In message , at 18:04:27 on Fri, 9 Mar 2012,
Stephen Sprunk remarked:
The existing "good reason" is that the mobile data terminals haven't
been designed yet,

They existed over a decade ago.

Not that included the ticket-issuing printer, fares table etc.

let alone deployed. And the previous generation has at least 10 years
life left in them.

They were obsolete the day they were purchased; how long they're capable
of meeting obsolete needs before turning into paperweights is not
terribly relevant.

It is, when there's no money to replace them, nor much of a need to
either.

The "slowness" of 2G/2.5G is mostly the connection delay while a
separate data channel is set up, which takes several seconds, after
which the data flows reasonably quickly.

I use data on the move a lot. And was very disappointed on a recent trip
to London when several times I could get a 2.5G signal, and "connect",
but data was extremely slow (order of a few bytes per second).

Worst case, the terminal could batch up a series of authorization
attempts for when it next passes into a coverage area; if one of the
responses is a failure, it could notify the conductor, who would then go
back to the customer

Assuming he can find them. It's not uncommon for trains to be standing
room only.

If the train is that packed, how much progress through the train is he
likely to be making anyway?

Enough to check/sell tickets, if he doesn't need to retrace his steps
all the time.

Note that overdraft (at least in the US) is _not_ guaranteed; the bank
can refuse to honor any debit against insufficient funds at their
whim--but they generally will, since it allows them to charge the
customer massive fees on top of the debit itself.

In the UK you'd only get fees (rather than the agreed interest rate) on
an unapproved overdraft.

Sorry, I don't think the above was clear. Most US banks will _honor_ a
debit against insufficient funds because it allows them to charge the
customer massive fees on top of the debit itself.

For instance, my bank charges USD 35 per overdraft transaction plus USD
5 for each additional day the account has a negative balance.

In the UK that would be known as an unapproved overdraft. In other
words, they'll let you go overdrawn, but aren't very happy about it.

I seem to recall hearing about accounts in other countries having a
guaranteed overdraft capability; that would be a "line of credit" in the
US, which is separate from a checking account.

Yes, an overdraft facility in the UK is the same as your "line of
credit", and once set up would have to be specifically revoked with
notice to the accountholder.

As detailed more fully in the part you snipped, that's not how it works
in the US. "Overdraft" on a checking account and a "line of credit"
account are separate services.

And, I'm telling you about what happens in the UK.

Speaking as an employee of a tech products vendor, customers are now
demanding full ROI in 12-18 months, which gives them immediate cost
savings even on a 36-month depreciation schedule.

It's an interesting aspiration, but what happens if such a return is
*impossible*, given the development, manufacturing and operating costs
of the equipment.

If there is no ROI, then customers won't buy it.

And the customers (the train operators) aren't... as I've explained.

There's no *extra* revenue stream here - just reducing
Credit Card fraud a little, and the "acceptable ROI" solution here was
C&P, not "being online all the time".

The return would logically come from (a) not accepting invalid credit
and charge cards and (b) accepting valid debit cards.

There doesn't appear to be a problem with them being accepted today. Of
course, it helps that for train tickets (and car park payment - another
common non-online, and thus non-authorised, transaction) the "cost of
sales" is virtually zero.

I don't understand why the UK hasn't seen the same progression,
especially given you only need to build out one network instead of the
redundant, mutually incompatible networks we had to build.

Read the OFCOM report I linked to a couple of days ago. And by the way,
we have four separate networks (used to be five, but two merged),
because apparently competition and a free market is best (!). Or if you
count GSM and 3G, it's actually seven networks (one is 3G only).

Is there no domestic "roaming" between carriers?

No there isn't (apart from between the two carriers who recently merged:
T-Mobile and Orange).

Critically important is that customers who subscribe to a "national"
plan are _not_ charged for (domestic) roaming, so coverage is a matter
of technology and towers, not carrier.

Some people would prefer if it waslike that in the UK as well, but the
idea was that (because it's perhaps a much smaller and denser country)
all the networks would build out everywhere. But in practice there are
many blank spots away from cities and highways.

International roaming is another matter, but most US phones (TDMA, CDMA,
iDEN or 1900MHz GSM) don't work in most other countries anyway.
Tri-band GSM phones are the main exception, and int'l roaming for them
is ridiculously expensive--but at least it works. (CDMA and 1900MHz GSM
are also available in Canada, and that roaming is ridiculously expensive
as well.)

Across Europe (which in some sense is rather like a Californian roaming
in Texas) the regulators have been steadily reducing the cost of
roaming. My own choice of voice carrier (Virgin) was made because their
International Roaming was about half the price of others.
--
Roland Perry