Passenger Trains > NYT blogger rips Amtrak wi-fi service

New York Times political blogger extraordinaire Nate Silver is less than impressed with Amtrak's onboard wi-fi service. Here are two of his Twiter posts from earlier today:

1) On Amtrak. We just learned, through the "Wire-Less World Wide Web" service on board, of the death of Princess Diana :-(

2) Amtrak internet is pretty fast considering that it's conducted by carrier pigeon.

Ouch!

For what the opinion of an actual user is worth, the service really isn't good.
It is more a curiosity than something you would want to rely on.

...just got back from there two weeks ago...

Blah blah WAAAHHHH!!!!

---

As one who has neither a cell phone nor laptop, but travels all over the world teaching and giving lectures, I cannot understand this obsession with wi-fi. My best work is done when I am away from electronic media. I get on a train to get away from all that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/12 17:12 by Ptolemy.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As one who has neither a cell phone nor laptop,
> but travels all over the world teaching and giving
> lectures, I cannot understand this obsession with
> wi-fi. My best work is done when I am away from
> electronic media. I get on a train to get away
> from all that.

=====================================================================

True, and once I saw it wasn't working well, I shut it off and did some reading
(there is not much scenery to "enjoy" between Philadelphia and New York and there
is no point in going to the cafe car to get something to eat).

But Amtrak ADVERTISES the availability of wi-fi; they should see to it that it's done
RIGHT, or just blow it off as the curiosity it is.

I understand (and laughed at) the whining baby, and I understand Ptolemy's point, too.

But Gene is correct, too. Amtrak advertises wi-fi and, just like any other business, it needs to deliver on what it advertises. If you don't want to provide a good service, don't advertise it.

I think that the point for any business, not just Amtrak, is that if you're going to advertise something as being available, it needs to be provided well.

FWIW, Nate Silver is a New York Times columnist who writes the "538" column (the number of electoral votes) and he called the 2012 election very, very accurately. He's respected for his election prognostications. His column is followed closely by political cognoscenti around the country. Or I'll put it another way; the man has influence with political movers and shakers. Doesn't make him good; doesn't make him special. It just makes him influential. It would be better for Amtrak if it was on his good side, if he said nice things about them.

I'd like to see Amtrak be successful, and it would be good if someone as influential as Nate Silver was complimentary about Amtrak.

knotch8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand (and laughed at) the whining baby,
> and I understand Ptolemy's point, too.
>
> But Gene is correct, too. Amtrak advertises wi-fi
> and, just like any other business, it needs to
> deliver on what it advertises. If you don't want
> to provide a good service, don't advertise it.
>
> I think that the point for any business, not just
> Amtrak, is that if you're going to advertise
> something as being available, it needs to be
> provided well.
>
> FWIW, Nate Silver is a New York Times columnist
> who writes the "538" column (the number of
> electoral votes) and he called the 2012 election
> very, very accurately. He's respected for his
> election prognostications. His column is followed
> closely by political cognoscenti around the
> country. Or I'll put it another way; the man has
> influence with political movers and shakers.
> Doesn't make him good; doesn't make him special.
> It just makes him influential. It would be better
> for Amtrak if it was on his good side, if he said
> nice things about them.
>
> I'd like to see Amtrak be successful, and it would
> be good if someone as influential as Nate Silver
> was complimentary about Amtrak.

Agree totally.

I use it, and don't use it....trains zip along in and out of cell sites' coverage, just like you do as your driving...I just wait for it to come back in and keep going. All this whining and knashing of teeth....as Shakespeare so aptly said, "is much ado about nothing"....

If a service is promised, the customer expects that service to work reliably. Period.

What you expect, vs. what you get, are always two different things....I still get amazed at the entitlement attitude of the folks on this board....if you don't like the Amtrak FREE wifi, no one is stopping you from hotspotting your phone....BTW, let us know how that works for ya.....I got a stack full of hurt feelings reports ready to go to send in just like someone else on this board who finds it classy to send snarky letters to CCJPA folks about inane stuff...

I think most Acela customers would prefer a reliable fee-based service to a free but unreliable one.

Dave

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think most Acela customers would prefer a
> reliable fee-based service to a free but
> unreliable one.
>
> Dave

And then you would complain because you now have to pay for it...or that it costs too much, or that it's a waste of tax payers money. Or any one of a million worthless gripes Amtrak passengers come up with on a daily basis. Poor Amtrak, no matter what they do, no matter how hard they try, you guys will just NEVER EVER BE HAPPY. Again, I get sick of it.

Give it a rest!


Costanza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DavidP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think most Acela customers would prefer a
> > reliable fee-based service to a free but
> > unreliable one.
> >
> > Dave
>
> And then you would complain because you now have
> to pay for it...or that it costs too much, or that
> it's a waste of tax payers money. Or any one of a
> million worthless gripes Amtrak passengers come up
> with on a daily basis. Poor Amtrak, no matter what
> they do, no matter how hard they try, you guys
> will just NEVER EVER BE HAPPY. Again, I get sick
> of it.

There are some people who should wear t-shirts reading "I Gripe Therefore I Am". A frequent theme in the "advice columns" in newspapers is the friend or relative who doesn't seem to be happy unless he or she is bellyaching about something. I remember the anecdote about a grouchy, negativistic fellow named Ed. One of his colleagues said, "In case of fire call Ed. He'll throw a wet blanket on it."

We were on the NEC a few months ago and used the wifi for the first time.

It really depends on your expectations - if you expect high speed connectivity "just like home," you're bound to be disappointed. It's a train, and I'm sure it's difficult to get good wifi in certain places.

If you are just glad to have some wifi, then the service is pretty good. It works well enough to take away any boredom from being on the train.

--jofegan

Not necessarily any better in Europe, although that might surprise many.

My beef on this issue is entirely unrelated to Amtrak. I have stayed at numerous motels where free wi-fi service was promised but the service was so lousy as to be worthless. Yes, I can live without it, but in some cases I would have chosen to stay somewhere else had I known the service would be so poor.

I have never tried to use Amtrak's wi-fi, or that of any bus company or airline. It's quite reasonable to think that service in a moving vehicle will not be as good as in a fixed location.

That said, it's also reasonable for this New York Times blogger to gripe when the service does not live up to what he believes was promised. That's who I'm defending here.

I sure hope you aren't in a service business, because with your attitude, you will go bankrupt and piss off a lot of people along the way.

Costanza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DavidP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think most Acela customers would prefer a
> > reliable fee-based service to a free but
> > unreliable one.
> >
> > Dave
>
> And then you would complain because you now have
> to pay for it...or that it costs too much, or that
> it's a waste of tax payers money. Or any one of a
> million worthless gripes Amtrak passengers come up
> with on a daily basis. Poor Amtrak, no matter what
> they do, no matter how hard they try, you guys
> will just NEVER EVER BE HAPPY. Again, I get sick
> of it.

I'm a weekly Amtrak commuter (between PHL and WAS), and I have an air card for my laptop, which I use in preference to Amtrak wi-fi. It's "free" because my employer pays for it. However, I think Toledopatch is right -- if you're running a service business, and you advertise a service as available, it ought to be available.

I've had okay experience with Amtrak wi-fi. Every now and then I realize I've forgotten to download the latest electronic issue of the Economist to my Kindle. As long as we're sitting in the station in WAS, I can do that easily. Once we're moving, the download usually blows up. Also, annoyingly, Amtrak's start page (where you have to accept the terms and conditions) frequently doesn't load properly. That leaves you "connected" but unable to do anything, and gets you a periodic pop-up reminder that the site is asking you to sign in. I usually end up turning off the wi-fi on my Kindle to avoid the annoyance.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My beef on this issue is entirely unrelated to
> Amtrak. I have stayed at numerous motels where
> free wi-fi service was promised but the service
> was so lousy as to be worthless. Yes, I can live
> without it, but in some cases I would have chosen
> to stay somewhere else had I known the service
> would be so poor.
>
> I have never tried to use Amtrak's wi-fi, or that
> of any bus company or airline. It's quite
> reasonable to think that service in a moving
> vehicle will not be as good as in a fixed
> location.
>
> That said, it's also reasonable for this New York
> Times blogger to gripe when the service does not
> live up to what he believes was promised. That's
> who I'm defending here.
>
> I sure hope you aren't in a service business,
> because with your attitude, you will go bankrupt
> and piss off a lot of people along the way.
>
> Costanza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > DavidP Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I think most Acela customers would prefer a
> > > reliable fee-based service to a free but
> > > unreliable one.
> > >
> > > Dave
> >
> > And then you would complain because you now
> have
> > to pay for it...or that it costs too much, or
> that
> > it's a waste of tax payers money. Or any one of
> a
> > million worthless gripes Amtrak passengers come
> up
> > with on a daily basis. Poor Amtrak, no matter
> what
> > they do, no matter how hard they try, you guys
> > will just NEVER EVER BE HAPPY. Again, I get
> sick
> > of it.

My business ticks along just fine, and luckily for me, I don't have to deal with Amtrak level people. The folks I deal with are far more intelligent. Why none of you can grasp the concept that a train MOVES from cell tower to cell tower and that coverage is going to be better in some areas rather than others is a mystery. Hey, I got an idea, why not string a SECOND cable on the NEC just for internet pickup through the catenary system. Hardwire the train right up to the internet...no more need for cell technology. Until then, they don't promise you great service, they don't tell you hey, this works all the time...they just say it's FREE....like a gift. And as usual, the entitlement crowdsters on here want to gripe....unbelievable....

When Amtrak California "beta-tested" the satellite-based WiFi service in the early to mid 2000's, I gave them a feedback on what I thought, including where it worked well, and where it didn't (the only tunnel on Cal-P at Costa, and under overpasses, like at Fairfield-Suisun). Digital addiction was quite tame back in those days, where everyone posted images about 400x300 pixels in size, and web pages weren't infected with wasteful Javascript code, invasive ads, and Adobe Flash. I told them to charge for the service when it's ready for prime time. Of course, that never happened because Amtrak didn't go with the satellite service.

I have very little complaints about the Amtrak WiFi today because Trainorders don't hog up bandwidth (except for video, which is disabled), and oh yeah, no fancy ads! I also use the service to post timely heads-up to my Northern California friends on interesting train movements along Cal-P, which is just text characters. Yes, there are problems when I get disconnected while posting something which requires me to retype (I've learned to copy and paste stuff on the clipboard just for that purpose) but overall, Amtrak's WiFi does the job.

And yes it ran quicker the first week it was launched, because very few people heard about it then. In fact, I was using it before it was officially announced. :-)

When I walk up and down the aisle to the Cafe Car for my breakfast burrito, I see about half a dozen to dozen people per car using computers on the average. Most of them are watching movies, so they aren't using the Amtrak WiFi. For people who are "working", they are using standalone applications like Excel, Word, or PowerPoint, so they probably aren't using that much bandwidth either. So it makes me wonder where the bandwidth have gone? Ads? "Automatic" updates to software that should have never been sold to begin with? Perhaps, people have "obese" data habits at home, and expect things to work the same everywhere, even in a mobile, shared environment like onboard trains.

Funny how the airlines (who use satellite) have always charged for the service? Yup, I've tried them onboard Virgin America, American, and Southwest, in that order. Maybe the Amtrak WiFi complainers should put up some money to get the quicker service they demand?