CashZone cash machine: Terrible UX

The cash machine at my local Co-Op used to be run by the Co-Op Bank. Then, this banking bit of the Co-Op had an encounter with a capital shortfall somewhere in the region of £1.5bn, and has since been restructured and rehabilitated.

As part of the restructure, the Co-Op group own less of the bank, and most of the cash machines which aren’t in a branch have been sold off to a commercial operator called CashZone, as part of a cost-cutting exercise.

It still gives out money, that’s fine. It’s the getting to the point where you get it which is frustrating.

The menu system is a paragon of terrible UI design. Here’s an example…

You tell it you want “Cash Only” from the list of options, and it asks you if you want to see your balance. No! If I’d wanted that I’d have pressed “Cash with Balance”. Likewise, if I’d wanted a receipt, I’d have pressed “Cash with Receipt”.

If I press “Cash Only”, I think it’s fairly safe to assume that I only want that.

Most of all, the “circular questioning” of the CashZone menu system seems to seriously confuse some folks. It’s clear that the transactions are taking longer since the machine was converted. It frequently has a queue of 4 or 5 people in front of it, where as it seldom had a queue of 1 or 2 before.

How is this supposed to be an improvement in service? Well, it isn’t. It’s a step back.

The CashZone menu system is an example of a terrible user experience, designed by someone who probably never has to use the damned thing.

However, Co-Op have made £35m out of wasting our time, so that’s okay, I suppose?

Update: One of my twitter followers @jamesheridan pointed out that CashZone may receive a micro-payment for showing a balance enquiry. Still doesn’t make it any less slower or sucky.

Premier Inn Wifi – If only it were consistent.

I recently heaped praise on Premier Inn for providing a good wifi service in one of their hotels.

Sadly, this is not consistent across all their properties. I’m currently staying in another Premier Inn just down the road from the one with the good wifi (which was already full for this evening).

The wifi performance here isn’t great at all…

This is as good as it got. Fail.

This is as good as it got. Fail.

It does have sensibly laid out 5GHz and 2.4GHz spectrum like the other Premier Inn, so it seems the wifi architecture is sound, however what’s different here is the backhaul technology.

The other property was on what appeared to be a VDSL line from a more specialist business ISP. It also had the advantage that it was only shared between about 20-odd rooms.

This Premier Inn is much larger, but based on the ISP (Sharedband) it is likely to be using a link-bundled ADSL2 connection, and is shared amongst many more users – about 140 rooms. I’ve noticed several other Arqiva-managed hotspots using Sharedband as the backhaul technology, and these all have suffered from very slow speeds, high latency and signs of heavy oversubscription and congestion.

Notice the “star rating” on the Speedtest above. One star. Lots of unhappy punters?

I’m currently getting better performance on a 3G modem. (No 4G coverage on my provider in this area.)

It would be great if Premier Inn could offer a more consistent experience in it’s wifi product, and I mean a consistently good experience such as the one I enjoyed just up the road in Abingdon, and not the lowest common denominator of the congested barely useable mess here.

They aim for a consistent product in the rest of their offerings and for the most part achieve it, however if I was only staying here in this property, I’d be asking for a refund for the wifi charge.

Update at 1am in the morning, after the fire alarm went off around 11.30pm and caused the hotel to be evacuated…

I can just about get 3Mb/sec down (and less than 256k up) out of the connection here now, and I assume the large majority guests are sleeping. Still less than great. This is very obviously based around oversubscribed link-bundled ADSL stuff.

Driving in Malta – signs of madness?

Number two on the list of things not to do in Malta, according to my guidebook, is drive.

To a Maltese driver, it seems that road markings, signs, signals, and speed limits are advisory rather than mandatory. This means you need your wits about you.

That bit I actually found easy to cope with by reading the road, anticipating well ahead and driving assertively myself, or assertive as I could be in a tiny Kia with a sewing machine of an engine. Hills, of which Malta has many, meant changing down to 2nd and flooring it, thanks partly to the two suitcases in the boot. Fortunately, many natives also go for the small car too, so you know they are almost in the same boat as you. However, the locals have one big head start… Continue reading

Today’s wifi moan

Currently in St Julians, Malta. This spectrum makes me sad.

Of course, there's nothing in the 5GHz spectrum

Of course, there’s nothing in the 5GHz spectrum

Congested to hell, barely useable and riddled with “supposedly faster” wide channels.

What makes me even sadder is that the hotel wifi firewall is blocking all sorts of stuff, including ssh and vpns. Sigh.

Guess I’ll have to go back to the beach…

To the airline that can’t get wifi right

So, from the great wifi experience with Premier Inn earlier this week, to today’s naff one with BA.

I’m in BA’s lounge at Gatwick, and using their wifi service. Yes, it’s free, but it really is shockingly slow.

Is this IP over Gastropod carrier?

Is this IP over Gastropod carrier?

Let’s take a quick look at the radio spectrum with Wifi Explorer…

5G Spectrum, not congested, but lots of SSIDs on the same Aruba radioheads.

5G Spectrum, not congested, but lots of SSIDs on the same Aruba radioheads.

There’s an uncongested 5GHz spectrum, and the networks which are visible are all originated from the same three Aruba radio heads, so even though there’s multiple SSIDs on the same channels, at least they are orchestrated.

2.4GHz is a somewhat different story.


Icky, congested 2.4GHz.

However the one which really has earned the “slap” has to be the “wide” 2.4GHz signal…

No1 Lounge Staff, thanks for breaking it for everyone.

No1 Lounge Staff, thanks for breaking it for everyone.

Apparently, the staff at the No1 lounge think their own wifi is so bad, they have brought in their own DrayTek access point and are happily stomping over 60% of the 2.4GHz spectrum with their ridiculous wide signal.

It might be free wifi here, but it’s barely useable. :(

A hotel that got wifi right

Normally the one to highlight when something is done badly, I also want to give praise where it is due.

I’m currently staying in a Premier Inn in leafy Abingdon. The data service here that I’d normally tether to is next to non-existent, dropping out all over the place. It looks like I’m in the shadow of some structure, between me and the Three UK antenna. There are also a couple of water courses in between, which might be hindering the signal.

So, I’m forced onto one of my pet hates, paid-for hotel wifi. Remember that Premier Inn are marketed as a “no frills” hotel – but they are almost always spotlessly clean and consistent.

It was either pony up for that or go and track down (and pay for) an O2 PAYG data sim, as I do at least have line of sight from my room here to one of their masts.

Firstly, I fired up Wifi Explorer, and took a look at what is deployed here.

Nice, uncrowded 2.4GHz spectrum, sensibly placed channels.

Nice, uncrowded 2.4GHz spectrum, sensibly placed channels.

Not only was the 2.4GHz likely to work okay, but they also had 5GHz too!

Wow! 5Ghz as well.

Wow! 5Ghz as well.

So, I decided that it was worth a spin. I signed up for the free half hour. Then I actually found I could get real work done on this connection, so I gave it a speed test.

Reasonably speedy too. I'd guess it's a VDSL line.

Reasonably speedy too. I’d guess it’s a VDSL line. Might get crowded later, I guess?

Not only have they got 5GHz, but they have recently slashed their prices. Some would say that it should be free anyway, but £3 for the day, or £20 for a month seemed a reasonable deal, especially if you’re staying in a Premier Inn a lot (I’m actually back here again next week).

I’ve not tried connecting multiple devices simultaneously using the same login, but I suspect you can’t, which is possibly the only downside.

However, big props to the folks at Premier Inn for actually having a wifi install that works, even if that means having to pay for it. I’ve seen much worse services in high-end hotels which have under-provisioned, congested (and often expensive) 2.4GHz networks.

Credit where it is earned, indeed.

Public wifi – why use more radio spectrum than you need?

Here’s the second of my series of little rants about poor public wifi – this time, why use more spectrum than you need?

Using the Wifi Explorer tool, I was recently checking out a venue with a modern public wifi installation. Here’s what the 5GHz spectrum looked like:

crowded_5Ghz_spectrumI’ve redacted the SSIDs so that we aren’t naming names and we’re hopefully saving face.

You’re probably thinking “They aren’t using much spectrum at all“, right? All their access points are all clustered down on 4 channels – that in itself not being a good idea.

Note that they are using “wide” 40MHz channels – the signal from each access point is occupying two standard 20MHz channels. Networks are usually setup like this to increase the amount of available bandwidth, by using multiple signals on multiple radio channels at once between the base station and the client.

This was also a brand new installation, and the access points were supporting 802.11a, n and ac, and the Wifi Explorer tool reported each AP could support a theoretical speed of 540Mb/sec.

What if I told you the access circuit feeding this public wifi network, and therefore the most bandwidth available to any single client, was 100Mb/sec?

Vanilla 802.11a would give a maximum data rate of 54Mb/sec (probably about 30Mb/sec usable payload) on a single channel, this could be 150 or 300Mb/sec with 802.11n (MIMO). Plenty for getting to that 100Mb.

Thus rather than having as many as 4 overlapping access points sharing the same channels, this could be reduced significantly by only using 20MHz channels. This would result in less radio congestion (fewer clients on the same frequency), and probably wouldn’t negatively effect access speeds for the clients on the network.

There’s also the question of why all 6 access points visible in this sweep are spread across just two 40MHz channels.

The main reason is that DFS (Dynamic Frequency Selection) and TPC (Transmit Power Control) is required for any of the channels highlighted with blue numbers in the chart above – it’s also known as “Radar Detection”, because some radar operates in these channels. An access point running DFS will “listen” first for any radar signals before choosing an unoccupied channel and advertising the network SSID. If it hears any radar transmissions, it will shut down and move channel.

Sure, avoiding the DFS mandatory channels gives more predictability in your channel use, and means you aren’t affected by an access point needing to go off air.

However, an option in designing the network could be to use the DFS mandatory channels to increase available spectrum, but strategically place access points on non-DFS channels spatially in between those using DFS, getting away from the “listen on startup” phase (e.g. if there’s a need to reset an access point), or from the service suddenly going offline because of radar detection.

Also, remember that this is an indoor deployment and well inside a building. The chances of encountering radar interference are relatively low. I don’t recall seeing a problem using DFS when I’ve deployed temporary networks for meetings.

The other thing to note is that this deployment is not using a controller-based architecture. It is made of access points which can signal control messages between each other, but each access point maintains effectively it’s own view of the world. (Those of you in the Wifi space can now probably work out who I’m talking about.)

Is the above configuration using so few channels, and using them unwisely considering the target bandwidth actually available to the wifi clients, just asking for trouble once a few hundred users show up?