I’ve mentioned the importance of wi-fi before. And also the possible consequences of 4G that might, just might, render the on-bus technology redundant, given the supposéd speed of 4G. I’m not actually technically qualified to comment, of course, but 4G speeds seem like they will be geek heaven.
Anyway, unless and until 4G is very popular, buses that allow free wi-fi offer something of a competitive advantage over the car. If anyone saw the re-run of series 1 of Dangerous Drivers’ School on Channel 5 Star recently, they will know that it *is* possible to drive *and* use a smartphone at the same time, but that the driver concerned was probably the worst motorist I’ve ever seen (yet the cocky little so-and-so thought he was doing others a favour).
Brian Souter now feels that there’s a strong case for fitting every bus with free wi-fi technology. Said Souter, “I actually believe that we should probably be putting wi-fi on everything now.” Whenever has Souter been wrong? (OK, rhetorical question, but it isn’t often).
Why consider bus-based wi-fi? Try these:
- The aforesaid commercial advantage over personal transport
- The company landing page can give important information
- Some tablets only work on wi-fi and not 3G
- 3G can be interrupted and slow, when on board. Wi-fi is usually fast and consistent
- It adds to customer satisfaction.
- It will soon be a “given”
There’s more, though:
- It can enable the two-way transfer of data from ticket machine to base
- CCTV images can be viewed in real time back at the garage
First is now fully onboard with wi-fi. Announcing First’s Valentine’s Day £76mil vehicle order, all of which will feature wi-fi, Giles Fearnley said, “Fitting wi-fi as standard is also increasingly important for our customers”.
The only misgiving I have concerns the fact that the internet is, these days, increasingly the competition. It means we need to travel less often. It’s an uncomfortable fact.
Once upon a time, you caught a bus to your local high street or shopping centre to be regaled by shops with music albums, books, jewellery, beauty products (for those who needed them), groceries, small appliances, gifts and even clothes. Remember that? Remember postage stamps?
 |
| Even buying online has its difficulties... but there is still plenty of choice in cyberspace, unlike on the high street |
If you need to buy something by Mantovani (a sometime Bournemouth & Poole resident, as it happens), how many outlets on the high street do you know that sell a good range of CDs, these days? Where are Our Price Records, Virgin and increasingly HMV? Remember when Woolworth’s had a fine array of vinyls? And larger Boot’s had a record bar? I have a colleague—a colleague, mark you, one who works in buses—who never physically shops any more other than for groceries. It seems you can now even buy fashion online and simply return it by post if it doesn’t fit or suit.
Is it me? Am I alone in feeling slightly uncomfortable about the prospect of encouraging our core market—shoppers—to shop online and therefore travel less? Or am I just a luddite? Would it happen anyway? And I haven’t even mentioned the impact on shop workers’ jobs that has an effect on bus traffic.
Soon, I’m sure I’ll be able to get a haircut online without the inconvenience of a bus trip to the barber’s...
19 comments:
Stick in and let the login page carry the ads that are no longer on the outside of the bus...extra income stream!
I don't think anybody is going to be using the Wi-Fi to do any online shopping while they're on the bus. Checking emails, news and the Internet's far more likely.
You are a Luddite! The High Street for general shopping has had its day. However, it will evolve into a place for leisure with restaurants, coffee shops, entertainment (cinemas etc) and a few specialist outlets. Also more space will be given over to living accommodation, so people will still have a reason to go there.
"I don't think anybody is going to be using the Wi-Fi to do any online shopping while they're on the bus. Checking emails, news and the Internet's far more likely."
I'd tend to agree, although if an average bus journey in Hampshire takes long enough to enable you to watch an entire firm, I'm not so sure..... ;-)
"The High Street for general shopping has had its day."
Nah, some High Streets appear to be in serious decline but others are still going strong and heaving with shoppers. High Streets in smaller towns will struggle with competition from popular big town High Streets nearby and perhaps some impact from internet shopping but far more so where there is a large out of town Bluewater or Lakeside complex in the vicinity.
I don't see the internet taking over entirely, it's convenient for some things but inconvenient in other ways, especially receipt of deliveries where no-one's home during the day, clothing and footwear are always going to be somewhat hit and miss and a hassle with potential returns etc for many people and general delays / waiting a day or three for deliveries is never completely going to trump the High Street's instantness and browsability.
For the last twenty-five years or so, the problem has been too many shops - *all* town centres have seen their shopping areas increase in size, regional malls like Lakeside and retail parks springing up everywhere, more and more large super/hypermarkets.... The scaling back we're currently seeing is an overdue part of this process and yes, the internet is a small part of it but it's not the cause and nor is it the killer blow that so many people seem keen for it to be.
From one Luddite to another.
I have tried WiFi on trains and buses and found it wholly unreliable; with the signal dropping in and out almost arbitrarily. Whilst it may be manageable on a smartphone, try using a laptop on a bus. Not easy!
I can't see 4G overcoming the laws of physics cap'n. OK Scotty, but do you best!
ffb - so because the signal has dropped out on you a few times, that's a reason to not bother with it at all?
I despair.
If the industry is worried about losing passengers due to shops and town centres closing, what about targeting commuters? Yes, it would mean providing a more punctual and reliable bus network and developing new routes and ideas, but why not? My experience in South Wales is that lots of people use a train to get to work because they are generally more reliable, even if they are often more expensive and crowded and not necessarily much quicker.
There's only so much of buses turning up over 10 minutes late that people can take before they look for alternatives. PVR savings look great but surely not at the expense of annoying punters.
Also, if high streets increasingly become entertainment areas (restaurants, coffe shops, cinemas and bars) would that not offer the potential of a better evening trade for buses?
I echo Eric's point about the commuter market but extend that to include taking commuters to/from the nearest railhead if traffic congestion and lack of priorities would make reliable competitive with the rail service difficult. Many local stations charge extortionate all-day parking rates that the bus could undercut. In Chippenham the station all day parking rate is £7.10, so many residents choose to walk or park in neighbouring streets (thus losing the car's door to door advantage). The station is also next to the leisure centre and the college, both of which should be target markets. Trains from Paddington spew out loads of commuters every 30 minutes well into the evening. Imagine a town network of minibuses linking the station to the residential areas, the business parks, terminating at the superstores. Now where is Harry Blundred?
Note also the well-established John Lewis gambit (find the best price on line, on the bus down to town; go to John Lewis and buy from them, because they will match the price and you can guarantee a degree of backup that a lot of internet companies will not).
City centre retail is not dead.
The question I've often wondered is how is on-bus (and, likewise, on-train) wi-fi provided? It seems as if most people (and, for this purpose, I include the writer of this article just from how it's written) equate wi-fi with Internet, without actually realising that just because there's a wi-fi connection, doesn't mean to say that there's an Internet connection.
"3G can be interrupted and slow, when on board. Wi-fi is usually fast and consistent" - before reading this comment, my assumption was that on-transport wi-fi was connecting to the Internet via 3G (though a more robust connectivity that covers different networks to ensure network coverage). Fat Bus Bloke said that his experience is that the wi-fi connection keeps dropping - this is probably why.
The only real advantage therefore in having wi-fi connectivity on public transport is that it won't take up data allowance, and possibly that inside a vehicle the signal coverage could be less than outside.
As an aside, does anybody else wonder exactly what effect on humans having all these wireless networks going around is? Wi-fi, 2G/3G/4G, bluetooth (I was on a train once and saw that 15 people in the carriage had bluetooth on and public on their phones) and all the others... so many, what's it doing to our bodies?
Modern Railways March2013 has an article on Car v Rail use; The current decline in car mileage (Reading down 18% in 10 years)and the increase in rail use over several years. The biggest shift is seen in higher earners and particularly men in their 20s. It ponders whether the fashion for city centre and urban redevelopment living is having an effect. Also being able to Text, Facebook etc on the move is seen as important with smart phones coming above car ownership. Hence buses with Wi-Fi, leather spec, fits in with the model.
My teenagers like Wi-Fi; its free where as 2G is alot of pocket money. (We don't get 3G/4G!)
The main supermarkets are looking at more High Street stores, like Tesco Metro. The public are shopping less often out of town with more High Street top ups. The High street will evolve.
The on-board WiFi connection comes from the 3G network anyway, so I can't see the big attraction for it.
In a city you are likely to get a good speed on 3G anyway and *most* folks have generous data allowances on their phones, so why mess about connecting to WiFi?
I've found wifi on buses to be quite fast, at least comparable to the average broadband connections. Tests I've done on board a bus showed about 8mbs and didn't drop out, well certainly worked fine in a city environment, might be different out in the sticks!
What annoys me is rail operators still charging quite a lot for wifi when bus operators manage to provide it free, I stick to using my 3G bundle minutes on a train but use free wifi on bus and in cafes when available.
Some mobile wi-fi connections use satellite links to improve the reliability, although these are expensive. What is more common is to have a dual-network connection, so the box uses whichever network has the better signal and/or balances the load between them, to avoid dropping the connection when you enter a blackspot for one particular network. That said, you may find that if one double connection is being shared between 20 passengers that it isn't quick after all. But yes, the advantage of not using your own data allowance is a big one.
I've used Wifi on various buses and always been surprised by the speed of it - much better than my own 3G connection.
No idea why, but it's certainly better for me.
Lacking the relevant technical knowledge I too wondered how the wi-fi connection is provided. I regularly use both First and Uni-Link in Hampshire and Oxford X90 and Oxford Tube's wi-fi services and find them generally reliable except when on an early evening full coach from London to Oxford - is this as there are so many people using the wi-fi that my connection fails?
Unfortunately National Express coaches' wi-fi is not so reliable, often being unavailable on coaches that are meant to have it, and provision being patchy (I suspect it may depend on the operator of the particular journey (I mostly use the 032 to Southampton)). It's the same as the I'll-fated NXTV service which I really loved but could never rely on!
As an aside, does anybody else wonder exactly what effect on humans having all these wireless networks going around is? Wi-fi, 2G/3G/4G, bluetooth (I was on a train once and saw that 15 people in the carriage had bluetooth on and public on their phones) and all the others... so many, what's it doing to our bodies? Some years ago i was doing some ICNIRP testing in the centre of Cardiff, and it was noticeable that the short bursts of real time information coming from the antennas of Cardiff buses was far higher than those from the local Mobile phone atnennas. NOTE its a short burst and not constant. All mobile signals and wifi have to comply with the reccomendations of the 'stuart enquiry' into non inonising radation. This sets down safe levels of activity as was known at the time of the enquiry. Of course there is still on going research into safe levels and no one can say for sure just how safe things are as you will need a life time of data to make really sure of safe levels.
Normally I don’t read post on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very forced me to check out and do so! Your writing taste has been amazed me. Thank you, quite nice post.
everyone has a sale by date, but as one of the commentators said, jobs was the visionary designer whilst Ive implemented. this combination was very successful as you have two individuals feeding of each others visionary innovation.
Post a Comment