Maybe no cellphone coverage is not always a negative for Amtrak?

[flitcraft]

In an interesting article by a cognitive psychologist studying people's reactions to lack of cellphone coverage, the researcher looked at through-hikers on the Pacific Coast Trail and their attitudes regarding their ability to use their phones on the trail. First off, she saw that most first time through hikers were surprised to discover that significant portions of the trail had no cellphone coverage. At first they were upset or unhappy to not be able to use their phones in those areas. But, the longer they had been on the trail, the more they tended to describe the lack of coverage as a positive thing--relaxing not to be constantly plugged in. And, not surprisingly based on that discovery, experienced through-hikers when interviewed tended to focus much more on the advantages than the disadvantages of not able to access the Internet through their phones.

Maybe we over-estimate the negative impact for Amtrak on areas of limited or no cell coverage. It's true that if you are on Amtrak hoping to work, lack of coverage is a big drawback. But that reaction is most likely true for those on the NEC--where cell coverage is most robust. I have sometimes joked that one reason I like traveling on LD trains is to be able to put up an 'out of office' message saying, "On a trip where I can't get your emails, so I will not respond till I get back." I thought that might just be me, but it seems like I may not be alone...

 

[Mr.Technician]

Definitely agree, and I'm in the generation that grew up with phones all around. I'm looking at taking the SWC/CZ at the end of the semester and the lack of cell phone coverage is just fine.

 

[GAT]

As a retired person, for me, one major objective when on an LD train trip is to get away from instant communication except with the persons physically around me. I will leave a message on my phone to text me only in an emergency, and I will check it briefly on my layovers in CHI, ATL, and NIB. Except for those brief moments, my phone will be off for 15 days.

 

[me_little_me]

I am more concerned with missing an urgent call from family or having to make one. I think of it as a tool - and a cellphone can be a lot more valuable than duct tape or disinfectant wipes or a pry bar or ... when an urgent situation occurs elsewhere.

 

[Ryan]

If you want to unplug, you can, whether you have cell service or not.

If you need to be connected, the lack of cell service or other connectivity is a deal breaker.

Less choice in the matter is very rarely a good thing.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

No can do w/o cell service. Gotta keep up with the crazy posts on AU.

 

[bms]

Considering many passengers' complete lack of courtesy when using their phones, I wish there were more areas with no service.

 

[caravanman]

Many years ago, I got chatting to a Quaker friend of mine, who said he did not read the newspapers, or listen to broadcast news, on the basis that he felt it burdened him unnecessarily, as he could not resolve any of the issues presented.
I agree that switching my phone / internet off for a day or two is refreshing... One stops feeling "on call" 24/7 which can be nice.

 

[tricia]

In an interesting article by a cognitive psychologist studying people's reactions to lack of cellphone coverage, the researcher looked at through-hikers on the Pacific Coast Trail and their attitudes regarding their ability to use their phones on the trail. First off, she saw that most first time through hikers were surprised to discover that significant portions of the trail had no cellphone coverage. At first they were upset or unhappy to not be able to use their phones in those areas. But, the longer they had been on the trail, the more they tended to describe the lack of coverage as a positive thing--relaxing not to be constantly plugged in. And, not surprisingly based on that discovery, experienced through-hikers when interviewed tended to focus much more on the advantages than the disadvantages of not able to access the Internet through their phones.

Maybe we over-estimate the negative impact for Amtrak on areas of limited or no cell coverage. It's true that if you are on Amtrak hoping to work, lack of coverage is a big drawback. But that reaction is most likely true for those on the NEC--where cell coverage is most robust. I have sometimes joked that one reason I like traveling on LD trains is to be able to put up an 'out of office' message saying, "On a trip where I can't get your emails, so I will not respond till I get back." I thought that might just be me, but it seems like I may not be alone...

One clarification: It's the Pacific Crest Trail, not Coast. Runs through the mountains in WA, OR, and CA, much of it through places remote from civilization.

Count me among those who think that unreliable cellphone and internet coverage on long-distance trains is a feature, not a bug. Also that having so many of us in public spaces with heads in phones instead of actually being fully present explains a good bit about the loss of social glue and we're-in-this-together orientation in our current culture.

 

[me_little_me]

Considering many passengers' complete lack of courtesy when using their phones, I wish there were more areas with no service.

No, I'd rather see conductors be more aggressive about rude passengers. This country is becoming more like elementary school every day - if someone talks in the back of the class out of the teacher's sight, the teacher would often punish the whole class. Since the conductor knows who the offender is, a couple of warnings followed by a "request" to leave the train will do more to stop the problem than having dead areas or prohibiting phone use. I still like that conductor that made enough warnings about mask use to drive me crazy but then finally took action and removed the offenders. I got off at that station but I hope he gave one more warning - that some people were removed and that there would no longer be warnings to anyone already on the train.

 

[joelkfla]

No, I'd rather see conductors be more aggressive about rude passengers. This country is becoming more like elementary school every day - if someone talks in the back of the class out of the teacher's sight, the teacher would often punish the whole class. Since the conductor knows who the offender is, a couple of warnings followed by a "request" to leave the train will do more to stop the problem than having dead areas or prohibiting phone use. I still like that conductor that made enough warnings about mask use to drive me crazy but then finally took action and removed the offenders. I got off at that station but I hope he gave one more warning - that some people were removed and that there would no longer be warnings to anyone already on the train.

But there's no rule against talking on the phone. So where is the line drawn? Does the conductor alone decide whether the offender's voice volume is a punishable offense?

 

[zephyr17]

But there's no rule against talking on the phone. So where is the line drawn? Does the conductor alone decide whether the offender's voice volume is a punishable offense?

Yep, the conductor is the "captain of the ship" as it were.

 

[Ryan]

That doesn’t mean they get to just make up rules.

 

[Exvalley]

As a business traveler, decent cell coverage is why I feel comfortable taking the Lake Shore Limited. Access to email is vital to me for a 20+ hour trip.

 

[Brian Battuello]

Try the VIA Canadian sometime. Virtually no cell coverage for many hours at a time. A few brief moments in a station. Plus the extra strong glass in the dome car did a pretty good job of blocking signals even in towns.

 

[Brian Battuello]

I've told this before, but some years ago I commuted on Amtrak Stamford to Boston. There was a large dead zone in Rhode Island. People would call over and over. And in those days some Amfleet cars had a "pay" phone in a sort of a booth at the end of the car. People in the middle of a deal would rush up and try to use the pay phone, not realizing that it used the same cell service.

Edited to remove pejorative about types of people making calls. Detracted from my main point about the bad service. Original available in quote below.

 

[SarahZ]

It was fun to watch dozens of business dweebs calling and recalling.

Are you seriously making fun of people for trying to do their job? Many people work while commuting.

 

[Brian Battuello]

And while we're on the subject, I've always enjoyed the process of taking the train, usually the CZ, through corn country. You'd see nothing but corn for miles, then a few houses, a few signs, a gas station and a feed store, then suddenly more older houses, an old station on one side and silos on the other, square streets going off to the north, then the process reversing back to corn. And with this, my cell would go from no signal, to O, then E, then 3G for a few minutes, then back to E, O and null.

 

[jis]

No can do w/o cell service. Gotta keep up with the crazy posts on AU.

It is even tougher when it is your job to keep the posts on AU from becoming too crazy

 

[Brian Battuello]

This was in the earlier days of cellphones, when connections were shaky at best, and it seemed that many people tried to compensate by shouting into their phones. I'm not being judgemental, just remembering how loud the situation was. People seem calmer on the phone these days. And the quiet car works fairly well, I've seen relatively few incidents and people are usually pretty good about stepping into the next car or the lounge to take a call.

I once sat just behind a person doing a therapy session on a phone for 45 minutes. Strange how people don't seem to realize that people around them can hear every word they're saying. And of course it would be rude to respond in any way to what they perceive as private.

 

[Cal]

Personally I am fine without cell service, and see it as a good thing in most cases. But I understand how it is necessary for some situations.

 

[Asher]

Back in the day when suitcase size cell phones, flip phones, pagers were in vogue I was happy to shut them all down. After much prodding I got a smart phone. A whole different thing.

 

[bratkinson]

Having been retired for over 7 years, count me as one of those who got along perfectly fine for 54 years of his life without a cell phone. I finally broke down and got one and use it for 'entertainment' while waiting in doctors' offices, or as my internet connection to my laptop while traveling, especially on western LD trains to connect for a few minutes while stopped in various cities.

That being said, a medical problem the first part of this month put me in the local hospital for 10 days. Having only the cell phone to 'connect' to the outside world with (other than the TV and room phone), I quickly discovered that I had woefully failed to sufficiently prepare the cell phone for such a situation. I managed to 'limp along' connecting to friends using texts only, as I had never resolved an email sending issue on the phone. I managed to connect to maybe 5 or so of the 40+ websites I typically access every day at home.

Whether I wanted to or not, I became 'semi-addicted' to the phone and started checking it almost hourly. Now home, I check it every couple hours for texts. I now fully understand how the under-50 folks have become so thoroughly addicted to them. Maybe it works like cocaine in ones' brain. I wouldn't be surprised at all if when cell service is 'unavailable', that those addicted start having withdrawal issues like junkies.

On the plus side, I've already completed a number of steps to 'boost' my cell phone abilities from email and creating and HTML file of all my 'favorites' sites and putting that on the phone. Within a week or so, I expect to be as 'road ready' with my cell phone as those who are fully addicted to them.

 

[caravanman]

It is even tougher when it is your job to keep the posts on AU from becoming too crazy

Indeed, I gather even Penny was teetotal before she became a mod?

 

[jebr]

But there's no rule against talking on the phone. So where is the line drawn? Does the conductor alone decide whether the offender's voice volume is a punishable offense?

I do think it would be good for Amtrak to develop an official policy regarding phone call etiquette. Personally, I would lean towards requiring long/frequent calls to be held in the cafe or lounge car. Maybe calls over 2 minutes or more than 2 calls within 30 minutes need to be held in the lounge car? That would at least establish a guideline that allows for quick calls at your seat (letting someone know you need to be picked up, etc.) but pushing longer calls to a dedicated area.