled up using their expensive phone number though.  That is, you
>> couldn't access your Web space or your mailbox unless you had a
>> Freeserve IP address, having dialled up through them.
>
>My freeserve subscription included the cost of telephone calls.


Yes, so did mine (for a couple of years). Dial-on-demand ISDN (well, the 
digital bit of Home Highway), almost as good as a leased line.

Odd that a subscription-free service would turn quite so successfully 
into a subscription one!
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:IWMJ7mR3UFCDFAGO@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message , at 10:43:53 on Sun, 21 Aug 
> 2005, David H Wild  remarked:
>>> I'm sure that Freeserve was a bit cunning about making sure that you
>>> dialled up using their expensive phone number though.  That is, you
>>> couldn't access your Web space or your mailbox unless you had a
>>> Freeserve IP address, having dialled up through them.
>>
>>My freeserve subscription included the cost of telephone calls.
>
> Yes, so did mine (for a couple of years). Dial-on-demand ISDN (well, the 
> digital bit of Home Highway), almost as good as a leased line.
>
> Odd that a subscription-free service would turn quite so successfully into 
> a subscription one!


Your subscription was for the telephone connection ONLY. If you didn't want 
to pay you could have gone for the "pay as you go" service. I still have one 
to keep a website current.

KW

In message <6M%Ne.6$k4.3@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, at 13:58:26 on Sun, 21 
Aug 2005, Ken Ward  remarked:

>> In message , at 10:43:53 on Sun, 21 Aug
>> 2005, David H Wild  remarked:
>>>> I'm sure that Freeserve was a bit cunning about making sure that you
>>>> dialled up using their expensive phone number though.  That is, you
>>>> couldn't access your Web space or your mailbox unless you had a
>>>> Freeserve IP address, having dialled up through them.
>>>
>>>My freeserve subscription included the cost of telephone calls.
>>
>> Yes, so did mine (for a couple of years). Dial-on-demand ISDN (well, the
>> digital bit of Home Highway), almost as good as a leased line.
>>
>> Odd that a subscription-free service would turn quite so successfully into
>> a subscription one!
>
>Your subscription was for the telephone connection ONLY. If you didn't want
>to pay you could have gone for the "pay as you go" service. I still have one
>to keep a website current.


To try to keep all these words in the correct context, I think it's fair 
to say that Freeserve had two products at the time:

1) A dialup-up free [pay as you go] service where you paid for all your 
calls. This was also a subscription service because you had an 
identifiable account, but no monthly fee. (Some companies have PAYG 
services with no identifiable account).

2) A dial-up subscription service where unlimited calls were included in 
the fee.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:18:24 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>1) A dialup-up free [pay as you go] service where you paid for all your 
>calls. This was also a subscription service because you had an 
>identifiable account, but no monthly fee. (Some companies have PAYG 
>services with no identifiable account).


Never come across a "no identifiable account" one in the UK.  The only
one I ever did come across was MSN in Germany.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 15:07:16 on Sun, 21 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>(Some companies have PAYG
>>services with no identifiable account).
>
>Never come across a "no identifiable account" one in the UK.


Wasn't BT Click one of them?

Although I had in mind those smaller outfits with "user=guest, 
pw=Password" kind of 0845 access.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:21:05 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>Wasn't BT Click one of them?


Could have been.


>Although I had in mind those smaller outfits with "user=guest, 
>pw=Password" kind of 0845 access.


As I said, never encountered one except msn.de.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams (wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk) said:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:21:05 +0100, Roland Perry
>  wrote:
>
> > Wasn't BT Click one of them?
>
> Could have been.
>
> > Although I had in mind those smaller outfits with
> > "user=guest, pw=Password" kind of 0845 access.
>
> As I said, never encountered one except msn.de.
>
> Neil


The Yahoo (pre-bt? or maybe it was a rebranding of click) discs that 
could be picked up in book shops used such a scheme.

-- 
Andrew

MIG wrote:


> I'm sure that Freeserve was a bit cunning about making sure that you
> dialled up using their expensive phone number though.  That is, you
> couldn't access your Web space or your mailbox unless you had a
> Freeserve IP address, having dialled up through them.


You can access a Fleaserve mailbox from any connection. You do need to
dial in through them to access the FTP server - but how many people
need to do that more than once or twice a week, and for more than a
couple of minutes at a time?
 

> Not so free in the end.


They never claimed to be _free_ - the point was that you _only_ paid
for the service as you used it - at a very reasonable rate - rather
than paying a subscription.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Thomas"  wrote:


>SWT 442's still have a booth at the end of the 1st car. No telephone in it 
>though. 


I've noticed that on some units it is locked, and on others it isn't.

It's quite a useful place to make a call (using a portable radio
telephone, a so-called "mobile") in privacy if it's unlocked. 

However as it's part of the first class coach I have often wondered
whether I am risking a fine by using it....

(ab)

(...another 442 conundrum - why is the "quiet coach" the centre one,
which is the noisiest due to the traction motors?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:49:17 +0100, Stevie D
 wrote:


>They never claimed to be _free_ - the point was that you _only_ paid
>for the service as you used it - at a very reasonable rate - rather
>than paying a subscription.


And, indeed, at the same rate as you'd have paid on top of your Demon
account, so to all intents and purposes they may well have been.

For those of us in large cities the 0845 access with a subscription
wasn't significant - we had local PoPs for Demon and the likes anyway.
Freeserve, OTOH, was, as it removed the need to pay a tenner a month
on top of the calls.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:25:28 +0100, ab 


>It's quite a useful place to make a call (using a portable radio
>telephone, a so-called "mobile") in privacy if it's unlocked. 


DB removed the phones but left the booths in the ICEs for that very
reason.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Stevie D"  wrote in message 
news:h2jhg1lvocbgvt28hc9hau8p1vofsf0kq7@4ax.com...

> MIG wrote:
>
>> I'm sure that Freeserve was a bit cunning about making sure that you
>> dialled up using their expensive phone number though.  That is, you
>> couldn't access your Web space or your mailbox unless you had a
>> Freeserve IP address, having dialled up through them.
>
> You can access a Fleaserve mailbox from any connection. You do need to
> dial in through them to access the FTP server - but how many people
> need to do that more than once or twice a week, and for more than a
> couple of minutes at a time?
>
>> Not so free in the end.
>
> They never claimed to be _free_ - the point was that you _only_ paid
> for the service as you used it - at a very reasonable rate - rather
> than paying a subscription.


I collect all my Freeserve EW-Mails from my NTL Cable Broadband connection.
I use my Freeserve dial Up connection once a month and anytime I want to 
upload to the webspace
or send Freeserve E-Mail (V. Rare). The dial up number has never been any 
more that the cost of a local call.

When I first came onto the Web/E-Mail it cost me 124 per 12 months plus 
cost of phone calls with Zen Internet in Rochdale, 2 years before Freeserve!


KW

On 20 Aug 2005 16:50:57 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:


>>I've got three Freeserve accounts, to run web sites for clubs to which
>>I belong.
>
>
>I'm sure that Freeserve was a bit cunning about making sure that you
>dialled up using their expensive phone number though.  That is, you
>couldn't access your Web space or your mailbox unless you had a
>Freeserve IP address, having dialled up through them.
>
>Not so free in the end.


You have to access their number for each account once every three
months, or so, to keep the account active. You also have to use that
number to upload material to your web site. However you can download
your mail from their POP3 servers using any connection.

It also provides a useful back-up if BT goes tits-up.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

"Mark Morton"  wrote in message
news:3mpd1lF180gckU1@individual.net...

> MIG wrote:
> > Talking of being cut off in tunnels, the technology is evidently
> > available for mobile phone use in deep tube tunnels, but isn't
> > advertised much that I've noticed.
> >
> > There is a mobile phone signal for a long stretch of the tube tunnel
> > leading to Bank on the DLR.  Is this a system that is likely to be
> > extended?
>
> Mobile coverage in the tunnels of the Tyne and Wear Metro started last
> year IIRC.  Lots of underground lines around the world already have
> mobile reception, don't they?


No problems making calls on Vodafone Sweden on the Stockholm T-Banen
between Hotorget and Skanstull (all underground except between Slussen
and Gamla Stan on my recent trip to the land of dear beer.

/John