Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/04/2024 18:53, Bob wrote:
>> The result of this is that the service is not something that can be
>> depended on. If all I want from the on board WiFi is to look at usenet
>> or read the news, I can take it or leave it, so it might be a service I
>> would use if it was there. If what I need is to actually get work done
>> and my job depended on it, there is no way I would set out without the
>> means to connect to the internet that did not depend on a TOC's on board
>> WiFi. For this reason, I question whether on board WiFi actually is a
>> meaningfully important factor in being able to get word done on the
>> train in the real world, and I wonder how well used the service actually
>> is for people trying to get work done.
>
> Must say the majority of people I see working on the train seem to be
> using their phones as hot-spots.

I travelled from Edinburgh to London on a Lumo yesterday and I’m typing
this on the return journey. The Lumo WiFi has been effectively useless in
both directions. There’s a slightly odd sign-on system where you (may)
have to copy a URL to open a browser window, but then connections to the
Internet are deeply unreliable, and diagnostic tools (ping, traceroute,
find my public address etc.) simply fail to work. Yesterday I didn’t
bother with the iPad, just the phone; today it’s iPad on the phone hotspot.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 22/04/2024 18:53, Bob wrote:
>>> The result of this is that the service is not something that can be
>>> depended on. If all I want from the on board WiFi is to look at usenet
>>> or read the news, I can take it or leave it, so it might be a service I
>>> would use if it was there. If what I need is to actually get work done
>>> and my job depended on it, there is no way I would set out without the
>>> means to connect to the internet that did not depend on a TOC's on board
>>> WiFi. For this reason, I question whether on board WiFi actually is a
>>> meaningfully important factor in being able to get word done on the
>>> train in the real world, and I wonder how well used the service actually
>>> is for people trying to get work done.
>>
>> Must say the majority of people I see working on the train seem to be
>> using their phones as hot-spots.
>
> I travelled from Edinburgh to London on a Lumo yesterday and I’m typing
> this on the return journey. The Lumo WiFi has been effectively useless in
> both directions. There’s a slightly odd sign-on system where you (may)
> have to copy a URL to open a browser window, but then connections to the
> Internet are deeply unreliable, and diagnostic tools (ping, traceroute,
> find my public address etc.) simply fail to work. Yesterday I didn’t
> bother with the iPad, just the phone; today it’s iPad on the phone hotspot.
>
> Sam
>

Other than the WiFi, how does using Lumo compare to travelling with LNER?

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:29:09 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <hh1i2j9ik9d2cil7r18s6sa0o55vr4j1ua@4ax.com>, at 14:17:41 on
>Wed, 24 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 13:56:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <ZoVVN.80022$Rt2.77984@fx10.ams1>, at 21:06:01 on Tue, 23 Apr
>>>2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> Please sir, I have an Android phone and an iPad and it always
>>>>>>seems to work
>>>>>> for me, assuming the phone can get a signal.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a riff on the old Apple slogan: it just works…
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that it does surprise me how many people have trouble with
>>>>> such a simple exercise.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps they can't remember how to switch the hot spot on and off? My
>>>>phone keeps chiding me if I leave it switched on too long.
>>>
>>>Which version of Android is that?
>>
>>12, but this is probably something the manufacturer chooses to do,
>>perhaps if the phone is overheating. I doubt that all
>>Android 12 phones would behave identically.
>
>My Pixel, which seems to have quietly updated itself to 14, doesn't do
>it. Nor any earlier phone.

As I said, it probably has nothing to do with the version of Android.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2024 18:53, Bob wrote:
>>>> The result of this is that the service is not something that can be
>>>> depended on. If all I want from the on board WiFi is to look at usenet
>>>> or read the news, I can take it or leave it, so it might be a service I
>>>> would use if it was there. If what I need is to actually get work done
>>>> and my job depended on it, there is no way I would set out without the
>>>> means to connect to the internet that did not depend on a TOC's on board
>>>> WiFi. For this reason, I question whether on board WiFi actually is a
>>>> meaningfully important factor in being able to get word done on the
>>>> train in the real world, and I wonder how well used the service actually
>>>> is for people trying to get work done.
>>>
>>> Must say the majority of people I see working on the train seem to be
>>> using their phones as hot-spots.
>>
>> I travelled from Edinburgh to London on a Lumo yesterday and I’m typing
>> this on the return journey. The Lumo WiFi has been effectively useless in
>> both directions. There’s a slightly odd sign-on system where you (may)
>> have to copy a URL to open a browser window, but then connections to the
>> Internet are deeply unreliable, and diagnostic tools (ping, traceroute,
>> find my public address etc.) simply fail to work. Yesterday I didn’t
>> bother with the iPad, just the phone; today it’s iPad on the phone hotspot.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> Other than the WiFi, how does using Lumo compare to travelling with LNER?

Somewhat sparser facilities - all standard class, minimal catering (trolley
with snacks and drinks, meal-type food only if you preorder before
travelling). Having fewer stops means they can manage luggage better.
There are big signs on the outside of the train by the carriage doors
saying “put luggage for Newcastle in the racks here” and “… Edinburgh
here”. (No, that doesn’t really make sense on the southbound journey - I
may have read it wrong.) On the return trip (stops at Ncl, Morpeth and
Edinburgh) they made a point of asking passengers for Edinburgh to used the
shelves in the racks and for Ncl passengers to put luggage next to the
racks.

Seats? I gather they’re the same as the LNER ones, though it’s some time
since I was on an LNER Azuma (there’s a surprising number of 225 sets
around still - I think I saw 3 on the way down). They’re a little hard and
and the head rest is too far back (and too tall even for my 6’2” travelling
companion) but my main problem is that the seat is an inch or two too low
given how upright the seat back is. It wasn’t desperately uncomfortable
but it wasn’t luxurious. The table - there were 4 of us around a table -
is an inch or two too high! It’s noticeably higher than the tray tables on
the airline seats. They do, however, have a reading light built into the
seat back just above the tray. I don’t know how useful they are but they
look cool.

Interesting routing, though. The first time I’ve been through York without
going through York! We took the avoiding line through where the old yards
were, but then, even though we didn’t stop at Darlington, we went through
the platform there. We’d gained 10 minutes on the timetable by just after
York but then had to wait for the preceding train, an LNER stopper which
had left KX 15 minutes before us, and which had stopped at Darlington.

I guess we’re way off topic, though…

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 23/04/2024 17:16, Roland Perry wrote:
> "Last time I used the train to Brighton, I could only really use my
> phone either within the M25 or in the Brighton area. I'm sure there are
> other pockets of decent reception such as at the Redhill to
> Gatwick/Three Bridges corridor or Haywards Heath, but there are also no
> coverage hotspots(sic) and not just in the tunnels."
>
> Says it all.

I suppose there is no revenue for the train operator from improved
mobile or WiFi coverage.

Perhaps they could have one carriage with enhanced coverage with a
surcharge so those not needing the coverage do not have to pay for it.

We will be told it is essential for businessmen to be able to make
multi-million pound deals whilst on the move but we all know that most
of the traffic carried is trivial stuff.

Theo wrote:

> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lagos Red Line:
>> https://punchng.com/eight-things-to-know-about-the-lagos-red-line-rail-project/

> Sounds like they have an 'interesting' rolling stock procurement:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos_Rail_Mass_Transit

> "In September 2011, LAMATA announced that it would acquire some H5-series
> subway trains formerly used by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). The
> cars were to be refurbished in the United States and converted to standard
> gauge before being imported and put into service on the Blue and Red lines.
> The same contract also included an option for some H6-series subway cars
> from the TTC, however this has since been cancelled.[17][18][19][20]

> In January 2015, LAMATA opted for Chinese-built trains instead, ordering 15
> electro-diesel multiple units from CRRC Dalian with an option for 14
> more.[21] About 76 H5 cars that had been taken for refurbishment to Buffalo,
> New York, have been scrapped by August 2015.[22]

> In August 2018, LAMATA signed an agreement with Alstom. As a part of the
> agreement, Alstom conducted a review of the rail lines, and electrification
> of a portion of the track was planned.[23]

> In January 2022, Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu visited the US
> state of Wisconsin, to purchase two Talgo VIII trainsets for service on the
> Red Line.[24][25] They had been ordered by Wisconsin for use on the Amtrak
> Hiawatha Service in 2009, but they were never placed in service, and were
> instead stored"

> Seems like they're using HST power cars too... on a 22 mile metro service
> with 13 stops? Any bets for how long until they break?

There was recently a Talgo suburban service in Sarajevo,
Bosnia and Hercegovina. Maybe there still is...

Regards, ULF

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 23/04/2024 17:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> "Last time I used the train to Brighton, I could only really use my
>> phone either within the M25 or in the Brighton area. I'm sure there are
>> other pockets of decent reception such as at the Redhill to
>> Gatwick/Three Bridges corridor or Haywards Heath, but there are also no
>> coverage hotspots(sic) and not just in the tunnels."
>>
>> Says it all.
>
>
> I suppose there is no revenue for the train operator from improved
> mobile or WiFi coverage.

Why would the operator or the DfT care about the revenue?

In message <v0dc5s$2v4b2$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:44:13 on Thu, 25 Apr
2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 22/04/2024 18:53, Bob wrote:
>>> The result of this is that the service is not something that can be
>>> depended on. If all I want from the on board WiFi is to look at usenet
>>> or read the news, I can take it or leave it, so it might be a service I
>>> would use if it was there. If what I need is to actually get work done
>>> and my job depended on it, there is no way I would set out without the
>>> means to connect to the internet that did not depend on a TOC's on board
>>> WiFi. For this reason, I question whether on board WiFi actually is a
>>> meaningfully important factor in being able to get word done on the
>>> train in the real world, and I wonder how well used the service actually
>>> is for people trying to get work done.
>>
>> Must say the majority of people I see working on the train seem to be
>> using their phones as hot-spots.
>
>I travelled from Edinburgh to London on a Lumo yesterday and I’m typing
>this on the return journey. The Lumo WiFi has been effectively useless in
>both directions. There’s a slightly odd sign-on system where you (may)
>have to copy a URL to open a browser window, but then connections to the
>Internet are deeply unreliable, and diagnostic tools (ping, traceroute,
>find my public address etc.) simply fail to work.

Such systems are often filtered to only allow web access, but it works
both ways, because some paid-for systems only *block* web access if you
haven't subscribed, so you can get free Usenet and POP3.

>Yesterday I didn’t
>bother with the iPad, just the phone; today it’s iPad on the phone hotspot.
>
>Sam
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <v0ek9h$383f0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:08:50 on Thu, 25 Apr
2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>Interesting routing, though. The first time I’ve been through York without
>going through York!

Yes, this was much debated just before they launched, with various bets
whether or not that was a feature of the trial service only, or would
persist into public service.
--
Roland Perry

In message <v0fm3o$3i2rb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:00 on Fri, 26 Apr
2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 23/04/2024 17:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> "Last time I used the train to Brighton, I could only really use my
>>phone either within the M25 or in the Brighton area. I'm sure there
>>are other pockets of decent reception such as at the Redhill to
>>Gatwick/Three Bridges corridor or Haywards Heath, but there are also
>>no coverage hotspots(sic) and not just in the tunnels."
>> Says it all.
>
>I suppose there is no revenue for the train operator from improved
>mobile or WiFi coverage.
>
>Perhaps they could have one carriage with enhanced coverage with a
>surcharge so those not needing the coverage do not have to pay for it.
>
>We will be told it is essential for businessmen to be able to make
>multi-million pound deals whilst on the move but we all know that most
>of the traffic carried is trivial stuff.

There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to do
zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.

All I use it for is email (incl Usenet) and very occasionally to check
progress/connections on RTT, which is pretty low bandwidth. But the
email is essential to keep up to speed with things.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <v0ek9h$383f0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:08:50 on Thu, 25 Apr
> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> Interesting routing, though. The first time I’ve been through York without
>> going through York!
>
> Yes, this was much debated just before they launched, with various bets
> whether or not that was a feature of the trial service only, or would
> persist into public service.

As I recall, the consensus was that the direct freight route would be
quicker northbound, but a bad choice southbound.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to do
> zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
> life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
> flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.

If such a meeting is ongoing anyway, it is useful to be able to join it - if
you are travelling for work during a work day then theoretically it's your
employer's time, but in practice it may be useful for you to join such
things and the meeting is not one that can be moved around to suit your
personal schedule. It may not be the kind of meeting where you are
intensively talking (I'd find it a bit rude to do that on a train) but if
you're watching a presentation then you need both audio and video.

I sometimes listen in to such meetings when driving, although obviously
there I can't see any video (some people also contribute from their cars,
but not a great idea IMHO). Often such meetings are across timezones: if
the meeting is scheduled for 1pm EST then you might be on your UK commute
home and better to catch it on the train than sit in the office until it
finishes.

There are also times where I've used remote desktops on the train - often in
terms of setting a job that will take some hours to process and can be doing
so while I'm elsewhere. (and then sorting it out when it failed and needs
fixing and restarting)

> All I use it for is email (incl Usenet) and very occasionally to check
> progress/connections on RTT, which is pretty low bandwidth. But the
> email is essential to keep up to speed with things.

If your work is simple enough like that, fair enough. Not everyone's is.

Theo

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <v0ek9h$383f0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:08:50 on Thu, 25 Apr
>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> Interesting routing, though. The first time I’ve been through York without
>>> going through York!
>>
>> Yes, this was much debated just before they launched, with various bets
>> whether or not that was a feature of the trial service only, or would
>> persist into public service.
>
> As I recall, the consensus was that the direct freight route would be
> quicker northbound, but a bad choice southbound.

Makes sense. We took the main up line through platform 3 on the way
down(!).

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <v08445$1ik81$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:56:04 on Tue, 23 Apr
2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 23.04.2024 09:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <v0686i$133is$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:53:22 on Mon, 22 Apr
>>2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 22.04.2024 15:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <v056b1$qpmq$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:29 on Mon, 22
>>>>Apr 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 19.04.2024 13:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <uvt4be$2pja4$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:52:30 on Fri, 19
>>>>>>Apr  2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 19.04.2024 06:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <e3s22j5v5ib5qnm407a27mpr2k5tqefcmu@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>20:12:43  on  Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Charles Ellson
>>>>>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com>  remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:49:53 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <uvmh8j$13du0$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:49:55 on Tue,
>>>>>>>>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> there would be howls from people with nowhere to put their
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was on a Thameslink 700 last week for over an hour (it was
>>>>>>>>>>pretty  much
>>>>>>>>>> "all shacks" to Kings Cross) and very surprised to find
>>>>>>>>>>neither power
>>>>>>>>>> sockets nor tables/seat-back-trays for my laptop.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a train not an internet cafe.
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Except "working on the train" is supposed one of its big
>>>>>>>>benefits.  And  they do provide wifi (when it works). And
>>>>>>>>talking of cafes,  tables are  useful for food and drink as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  On an hour and a half journey (and that's just from the centre
>>>>>>>>to  the  northern extremity, not end-to-end) it's ridiculous to
>>>>>>>>provide  such a  badly equipped train.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd be interested to know what the actual usage of wifi on
>>>>>>>various forms of public transport vehicles is. On the few
>>>>>>>occasions I have tried to make use of it where it is claimed to
>>>>>>>be available (and where  my device is able to actually connect
>>>>>>>to it), I have found it  to be  essentially unusuably slow as
>>>>>>>often as not, and sometimes  claims to  connect but never actually delivers any data.
>>
>>>>>>> Unless I  had prior  experience of reliability, my default
>>>>>>>approach to getting  internet on  the move would be to connect
>>>>>>>through my phone. I wonder  how many other  people take that
>>>>>>>view, and even when it is  available, just dont bother.
>>
>>>>>>  Unfortunately, mobile data cover is extremely patchy too. For
>>>>>>example  Stevenage to Kings Cross was dreadful (might be better
>>>>>>now with 4G)  because it's basically a sequence of tunnels and cuttings.
>>>>>>  Last year there was a 20 minute not-spot on the way to
>>>>>>Birmingham west  of Nuneaton, on an XC Turbostar with broken
>>>>>>wifi. Not just low bandwidth, but it couldn't "see" the wider
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If a train's WiFi system gets its data connection to the internet
>>>>>via  the mobile phone infrastructure, it will be just as badly
>>>>>affected by  not-spots as the phone in my pocket.
>>
>>>>  Not at all. As I explained earlier, the lack of a signal
>>>>(popularly known as a "not spot") depends on the aerial, and
>>>>whether that aerial is inside or outside the train. And there's the
>>>>possibility of using more than one network, because their coverage
>>>>doesn't co-incide.
>>>>
>>>>> While a satellite based system might help in certain locations
>>>>>(obviously not tunnels),
>>
>>>>  There's very little leaky feeder that I'm aware of in Network Rail
>>>>tunnels, so mobiles suffer too. However a satellite should work in a
>>>>cutting, whereas mobiles often won't.
>>>
>>> While in theory a train should be able to maintain a more reliable
>>>connection than a mobile phone for a variety of technical reasons, my
>>>experience of actually trying to use train-based WiFi and of using
>>>mobile phone based connectivity on board trains is that regardless of
>>>the theoretical advantages a train based system offers, the actual
>>>experience as a user I have been presented with is far inferior.

>> Just like my experience with OHL.
>
>Indeed. It's almost as if the UK has a fundamental problem with
>building and maintaining reliable infrastructure. Little wonder it has
>one of the lowest worker productivity rates in the developed world.

Only a very small number of workers are involved in delivering such
infrastructure, so will have little impact (either positive of negative)
on the national productivity statistics.

>> However, when it works, it's better than a non-functioning mobile
>>phone inside a metal tube. Some friends have a narrowboat and inside
>>it's extremely difficult to get any mobile reception ever. However,
>>on the roof they have twin-aerials feeding a wifi hotspot, and if
>>there's any coverage at all, that works better than a mobile from the
>>towpath just because of the gain of the aerials.
>
>Emphasis on when it works.

I've bought some new gadgets now, and the aerial gain is 15dB (I've
since seen a 22dB one), added to the higher external mounting. So yes,
it will work at more grid references than your phone in your pocket -
even if you are stood on the towpath. RF engineering doesn't seem to be
your forte.

>>>>> they have at least before Starlink, been low bandwidth and high
>>>>>latency, bringing their own problems.
>>
>>>>  I've always found them adequate for picking up emails, Usenet etc.
>>>>Mobile network based wifi isn't suitable for streaming etc.
>>>
>>> When a meeting these days

>> You always overestimate the prevalence of this, and of course
>>there's plenty of things which can be done on the move that aren't
>>live meetings.
>
>Based on my experience actually working in a corporate environment in
>the modern world. Rather than anecdotes from the 1990s.

Your experience is extremely unusual. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but
it's not something to extrapolate to more than a tiny fraction of the
workers out there.

And what's with this 1990's thing? I only retired last December, and
have plenty of experience with corporate environments all the way
through this decade.

Most of my anecdotes posted here about connectivity in the field are
post-COVID.

>>> means joining a teams meeting with live audio and video feeds, the
>>>difference in bandwidth requirements between working and streaming
>>>really aren't that different.

>> Doing that on a train is shall we say "ambitious".
>
>Entirely possible. Done it myself.

I'm intrigued as to where you put the 21" monitor.

18 month old anecdote: The train I was on and had lots to do, was
lurching from side to side so much I gave up trying to use the keyboard
on my laptop. No power sockets and the wifi was broken. Lots of extended
no-spots for the data SIM in my laptop.

>> About 20yrs ago I phoned into a teleconference on an Eurostar as it
>>travelled through Belgium (there was no coverage in Kent or the
>>tunnel) and I got lots of complaints from other participants about
>>the way announcements on the train intruded on the conversation.
>
>Back to anecdotes from the 1990s again.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <v08445$1ik81$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:56:04 on Tue, 23 Apr
> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 23.04.2024 09:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <v0686i$133is$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:53:22 on Mon, 22 Apr
>>> 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 22.04.2024 15:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <v056b1$qpmq$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:15:29 on Mon, 22
>>>>> Apr 2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 19.04.2024 13:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <uvt4be$2pja4$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:52:30 on Fri, 19
>>>>>>> Apr  2024, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 19.04.2024 06:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <e3s22j5v5ib5qnm407a27mpr2k5tqefcmu@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>> 20:12:43  on  Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Charles Ellson
>>>>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com>  remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:49:53 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <uvmh8j$13du0$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:49:55 on Tue,
>>>>>>>>>>> 2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> there would be howls from people with nowhere to put their
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was on a Thameslink 700 last week for over an hour (it was
>>>>>>>>>>> pretty  much
>>>>>>>>>>> "all shacks" to Kings Cross) and very surprised to find
>>>>>>>>>>> neither power
>>>>>>>>>>> sockets nor tables/seat-back-trays for my laptop.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a train not an internet cafe.
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Except "working on the train" is supposed one of its big
>>>>>>>>> benefits.  And  they do provide wifi (when it works). And
>>>>>>>>> talking of cafes,  tables are  useful for food and drink as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  On an hour and a half journey (and that's just from the centre
>>>>>>>>> to  the  northern extremity, not end-to-end) it's ridiculous to
>>>>>>>>> provide  such a  badly equipped train.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd be interested to know what the actual usage of wifi on
>>>>>>>> various forms of public transport vehicles is. On the few
>>>>>>>> occasions I have tried to make use of it where it is claimed to
>>>>>>>> be available (and where  my device is able to actually connect
>>>>>>>> to it), I have found it  to be  essentially unusuably slow as
>>>>>>>> often as not, and sometimes  claims to  connect but never
>>>>>>>> actually delivers any data.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless I  had prior  experience of reliability, my default
>>>>>>>> approach to getting  internet on  the move would be to connect
>>>>>>>> through my phone. I wonder  how many other  people take that
>>>>>>>> view, and even when it is  available, just dont bother.
>>>
>>>>>>>  Unfortunately, mobile data cover is extremely patchy too. For
>>>>>>> example  Stevenage to Kings Cross was dreadful (might be better
>>>>>>> now with 4G)  because it's basically a sequence of tunnels and cuttings.
>>>>>>>  Last year there was a 20 minute not-spot on the way to
>>>>>>> Birmingham west  of Nuneaton, on an XC Turbostar with broken
>>>>>>> wifi. Not just low bandwidth, but it couldn't "see" the wider
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a train's WiFi system gets its data connection to the internet
>>>>>> via  the mobile phone infrastructure, it will be just as badly
>>>>>> affected by  not-spots as the phone in my pocket.
>>>
>>>>>  Not at all. As I explained earlier, the lack of a signal
>>>>> (popularly known as a "not spot") depends on the aerial, and
>>>>> whether that aerial is inside or outside the train. And there's the
>>>>> possibility of using more than one network, because their coverage
>>>>> doesn't co-incide.
>>>>>
>>>>>> While a satellite based system might help in certain locations
>>>>>> (obviously not tunnels),
>>>
>>>>>  There's very little leaky feeder that I'm aware of in Network Rail
>>>>> tunnels, so mobiles suffer too. However a satellite should work in a
>>>>> cutting, whereas mobiles often won't.
>>>>
>>>> While in theory a train should be able to maintain a more reliable
>>>> connection than a mobile phone for a variety of technical reasons, my
>>>> experience of actually trying to use train-based WiFi and of using
>>>> mobile phone based connectivity on board trains is that regardless of
>>>> the theoretical advantages a train based system offers, the actual
>>>> experience as a user I have been presented with is far inferior.
>
>>> Just like my experience with OHL.
>>
>> Indeed. It's almost as if the UK has a fundamental problem with
>> building and maintaining reliable infrastructure. Little wonder it has
>> one of the lowest worker productivity rates in the developed world.
>
> Only a very small number of workers are involved in delivering such
> infrastructure, so will have little impact (either positive of negative)
> on the national productivity statistics.
>
>>> However, when it works, it's better than a non-functioning mobile
>>> phone inside a metal tube. Some friends have a narrowboat and inside
>>> it's extremely difficult to get any mobile reception ever. However,
>>> on the roof they have twin-aerials feeding a wifi hotspot, and if
>>> there's any coverage at all, that works better than a mobile from the
>>> towpath just because of the gain of the aerials.
>>
>> Emphasis on when it works.
>
> I've bought some new gadgets now, and the aerial gain is 15dB (I've
> since seen a 22dB one), added to the higher external mounting. So yes,
> it will work at more grid references than your phone in your pocket -
> even if you are stood on the towpath. RF engineering doesn't seem to be
> your forte.
>
>>>>>> they have at least before Starlink, been low bandwidth and high
>>>>>> latency, bringing their own problems.
>>>
>>>>>  I've always found them adequate for picking up emails, Usenet etc.
>>>>> Mobile network based wifi isn't suitable for streaming etc.
>>>>
>>>> When a meeting these days
>
>>> You always overestimate the prevalence of this, and of course
>>> there's plenty of things which can be done on the move that aren't
>>> live meetings.
>>
>> Based on my experience actually working in a corporate environment in
>> the modern world. Rather than anecdotes from the 1990s.
>
> Your experience is extremely unusual. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but
> it's not something to extrapolate to more than a tiny fraction of the
> workers out there.
>
> And what's with this 1990's thing? I only retired last December, and
> have plenty of experience with corporate environments all the way
> through this decade.

You retired from a part-time river warden's job. That's hardly a corporate
environment.

In message <vmx*RCVIz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 17:56:13 on Fri,
26 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>> There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to do
>> zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
>> life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
>> flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.
>
>If such a meeting is ongoing anyway, it is useful to be able to join it - if
>you are travelling for work during a work day then theoretically it's your
>employer's time, but in practice it may be useful for you to join such
>things and the meeting is not one that can be moved around to suit your
>personal schedule. It may not be the kind of meeting where you are
>intensively talking (I'd find it a bit rude to do that on a train) but if
>you're watching a presentation then you need both audio and video.

Would you being doing that on a Teams app on your phone, or is it only
much use on at least a laptop? I do have Teams on my phone, but I've
never used it, and I left the team which used it for the monthly team
meeting (boy, are we are wearing that word out...) in December.

There were about ten in that team, and the software was rarely used
for anything else as far as I could tell. Almost all *my* meetings or
correspondence with people was with outside the organisation, and
getting them enrolled into my Teams for a five minute chat is hopelessly
disproportionate (even if it was possible - the IT department is
certainly not going to give them an internal account to access).

>I sometimes listen in to such meetings when driving, although obviously
>there I can't see any video (some people also contribute from their cars,
>but not a great idea IMHO). Often such meetings are across timezones: if
>the meeting is scheduled for 1pm EST then you might be on your UK commute
>home and better to catch it on the train than sit in the office until it
>finishes.

When I was doing quite a lot of International conference calls, the time
picked was usually about 8pm UK time, because while not wildly
convenient for folks in Tokyo or Australia (5/6am) it was the
least-worst.

>There are also times where I've used remote desktops on the train - often in
>terms of setting a job that will take some hours to process and can be doing
>so while I'm elsewhere. (and then sorting it out when it failed and needs
>fixing and restarting)

Sure, but that's not a Teams meeting, and quite likely not doing
collaborative work on a large document.

>> All I use it for is email (incl Usenet) and very occasionally to check
>> progress/connections on RTT, which is pretty low bandwidth. But the
>> email is essential to keep up to speed with things.
>
>If your work is simple enough like that, fair enough. Not everyone's is.

Nor is many people's work as complicated and real-time as claimed. The
majority of workers probably don't do any of this, or alternatively sit
in front of banks of monitors that really couldn't take on the train
with you.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 08:48:38 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <vmx*RCVIz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 17:56:13 on Fri,
> 26 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>> There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to do
>>> zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
>>> life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
>>> flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.
>>
>>If such a meeting is ongoing anyway, it is useful to be able to join it
>>- if you are travelling for work during a work day then theoretically
>>it's your employer's time, but in practice it may be useful for you to
>>join such things and the meeting is not one that can be moved around to
>>suit your personal schedule. It may not be the kind of meeting where
>>you are intensively talking (I'd find it a bit rude to do that on a
>>train) but if you're watching a presentation then you need both audio
>>and video.
>
> Would you being doing that on a Teams app on your phone, or is it only
> much use on at least a laptop? I do have Teams on my phone, but I've
> never used it, and I left the team which used it for the monthly team
> meeting (boy, are we are wearing that word out...) in December.

I joined a Teams meeting from my phone just this morning; not something I
do very often, but if you're going to send me a meeting invite at midnight
the night before for a 9am meeting, that's the best you're going to get...

It's perfectly serviceable; everything works, I can't think of any
features that are missing compared to joining from the desktop. Just the
screen is a bit smaller which may entail a certain amount of squinting if
anyone is sharing screen.

If I do join from a phone often, it's probably in airports - if it's a
meeting I just want to keep abreast of rather than really actively
participating, a pair of noise-cancelling earbuds and joining from the
phone can be quite handy. I know colleagues who similarly join from the
phone in their car.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <vmx*RCVIz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 17:56:13 on Fri,
> 26 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
> >> There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to do
> >> zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
> >> life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
> >> flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.
> >
> >If such a meeting is ongoing anyway, it is useful to be able to join it - if
> >you are travelling for work during a work day then theoretically it's your
> >employer's time, but in practice it may be useful for you to join such
> >things and the meeting is not one that can be moved around to suit your
> >personal schedule. It may not be the kind of meeting where you are
> >intensively talking (I'd find it a bit rude to do that on a train) but if
> >you're watching a presentation then you need both audio and video.
>
> Would you being doing that on a Teams app on your phone, or is it only
> much use on at least a laptop? I do have Teams on my phone, but I've
> never used it, and I left the team which used it for the monthly team
> meeting (boy, are we are wearing that word out...) in December.

Teams/Zoom/Slack/Google Meet. I tend to use my phone when I'm not on camera
and there aren't slides/screen sharing that I need to see; the first three
don't work very well in browser. Most day to day stuff with screen sharing
is Google Meet which works better than the others IMX.

> There were about ten in that team, and the software was rarely used
> for anything else as far as I could tell. Almost all *my* meetings or
> correspondence with people was with outside the organisation, and
> getting them enrolled into my Teams for a five minute chat is hopelessly
> disproportionate (even if it was possible - the IT department is
> certainly not going to give them an internal account to access).

Platforms like Slack support the user being in disjoint multiple workspaces
at once: the private local one, our customer-facing one, a supplier's own
customer-facing one. It doesn't need interaction from IT: I can be signed
up to the supplier's slack with my email address if their IT lets me in, but
I don't need to coordinate with my IT.

Teams is a hastily cobbled together dog's breakfast, so I don't know what
how they handle it.

Zoom (which is not a collaboration platform like Teams/Slack) lets you
schedule random meetings with outsiders, that's kind of its main feature.
All you need is the meeting ID and login code.

> >I sometimes listen in to such meetings when driving, although obviously
> >there I can't see any video (some people also contribute from their cars,
> >but not a great idea IMHO). Often such meetings are across timezones: if
> >the meeting is scheduled for 1pm EST then you might be on your UK commute
> >home and better to catch it on the train than sit in the office until it
> >finishes.
>
> When I was doing quite a lot of International conference calls, the time
> picked was usually about 8pm UK time, because while not wildly
> convenient for folks in Tokyo or Australia (5/6am) it was the
> least-worst.

It's usually busy around 4-7pm UK, which is 8-11am California. I haven't
had calls with China but generally the thing to remember is to email them
before going to bed and you'll have an answer when you wake up.
(writing it down means they can translate as they wish, if they don't
speak English)

> >There are also times where I've used remote desktops on the train - often in
> >terms of setting a job that will take some hours to process and can be doing
> >so while I'm elsewhere. (and then sorting it out when it failed and needs
> >fixing and restarting)
>
> Sure, but that's not a Teams meeting, and quite likely not doing
> collaborative work on a large document.

No, but it's a need for low-latency video, not something that can be handled
with a slow connection.

> Nor is many people's work as complicated and real-time as claimed. The
> majority of workers probably don't do any of this, or alternatively sit
> in front of banks of monitors that really couldn't take on the train
> with you.

I'd be interested to know what proportion of people are using video calls
at work these days. I imagine it's reduced, but probably still high.

Theo

Am 30.04.2024 um 09:48 schrieb Roland Perry:
> In message <vmx*RCVIz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 17:56:13 on Fri,
> 26 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>> There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to do
>>> zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
>>> life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
>>> flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.
>>
>> If such a meeting is ongoing anyway, it is useful to be able to join
>> it - if
>> you are travelling for work during a work day then theoretically it's
>> your
>> employer's time, but in practice it may be useful for you to join such
>> things and the meeting is not one that can be moved around to suit your
>> personal schedule.  It may not be the kind of meeting where you are
>> intensively talking (I'd find it a bit rude to do that on a train) but if
>> you're watching a presentation then you need both audio and video.
>
> Would you being doing that on a Teams app on your phone, or is it only
> much use on at least a laptop? I do have Teams on my phone, but I've
> never used it, and I left the team which used it for the monthly team
> meeting (boy, are we are wearing that word out...) in December.

I use the phone to listen in while commuting to work. If video were
sufficiently important, I'd use a laptop; presentations on a mobile
phone are not my idea of fun.

In message <v0qp18$2f7fv$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:43:19 on Tue, 30 Apr
2024, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>Am 30.04.2024 um 09:48 schrieb Roland Perry:
>> In message <vmx*RCVIz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 17:56:13 on
>>Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to
>>>>do
>>>> zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
>>>> life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
>>>> flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.
>>>
>>> If such a meeting is ongoing anyway, it is useful to be able to join
>>>it - if you are travelling for work during a work day then
>>>theoretically it's your employer's time, but in practice it may be
>>>useful for you to join such things and the meeting is not one that
>>>can be moved around to suit your personal schedule.  It may not be
>>>the kind of meeting where you are intensively talking (I'd find it a
>>>bit rude to do that on a train) but if you're watching a
>>>presentation then you need both audio and video.

>> Would you being doing that on a Teams app on your phone, or is it
>>only much use on at least a laptop? I do have Teams on my phone, but
>>I've never used it, and I left the team which used it for the monthly
>>team meeting (boy, are we are wearing that word out...) in December.
>
>I use the phone to listen in while commuting to work. If video were
>sufficiently important, I'd use a laptop; presentations on a mobile
>phone are not my idea of fun.

We seem to have strayed a little from the original brief, which was the
suggestion that people used quite complicated collaborative software to
work on things like project plans and even engineering drawings. Not
just to chatter to one another.

The closest I've seen to that is half a dozen people trying to edit the
same Word document simultaneously, which doesn't really work very well.
Far easier in person when there's one keyboard operator and the others
are heckling across the room.
--
Roland Perry

In message <-vD*iIdJz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 13:20:51 on Tue,
30 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <vmx*RCVIz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 17:56:13 on Fri,
>> 26 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> >Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to do
>> >> zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
>> >> life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
>> >> flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.
>> >
>> >If such a meeting is ongoing anyway, it is useful to be able to join it - if
>> >you are travelling for work during a work day then theoretically it's your
>> >employer's time, but in practice it may be useful for you to join such
>> >things and the meeting is not one that can be moved around to suit your
>> >personal schedule. It may not be the kind of meeting where you are
>> >intensively talking (I'd find it a bit rude to do that on a train) but if
>> >you're watching a presentation then you need both audio and video.
>>
>> Would you being doing that on a Teams app on your phone, or is it only
>> much use on at least a laptop? I do have Teams on my phone, but I've
>> never used it, and I left the team which used it for the monthly team
>> meeting (boy, are we are wearing that word out...) in December.
>
>Teams/Zoom/Slack/Google Meet. I tend to use my phone when I'm not on camera
>and there aren't slides/screen sharing that I need to see; the first three
>don't work very well in browser. Most day to day stuff with screen sharing
>is Google Meet which works better than the others IMX.

I've always found that such things clash with corporate IT and
"security" policies which decree that everyone use their chosen
platform, even if many participants would prefer a different one.

Extending the group to people outside the organisation then creates even
more problems.

Your examples seem very conferencing centric, rather than working
collaboratively on a set of plans for a new jet engine (or whatever).

>> There were about ten in that team, and the software was rarely used
>> for anything else as far as I could tell. Almost all *my* meetings or
>> correspondence with people was with outside the organisation, and
>> getting them enrolled into my Teams for a five minute chat is hopelessly
>> disproportionate (even if it was possible - the IT department is
>> certainly not going to give them an internal account to access).
>
>Platforms like Slack support the user being in disjoint multiple workspaces
>at once: the private local one, our customer-facing one, a supplier's own
>customer-facing one. It doesn't need interaction from IT: I can be signed
>up to the supplier's slack with my email address if their IT lets me in, but
>I don't need to coordinate with my IT.

Hmm, most corporate IT departments I'm familiar with would fundamentally
ban people from deplying DIY solutions like that.

>Teams is a hastily cobbled together dog's breakfast, so I don't know what
>how they handle it.

Nobody got fired buying Microsoft.

>Zoom (which is not a collaboration platform like Teams/Slack) lets you
>schedule random meetings with outsiders, that's kind of its main feature.

And if your compliance department insists on a recording of every
meeting (in lieu of minutes)?

>All you need is the meeting ID and login code.

I've got a paid-for Zoom which can generate such invitations, but I find
people get confused about which invitation is for which session and
hence it can take a while to get the meetings started.

>> >I sometimes listen in to such meetings when driving, although obviously
>> >there I can't see any video (some people also contribute from their cars,
>> >but not a great idea IMHO). Often such meetings are across timezones: if
>> >the meeting is scheduled for 1pm EST then you might be on your UK commute
>> >home and better to catch it on the train than sit in the office until it
>> >finishes.

Surely most people doing lots of this stuff will be working from home
nowadays?

>> When I was doing quite a lot of International conference calls, the time
>> picked was usually about 8pm UK time, because while not wildly
>> convenient for folks in Tokyo or Australia (5/6am) it was the
>> least-worst.
>
>It's usually busy around 4-7pm UK, which is 8-11am California. I haven't
>had calls with China but generally the thing to remember is to email them
>before going to bed and you'll have an answer when you wake up.

That's what I used to do with the Japanese (by FAX). The time difference
meant we got things done twice as fast.

>(writing it down means they can translate as they wish, if they don't
>speak English)
>
>> >There are also times where I've used remote desktops on the train - often in
>> >terms of setting a job that will take some hours to process and can be doing
>> >so while I'm elsewhere. (and then sorting it out when it failed and needs
>> >fixing and restarting)
>>
>> Sure, but that's not a Teams meeting, and quite likely not doing
>> collaborative work on a large document.
>
>No, but it's a need for low-latency video, not something that can be handled
>with a slow connection.

Not sure why you need low-latency video to start remote jobs.

>> Nor is many people's work as complicated and real-time as claimed. The
>> majority of workers probably don't do any of this, or alternatively sit
>> in front of banks of monitors that really couldn't take on the train
>> with you.
>
>I'd be interested to know what proportion of people are using video calls
>at work these days. I imagine it's reduced, but probably still high.

If it's "reduced" when do you think the heyday was (and using which
platforms)?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <-vD*iIdJz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 13:20:51 on Tue,
> 30 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <vmx*RCVIz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 17:56:13 on Fri,
>>> 26 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to do
>>>>> zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
>>>>> life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
>>>>> flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.
>>>>
>>>> If such a meeting is ongoing anyway, it is useful to be able to join it - if
>>>> you are travelling for work during a work day then theoretically it's your
>>>> employer's time, but in practice it may be useful for you to join such
>>>> things and the meeting is not one that can be moved around to suit your
>>>> personal schedule. It may not be the kind of meeting where you are
>>>> intensively talking (I'd find it a bit rude to do that on a train) but if
>>>> you're watching a presentation then you need both audio and video.
>>>
>>> Would you being doing that on a Teams app on your phone, or is it only
>>> much use on at least a laptop? I do have Teams on my phone, but I've
>>> never used it, and I left the team which used it for the monthly team
>>> meeting (boy, are we are wearing that word out...) in December.
>>
>> Teams/Zoom/Slack/Google Meet. I tend to use my phone when I'm not on camera
>> and there aren't slides/screen sharing that I need to see; the first three
>> don't work very well in browser. Most day to day stuff with screen sharing
>> is Google Meet which works better than the others IMX.
>
> I've always found that such things clash with corporate IT and
> "security" policies which decree that everyone use their chosen
> platform, even if many participants would prefer a different one.
>
> Extending the group to people outside the organisation then creates even
> more problems.
>
> Your examples seem very conferencing centric, rather than working
> collaboratively on a set of plans for a new jet engine (or whatever).
>
>>> There were about ten in that team, and the software was rarely used
>>> for anything else as far as I could tell. Almost all *my* meetings or
>>> correspondence with people was with outside the organisation, and
>>> getting them enrolled into my Teams for a five minute chat is hopelessly
>>> disproportionate (even if it was possible - the IT department is
>>> certainly not going to give them an internal account to access).
>>
>> Platforms like Slack support the user being in disjoint multiple workspaces
>> at once: the private local one, our customer-facing one, a supplier's own
>> customer-facing one. It doesn't need interaction from IT: I can be signed
>> up to the supplier's slack with my email address if their IT lets me in, but
>> I don't need to coordinate with my IT.
>
> Hmm, most corporate IT departments I'm familiar with would fundamentally
> ban people from deplying DIY solutions like that.
>
>> Teams is a hastily cobbled together dog's breakfast, so I don't know what
>> how they handle it.
>
> Nobody got fired buying Microsoft.
>
>> Zoom (which is not a collaboration platform like Teams/Slack) lets you
>> schedule random meetings with outsiders, that's kind of its main feature.
>
> And if your compliance department insists on a recording of every
> meeting (in lieu of minutes)?
>
>> All you need is the meeting ID and login code.
>
> I've got a paid-for Zoom which can generate such invitations, but I find
> people get confused about which invitation is for which session and
> hence it can take a while to get the meetings started.
>
>>>> I sometimes listen in to such meetings when driving, although obviously
>>>> there I can't see any video (some people also contribute from their cars,
>>>> but not a great idea IMHO). Often such meetings are across timezones: if
>>>> the meeting is scheduled for 1pm EST then you might be on your UK commute
>>>> home and better to catch it on the train than sit in the office until it
>>>> finishes.
>
> Surely most people doing lots of this stuff will be working from home
> nowadays?
>
>>> When I was doing quite a lot of International conference calls, the time
>>> picked was usually about 8pm UK time, because while not wildly
>>> convenient for folks in Tokyo or Australia (5/6am) it was the
>>> least-worst.
>>
>> It's usually busy around 4-7pm UK, which is 8-11am California. I haven't
>> had calls with China but generally the thing to remember is to email them
>> before going to bed and you'll have an answer when you wake up.
>
> That's what I used to do with the Japanese (by FAX). The time difference
> meant we got things done twice as fast.
>
>> (writing it down means they can translate as they wish, if they don't
>> speak English)
>>
>>>> There are also times where I've used remote desktops on the train - often in
>>>> terms of setting a job that will take some hours to process and can be doing
>>>> so while I'm elsewhere. (and then sorting it out when it failed and needs
>>>> fixing and restarting)
>>>
>>> Sure, but that's not a Teams meeting, and quite likely not doing
>>> collaborative work on a large document.
>>
>> No, but it's a need for low-latency video, not something that can be handled
>> with a slow connection.
>
> Not sure why you need low-latency video to start remote jobs.
>
>>> Nor is many people's work as complicated and real-time as claimed. The
>>> majority of workers probably don't do any of this, or alternatively sit
>>> in front of banks of monitors that really couldn't take on the train
>>> with you.
>>
>> I'd be interested to know what proportion of people are using video calls
>> at work these days. I imagine it's reduced, but probably still high.
>
> If it's "reduced" when do you think the heyday was (and using which
> platforms)?

My experience is that in my line of work complex engineering drawings and
project plans are shared using collaborative platforms. We do it all the
time across countries and continents. At the start of covid multiple
platforms were in use. Over time most outfits I deal with have moved
towards Microsoft Teams. Teams has evolved rapidly over the last few years,
it’s really not the same product that it was a couple of years ago.

Now, do we use Teams on a phone on a train? Simple answer is no. Why? The
adoption and familiarity with Teams has pretty much eliminated travelling
for business meetings. Pre covid it was the senior managers who insisted on
physical meetings, mainly because they hadn’t bothered to learn how to use
the collaboration software. Got all the normal guff about how much better
it was to meet in person, but really they were covering up for their lack
of skills. Lockdown forced them into learning. So the idea of working on
the train on the train to or from an important meeting really isn’t a thing
anymore.

The downside is that it is now very much easier to generate a meeting, so
we perhaps have far too many these days.

In message <v0vc0c$3mt8o$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:31:40 on Thu, 2 May
2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <-vD*iIdJz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 13:20:51 on Tue,
>> 30 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <vmx*RCVIz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 17:56:13 on Fri,
>>>> 26 Apr 2024, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> There's a regular, posting here, who insists people will need it to do
>>>>>> zoom-type conferencing calls on the move, because such people's entire
>>>>>> life revolves around that type of working 24x7. I'm still so
>>>>>> flabbergasted I haven't responded yet to their latest assertions.
>>>>>
>>>>> If such a meeting is ongoing anyway, it is useful to be able to
>>>>>join it - if
>>>>> you are travelling for work during a work day then theoretically it's your
>>>>> employer's time, but in practice it may be useful for you to join such
>>>>> things and the meeting is not one that can be moved around to suit your
>>>>> personal schedule. It may not be the kind of meeting where you are
>>>>> intensively talking (I'd find it a bit rude to do that on a train) but if
>>>>> you're watching a presentation then you need both audio and video.
>>>>
>>>> Would you being doing that on a Teams app on your phone, or is it only
>>>> much use on at least a laptop? I do have Teams on my phone, but I've
>>>> never used it, and I left the team which used it for the monthly team
>>>> meeting (boy, are we are wearing that word out...) in December.
>>>
>>> Teams/Zoom/Slack/Google Meet. I tend to use my phone when I'm not on camera
>>> and there aren't slides/screen sharing that I need to see; the first three
>>> don't work very well in browser. Most day to day stuff with screen sharing
>>> is Google Meet which works better than the others IMX.
>>
>> I've always found that such things clash with corporate IT and
>> "security" policies which decree that everyone use their chosen
>> platform, even if many participants would prefer a different one.
>>
>> Extending the group to people outside the organisation then creates even
>> more problems.
>>
>> Your examples seem very conferencing centric, rather than working
>> collaboratively on a set of plans for a new jet engine (or whatever).
>>
>>>> There were about ten in that team, and the software was rarely used
>>>> for anything else as far as I could tell. Almost all *my* meetings or
>>>> correspondence with people was with outside the organisation, and
>>>> getting them enrolled into my Teams for a five minute chat is hopelessly
>>>> disproportionate (even if it was possible - the IT department is
>>>> certainly not going to give them an internal account to access).
>>>
>>> Platforms like Slack support the user being in disjoint multiple workspaces
>>> at once: the private local one, our customer-facing one, a supplier's own
>>> customer-facing one. It doesn't need interaction from IT: I can be signed
>>> up to the supplier's slack with my email address if their IT lets me in, but
>>> I don't need to coordinate with my IT.
>>
>> Hmm, most corporate IT departments I'm familiar with would fundamentally
>> ban people from deplying DIY solutions like that.
>>
>>> Teams is a hastily cobbled together dog's breakfast, so I don't know what
>>> how they handle it.
>>
>> Nobody got fired buying Microsoft.
>>
>>> Zoom (which is not a collaboration platform like Teams/Slack) lets you
>>> schedule random meetings with outsiders, that's kind of its main feature.
>>
>> And if your compliance department insists on a recording of every
>> meeting (in lieu of minutes)?
>>
>>> All you need is the meeting ID and login code.
>>
>> I've got a paid-for Zoom which can generate such invitations, but I find
>> people get confused about which invitation is for which session and
>> hence it can take a while to get the meetings started.
>>
>>>>> I sometimes listen in to such meetings when driving, although obviously
>>>>> there I can't see any video (some people also contribute from their cars,
>>>>> but not a great idea IMHO). Often such meetings are across timezones: if
>>>>> the meeting is scheduled for 1pm EST then you might be on your UK commute
>>>>> home and better to catch it on the train than sit in the office until it
>>>>> finishes.
>>
>> Surely most people doing lots of this stuff will be working from home
>> nowadays?
>>
>>>> When I was doing quite a lot of International conference calls, the time
>>>> picked was usually about 8pm UK time, because while not wildly
>>>> convenient for folks in Tokyo or Australia (5/6am) it was the
>>>> least-worst.
>>>
>>> It's usually busy around 4-7pm UK, which is 8-11am California. I haven't
>>> had calls with China but generally the thing to remember is to email them
>>> before going to bed and you'll have an answer when you wake up.
>>
>> That's what I used to do with the Japanese (by FAX). The time difference
>> meant we got things done twice as fast.
>>
>>> (writing it down means they can translate as they wish, if they don't
>>> speak English)
>>>
>>>>> There are also times where I've used remote desktops on the train
>>>>>- often in
>>>>> terms of setting a job that will take some hours to process and
>>>>>can be doing
>>>>> so while I'm elsewhere. (and then sorting it out when it failed and needs
>>>>> fixing and restarting)
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but that's not a Teams meeting, and quite likely not doing
>>>> collaborative work on a large document.
>>>
>>> No, but it's a need for low-latency video, not something that can be handled
>>> with a slow connection.
>>
>> Not sure why you need low-latency video to start remote jobs.
>>
>>>> Nor is many people's work as complicated and real-time as claimed. The
>>>> majority of workers probably don't do any of this, or alternatively sit
>>>> in front of banks of monitors that really couldn't take on the train
>>>> with you.
>>>
>>> I'd be interested to know what proportion of people are using video calls
>>> at work these days. I imagine it's reduced, but probably still high.
>>
>> If it's "reduced" when do you think the heyday was (and using which
>> platforms)?
>
>My experience is that in my line of work complex engineering drawings and
>project plans are shared using collaborative platforms.

No-one's doubting it happens, but how many people on a typical train
(parking the issue of less commuting and going to offsite meetings) need
to do that?

>We do it all the
>time across countries and continents. At the start of covid multiple
>platforms were in use. Over time most outfits I deal with have moved
>towards Microsoft Teams. Teams has evolved rapidly over the last few years,
>it’s really not the same product that it was a couple of years ago.
>
>Now, do we use Teams on a phone on a train? Simple answer is no. Why? The
>adoption and familiarity with Teams has pretty much eliminated travelling
>for business meetings. Pre covid it was the senior managers who insisted on
>physical meetings, mainly because they hadn’t bothered to learn how to use
>the collaboration software. Got all the normal guff about how much better
>it was to meet in person, but really they were covering up for their lack
>of skills. Lockdown forced them into learning.

A friend worked for an organisation which issued their managerial staff
with laptops, partly so they could work from home, but also so they
could access their files and so on when at an off-site meeting. (The
other people at these meetings typically wouldn't have any kind of
collaborative software because they did jobs which didn't require it,
and quite a few were retired).

On 02/05/2024 09:03, Roland Perry wrote:
> For you, but people still go to meetings. And commuting is rising
> because more and more companies insist on "hybrid" working, for example
> three days a week in the office, and two from home.

We were supposed to be Working From Home many years ago before it became
fashionable but it meant going straight out to jobs from and not having
meetings. I basically refused to do so and carried on travelling in
each day - only five or ten minutes journey.

My two colleagues were very keen on it and often would not go into the
teambase for long periods - which could mean they had things in their
van that I needed! The firm also only quoted our mobile numbers which
meant you could get people ringing with trivial questions when you were
driving or at home because they thought they were ringing you in the
office - so my company mobile was always put on divert when driving and
switched off the moment I finished work.

After I retired I had heard they were working from home even more. Then
later I got talking to one of them, they had realised there was plenty
of space at the teambase with no need to clear tables to find somewhere
to work. Also better broadband connection than they had at home, also
photocopier and good laser printer. And landline phone with no need to
stand outside to get a good mobile signal.

So they decided to go back to using the office at the teambase most of
the time - one of them having a new baby was also a factor!

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 02/05/2024 09:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>> For you, but people still go to meetings. And commuting is rising
>> because more and more companies insist on "hybrid" working, for example
>> three days a week in the office, and two from home.
>
>
>
> We were supposed to be Working From Home many years ago before it became
> fashionable but it meant going straight out to jobs from and not having
> meetings. I basically refused to do so and carried on travelling in
> each day - only five or ten minutes journey.
>
> My two colleagues were very keen on it and often would not go into the
> teambase for long periods - which could mean they had things in their
> van that I needed!

We worked the same, details in my memory are sketchy now but there was a
point where the inland revenue tried to argue that the trip to a worksite
from home was private milage which when added up
over the year would have affected what was paid as tax for having private
use of a company vehicle.
Fortunately being a large company our people dealt with them frequently and
stopped that nonsense.

GH