please empty your brain below
OMG! I actually saw one of these monstrosities for the first time plonked almost in the middle of Sutton High Street late yesterday afternoon.

I didn't have time to note which one it is nor appreciate its many features other than it is an alien, incongruous, and overbearing feature, completely out of keeping with the townscape (planning parlance).

Once again, I despair.

Ken | 10.01.18 - 7:30 a.m. | #

...which explains how phone calls get to be free.

With many phone providers, phone calls to UK landlines (and with some, UK mobiles too!) are already free.

UK phone companies are just ripping off consumers by charging for phone calls.

Jon Jones | 10.01.18 - 7:36 a.m. | #

Like Ken, I had no idea what this was when I saw one being installed in Hammersmith.

Amazing that you can’t use a phone in your car, but everyone is happy for you to be distracted by adverts at every turn.

Matthew | 10.01.18 - 7:43 a.m. | #

Congratulations London! You now have the same street furniture as Manhattan. The homeless will have a charge station for their cell phones and will be able to watch pornography on line round the clock.

BRIAN BERKE | Homepage | 10.01.18 - 7:46 a.m. | #

So at least two positive aspects, Brian.

Is planning permission required to site an intrusive and distracting illuminated billboard adjacent to the carriageway?

dg writes: Yes. [Stroudley Walk] [Bow Road]

Andrew | 10.01.18 - 8:23 a.m. | #

I imagine these also have cameras that film your every move and sell that data onto advertisers, as well as using the WiFi to log who walks past with WiFi on their phone turned on.

Luke | 10.01.18 - 8:31 a.m. | #

These links are much less intrusive in the landscape than red phone boxes. They have free wifi and charging points. I rather like them but then I take no notice of the adverts. If I want something I get it rather than buy something that's advertised. I'm surprised most people don't do the same.

Richard | Homepage | 10.01.18 - 8:32 a.m. | #

The planning situation is not straightforward because the phone companies are using 'statutory undertaker' rights to circumvent both planning and advertising restrictions - will require legislation or our city centres will not be able to stop these spreading pretty much unhindered.

Jim Brettell | 10.01.18 - 8:34 a.m. | #

'Step-change' = transatlantic abomination. How dare you DG! ;)

Bruce Wayne | 10.01.18 - 8:43 a.m. | #

'Planning permission passed, prostituting our pavements with paid-for-pixels.' was too seductive an alliteration for me not to want to see it here.

| 10.01.18 - 8:45 a.m. | #

Thanks @Jim, I knew something had to be circumvented for these illuminated signs to sprout up so quickly without so much as a shrug.

b | 10.01.18 - 8:53 a.m. | #

They _could_ be used to display useful information or news. But watch out for hackers displaying what they want!

Half a physicist | 10.01.18 - 9:04 a.m. | #

There's one in Elm Park on the Broadway by the bus stop. Not sure if it's exactly the same model, but they promise to plant a tree for each one installed.

Running Correspondent | 10.01.18 - 9:10 a.m. | #

@Bruce
'step change' comes from science and maths. It's not a transatlantic term per se.

AlanBG | 10.01.18 - 9:18 a.m. | #

Great idea. Most of the current phone boxes are stink pits and better off replaced. You are such a grump, DG.

Mark | 10.01.18 - 10:00 a.m. | #

Most of the slamdoor "stink pits" were replaced years ago, Mark.

Keith | 10.01.18 - 10:18 a.m. | #

It's a horrible idea that should have been strangled at birth. A hideous commercial intrusion into the landscape, a dangerous distraction for drivers and cyclists (watch the accident rates increase) and not even mitigated by a proper phone box that offers privacy and shelter from wind, noise and rain.

No-one will use them, as the telcos know full well. The phone and all the other gimmicks are just a ruse to sugar the pill, and no doubt they will soon fail or end up vandalised. I hope councils will see through this scam and always refuse planning permission for these carbuncles.

Gerry | 10.01.18 - 10:36 a.m. | #

Thanks, DG, for explaining what these 'Link' monoliths are. They've been appearing round here (Fulham & Putney) and I'd been meaning to Google them to find out what they were.

Strikes me that they are totally counter-intuitive for those without mobiles ( and some still without land-lines) who might need a 'phone-box. Those to whom the way to use a 'Link' station is intuitive will certainly have an all-singing, all-dancing mobile anyway.

And carry your own headset ???!!!*!*!*

Nameless | 10.01.18 - 10:58 a.m. | #

i think it's illegal/very-hard to remove a phonebox, even though they are hardly ever used these days - so this seems like a reasonable way of keeping a public phone (for very occasional use), and finding a way for it to pay for itself.

hopefully BT have blocked access to the sites that caused problems in NYC.

ADS | Homepage | 10.01.18 - 1:07 p.m. | #

Interesting to see how Mini Sugar is living up to daddy's penchant for abominable industrial design. I bet he doesn't have one of these hideous stumps outside his Essex mansion.
Planning law now is all about the bottom line. It appears to be almost illegal to build anything of beauty.

drD | Homepage | 10.01.18 - 2:10 p.m. | #

Jon Jones - you'll find that there's no such thing as a "free" call from mobiles and landlines. Ultimately you're paying for it via your contract payments (mobile) or monthly line rental payments (landline).

This is a rarity. A truly free phone call.

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 10.01.18 - 2:23 p.m. | #

We had an old type coin phone box across the street from where I live but it was removed (according to the poster affixed to it) "because of lack of use", indeed the only people I ever saw using it were persons arranging drug deals, a quick call, a few minutes hanging around and then a BMW with dark windows would turn up and packages were exchanged, I was delighted when it was removed.

fishislandskin | 10.01.18 - 2:29 p.m. | #

I've used the Link system in NY, where density is much higher, and the free Wi-Fi reached into the window of my favorite bagel shop. It's going to be harder to get that same kind of casual use here, but given the prevalance of online social services, it's useful in helping to reduce barriers to access. The NYC system also features a lot of adverts for the city, including historical tidbits and trivia, so if we're going to get the same here,I say huzzah.

Ann | 10.01.18 - 3:02 p.m. | #

Adrian Short has written a good account of what's in and what's behind the Link boxes. As others have said, their function has very little to do with facilitating phone calls.

https://www.adrianshort.org/posts/2017/bt-inlink-london-smart-city/

dg writes: Oh, that's interesting/unnerving

marek | 10.01.18 - 6:44 p.m. | #

@ marek

I'm not at all surprised: the new Link installations are certainly not there to facilitate phone calls. That's just PR bait to appease local councillors who might mistakenly think that they should approve them as being a benefit to the public.

For years BT has tried to make phone boxes as unattractive as possible: zero maintenance so they end up unlit, filthy, graffitied, often with missing glass etc. The 60p minimum fee is a deterrent, especially when you lose the lot because the called party is busy and you're compulsorily diverted to 1571. But that assumes you're lucky enough to be able to make a call: more likely it's no dial tone, iffy keypad buttons, the coinbox not accepting coins (or even removed entirely so you can only make astronomically expensive reverse charge calls).

Surprise, surprise, no one uses them so BT stick a notice on them saying they will soon be removed unless people object. Of course, the notices don't give any specific contact details or numbers, so nobody objects and the phone box duly disappears.

If BT can't even be bothered to maintain revenue-generating phone boxes, they certainly won't maintain the new Link phones where every call made will cost them money. Only the advertising screens will be looked after, along with whatever unpublicised surveillance and tracking equipment is attached to them.

Gerry | 10.01.18 - 7:30 p.m. | #

As a Generic Grumpy Middle Aged Man, I am outraged by this thoughtless assault on common values and I bemoan the erosion of our society.

Generic Grumpy Middle Aged Man | 10.01.18 - 8:06 p.m. | #

Maybe the primary purpose of these things is to sell stuff, and any phone calls are an incidental benefit.

But if that is the case, it's really no different from commercial television channels. The programmes are an incidental benefit. But one that is widely appreciated.

Malcolm | 10.01.18 - 8:10 p.m. | #

"Subway station" isn't transatlantic, it's Glaswegian. The Glasgow Subway was the first railway in the world to use the name Subway.

But you knew that already.

| 10.01.18 - 8:26 p.m. | #

It would be interesting to know exactly what Primesight's weasel words about InLink really mean:-

"Real-time communication between cities, councils and consumers in the physical space"
"In-built environmental censors (sic) with the ability to provide data on a whole range of city issues including traffic flow and air pollution"
"The prospect of using third party data to custom target audiences"

It sounds very much like an attempt to revive the infamous 'snooping recycling bins' that tracked mobile users without their knowledge or consent, which the City of London banned back in 2013.

Gerry | 10.01.18 - 10:23 p.m. | #

Glasgow is across the Atlantic then? :)

GS | 10.01.18 - 10:55 p.m. | #

On comments that these things don't offer privacy for phone calls - well it seems a very long time ago since such a thing was what people expected/wanted.

The newer article on the Adrian Short blog on these things is also interesting / disturbing.

https://www.adrianshort.org/posts/2017/google-inlink-spy-kiosks-targeting-kids/

NickW | 11.01.18 - 12:10 a.m. | #

Forgive me for my naivety, but the "red button 999" thing comes handy when emergency arises -- one cannot expect mobiles are readily accessible in such situation(s).

Patrickov | 11.01.18 - 12:57 a.m. | #

@marek absolute sensationalist nonsense from Adrian Short. What a doom monger!

Mark | 11.01.18 - 1:28 p.m. | #

Adrian Short's comments, nonsense or otherwise, appear to have been taken down.

Bob L-S | 11.01.18 - 11:23 p.m. | #

@Ken
I saw that as I was walking past and wondered "why replace a phone box". I don't think it was working and didn't stop. Will look in more detail next time.

Roger | 14.01.18 - 11:58 a.m. | #

Adrian Short's blog is still gone.

That's "interesting/unnerving"

NickW | 14.01.18 - 12:22 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy