"Testing" Wi-Fi on the Starlight

[guest]

Maybe they will charge in normal cases, but refund the money when the train is running 14 hours late and everyone is bored out of their minds because they've had their fill of scenery and greasy spoon diner food at that point. :lol:

 

[Lars]

Free is coming. It's Google'w World, we just live in it.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20...1/google-we.ars

BTW, i LOVE my new Nexus One phone. I didn't throw the iPhone away, but I'm going to sell it on ebay.

 

[ThayerATM]

Wireless is great, but someone has to foot the bill, and ultimately it will probably be the consumer, either in the form of an extra use fee, or a higher price for the room on the train.
I can kick and scream, fling myself on the floor and kick my hands and feet, and stuff beans in my nose. But, ultimately, if I want it, I'm going to have to pay for it. What ever happened to the "free lunch?" :lol:

You already do. What does Google charge you for using their exceptional search engine, their document server, their mail system, their global map, their city view stuff, their web browser? Nothing. They charge you diddly squat. They sell practically no computer services to the average user. None. Yet... They made nearly $22 billion in revenue and a net income of almost $4.5 billion (an unbelievable margin, by the way).

The internet is not now, has never been, and never will be, free. The internet is like television. Television was paid for by advertising revenue. So is the internet. "Free Internet Here" is an advertisement. It makes me decide to have my coffee in this location rather than that one. You don't offer free wifi? I ain't drinkin' my coffee here. It has become a standard cost of doing business, built into the prices of the food such shops sell.

Since shortly after some nutcases decided to raise my favourite Manhattan restaurant with a jet plane, I have not flown. Were I making an income, I'd be paying taxes to pay for people who do fly to be "secure" in the knowledge they will not be allowed a scrap of dignity. Doesn't matter that I refuse to have my dignity taken from me. I'd still have to pay for it.

The Internet is populated by a counter culture who feels that everything should cost nothing. If the New York Times wants to make the financial mistake of the century, they can start attempting to charge for their newspaper. It won't last long, I assure you. Other unbiased reporting mechanisms will spring forth to take its place without charging a penny. That is the beauty of the world being networked.

GML,

Most of what you've said it true. If you could put in simpler terms, you might even consider earning an income being an economics professor.

That having been said --- it is ultimately the consumer who pays the freight.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy getting the NYT free, as well as the WaPo. But I think that their hopes of advertising on their sites paying for their service is drying up. The income from advertising just isn't enough.

I think the same situation will come from Amtrak installing wifi. Ultimately the user (we) will have to pay for it, through increased ticket prices, or an extra user fee. And as you mention, if Amtrak continues to pick up the entire cost, then we, as taxpayers, will foot the bill. :lol: I don't see how we can get out of it. :lol:

 

[EB_OBS]

I stay in hotels somewhere several times a week. I'm still amazed that I find ones that do not have free wi-fi. Even the crew hotel in Chicago charges for internet access in the room.

I do believe the service Amtrak is trying out is satellite based. As stated in the thread satellite internet is more expensive than cellular and wired services. The minimum charge I've experienced in hotels and airports is $10, so $5 seems reasonable. Also since I've moved to Montana, I've met some people who live out in rural areas and have Hughes satellite internet. I was surprised it's actually quite speedy surfing the web. The lag is what's most noticeable. Once the data starts coming though it's pretty fast.

 

[rrdude]

Was the WIFI available on the whole train? Or just the PPC?

Again not sure. I was in the PPC when I was asked if I had a laptop, and the woman who gave the feedback was also using her laptop in the PPC. I'm not sure if it was available on the whole train. Would a Wi-Fi signal travel and be available the length of the train?

Also, the customer service manager also said that in the future there will be a $5.00 charge to use the Wi-Fi on board, if the "tests" are successful and they go forward with it.

Booooooo. Amtrak charging for the wifi. Can they at least make it free for sleeper pax?

I agree. Sleeper pax are already paying more for "First Class Service". It should be included as an amenity.

They already charge $5 for the wine tasting for the Sleeper pax.

I'd pay. Eventually it will be free. Seems to always go that way. Hotels, Starbucks, Mickey D's,.................

 

[alanh]

Regardless of the system chosen, the internet service is going to be spotty in places. The CZ through the Rockies has dozens of tunnels, plus deep canyons where there's no cell signal and probably no line-of-sight to the Hughes satellite either.

 

[Roadfool]

Eventually it will be free. Seems to always go that way. Hotels, Starbucks, Mickey D's,.................

As much as I'd love to see this happen, I don't think it will. Places like Starbucks and McDs are only offering free wifi so you'll stay there longer and buy more food. And in my recent experience, it's only the cheap hotels that still have free wifi. The more expensive places (and Vegas casinos ) know their customers aren't cost-sensitive enough to worry about an extra $11.99/day. If they need internet access badly enough, they'll just pay it and not worry about it.

I think Amtrak might have missed its market for this one. A few years ago, they probably could have gotten a lot of business travelers to pay a reasonable $5 fee. Unfortunately, most people who need internet that badly when they travel now have netbooks, data cards, or smartphones so they don't have to rely on the hotel/airport's bad connection or ridiculous charges.

 

[bretton88]

Eventually it will be free. Seems to always go that way. Hotels, Starbucks, Mickey D's,.................

As much as I'd love to see this happen, I don't think it will. Places like Starbucks and McDs are only offering free wifi so you'll stay there longer and buy more food. And in my recent experience, it's only the cheap hotels that still have free wifi. The more expensive places (and Vegas casinos ) know their customers aren't cost-sensitive enough to worry about an extra $11.99/day. If they need internet access badly enough, they'll just pay it and not worry about it.

I think Amtrak might have missed its market for this one. A few years ago, they probably could have gotten a lot of business travelers to pay a reasonable $5 fee. Unfortunately, most people who need internet that badly when they travel now have netbooks, data cards, or smartphones so they don't have to rely on the hotel/airport's bad connection or ridiculous charges.

Ummmmmmmm, all the Marriotts and Hiltons (not exactly shabby places, and in good locations like downtown Chicago and central Boston) that I've stayed in had free wifi (or wired internet). It's the Motel 6s (now those are cheap motels) that I've stayed in, that have charged for internet. I guess you might consider it not free in that you had to have a room to stay in to enjoy the free wifi. Amtrak could do the same, set up a log in so that sleeper passengers can get access for free (as an amenity of the room upgrade) . Maybe charge coach passengers for access.

 

[amamba]

Eventually it will be free. Seems to always go that way. Hotels, Starbucks, Mickey D's,.................

As much as I'd love to see this happen, I don't think it will. Places like Starbucks and McDs are only offering free wifi so you'll stay there longer and buy more food. And in my recent experience, it's only the cheap hotels that still have free wifi. The more expensive places (and Vegas casinos ) know their customers aren't cost-sensitive enough to worry about an extra $11.99/day. If they need internet access badly enough, they'll just pay it and not worry about it.

I think Amtrak might have missed its market for this one. A few years ago, they probably could have gotten a lot of business travelers to pay a reasonable $5 fee. Unfortunately, most people who need internet that badly when they travel now have netbooks, data cards, or smartphones so they don't have to rely on the hotel/airport's bad connection or ridiculous charges.

Ummmmmmmm, all the Marriotts and Hiltons (not exactly shabby places, and in good locations like downtown Chicago and central Boston) that I've stayed in had free wifi (or wired internet). It's the Motel 6s (now those are cheap motels) that I've stayed in, that have charged for internet. I guess you might consider it not free in that you had to have a room to stay in to enjoy the free wifi. Amtrak could do the same, set up a log in so that sleeper passengers can get access for free (as an amenity of the room upgrade) . Maybe charge coach passengers for access.

I must respectfully disagree. I travel fairly often for business and I almost always stay at Sheratons, Marriotts, and Westins. All three of those brands in major cities tend to charge $9.99 - $12.99 for wireless. In fact, I was just at a conference at the Westin Copley Place (Boston) last week and wireless in the rooms was a FEE basis. It seems to be the hampton inn type places that have free internet, while the hotels at the next tier up tend to charge.

 

[Guest_inspiration100]

Should be free. Probably wouldn't use it for the fee. Can get free wifi at many station stops from unsecured connections.

 

[Ryan]

Eventually it will be free. Seems to always go that way. Hotels, Starbucks, Mickey D's,.................

As much as I'd love to see this happen, I don't think it will. Places like Starbucks and McDs are only offering free wifi so you'll stay there longer and buy more food. And in my recent experience, it's only the cheap hotels that still have free wifi. The more expensive places (and Vegas casinos ) know their customers aren't cost-sensitive enough to worry about an extra $11.99/day. If they need internet access badly enough, they'll just pay it and not worry about it.

I think Amtrak might have missed its market for this one. A few years ago, they probably could have gotten a lot of business travelers to pay a reasonable $5 fee. Unfortunately, most people who need internet that badly when they travel now have netbooks, data cards, or smartphones so they don't have to rely on the hotel/airport's bad connection or ridiculous charges.

Ummmmmmmm, all the Marriotts and Hiltons (not exactly shabby places, and in good locations like downtown Chicago and central Boston) that I've stayed in had free wifi (or wired internet). It's the Motel 6s (now those are cheap motels) that I've stayed in, that have charged for internet. I guess you might consider it not free in that you had to have a room to stay in to enjoy the free wifi. Amtrak could do the same, set up a log in so that sleeper passengers can get access for free (as an amenity of the room upgrade) . Maybe charge coach passengers for access.

I must respectfully disagree. I travel fairly often for business and I almost always stay at Sheratons, Marriotts, and Westins. All three of those brands in major cities tend to charge $9.99 - $12.99 for wireless. In fact, I was just at a conference at the Westin Copley Place (Boston) last week and wireless in the rooms was a FEE basis. It seems to be the hampton inn type places that have free internet, while the hotels at the next tier up tend to charge.

I'm with the amamba on this one - the expensive joints have always charged in my experience, and the Hampton Inn and Super 8's have that for free.

 

[wayman]

I must respectfully disagree. I travel fairly often for business and I almost always stay at Sheratons, Marriotts, and Westins. All three of those brands in major cities tend to charge $9.99 - $12.99 for wireless. In fact, I was just at a conference at the Westin Copley Place (Boston) last week and wireless in the rooms was a FEE basis. It seems to be the hampton inn type places that have free internet, while the hotels at the next tier up tend to charge.

Is this a regional thing? I've been in a Hilton, a Radisson, and a Sheraton in the past month, in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, all with free WiFi.

As for Vegas casinos, there was free WiFi in the Venetian. I'm pretty sure there was not in Caesar's or the Wynn. Note that I'm talking specifically about the poker rooms, not any other part of the casinos (why would you go to any other part? ).

 

[rrdude]

Eventually it will be free. Seems to always go that way. Hotels, Starbucks, Mickey D's,.................

I think Amtrak might have missed its market for this one. A few years ago, they probably could have gotten a lot of business travelers to pay a reasonable $5 fee. Unfortunately, most people who need internet that badly when they travel now have netbooks, data cards, or smartphones so they don't have to rely on the hotel/airport's bad connection or ridiculous charges.

THAT's WHY it will be free, they missed the market, and the bulk of travelers don't have wi-fi cards, and the time on a train is too long, so in order to be competitive............ it will be free, or "included" in tix price........

"Free" is a word with many connotations.

 

[transit54]

I must respectfully disagree. I travel fairly often for business and I almost always stay at Sheratons, Marriotts, and Westins. All three of those brands in major cities tend to charge $9.99 - $12.99 for wireless. In fact, I was just at a conference at the Westin Copley Place (Boston) last week and wireless in the rooms was a FEE basis. It seems to be the hampton inn type places that have free internet, while the hotels at the next tier up tend to charge.

Is this a regional thing? I've been in a Hilton, a Radisson, and a Sheraton in the past month, in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, all with free WiFi.

Most hotels I've stayed at offer free WiFi in the lobby. But as far as free internet (wifi or otherwise) in the room, there's usually a charge. I was at a Hilton in Boston last month and there was a charge in the area of ~$10 for internet. I just pulled out my cell card.

 

[rrdude]

I must respectfully disagree. I travel fairly often for business and I almost always stay at Sheratons, Marriotts, and Westins. All three of those brands in major cities tend to charge $9.99 - $12.99 for wireless. In fact, I was just at a conference at the Westin Copley Place (Boston) last week and wireless in the rooms was a FEE basis. It seems to be the hampton inn type places that have free internet, while the hotels at the next tier up tend to charge.

Is this a regional thing? I've been in a Hilton, a Radisson, and a Sheraton in the past month, in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, all with free WiFi.

Most hotels I've stayed at offer free WiFi in the lobby. But as far as free internet (wifi or otherwise) in the room, there's usually a charge. I was at a Hilton in Boston last month and there was a charge in the area of ~$10 for internet. I just pulled out my cell card.

Well that is true, the HIGHER-END lodging properties usually DO charge for the wi-fi, while the mid to economy priced properties do not. I was working with Amtrak on this over ten years ago on the NEC. (along with some other POS / Food Inventory type stuff) And back then it was a classic case of trying to educate them on the "why" this is important.

The costs have gone down a little since then though, so I see no reason not to implement systemwide...........

 

[Montanan]

I travel a fair amount, as well, and as an overall rule it seems like the hotels that charge for Internet are the ones where most of the guests are business travelers who can add the charge to their expense accounts. (Since I don't fall into that high-end category, I do my best to avoid such places.) There's no doubt, though, that the practice of charging for Internet access at hotels is becoming less common.

And knowing Amtrak, I would certainly expect them to charge separately for wifi ... but I don't think it's a good idea. As I said, charging for wifi is becoming less common overall, and the bus companies that are starting to offer wifi are doing so for free. If you're a traveler for whom the added fee isn't a concern, you're also more likely to be a traveler who's able to provide his own internet access via a cell card or smartphone.