On 12-Mar-12 05:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:16:04 on Sat, 10 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
On 10-Mar-12 04:43, Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Receipt printers, yes. Fare tables? I'm not sure, but that's a
relatively simple customization for what would presumably be a large
order.

There are hundreds of thousands of possible fares, multiplied by over a
dozen different discount rates. The databases and algorithms "belong to"
the train companies, and they are the sole customer for the equipment
and have also decided that they don't need to buy it.

They've obviously given all that information to the companies that make
their current terminals, so what would be different about telling _those
same companies_ to do the same for terminals with mobile data capability?

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,

... which is why savvy customers look at the ROI: you pay for capital
assets with the cost savings from employing those assets.

They don't see a cost saving, only a cost increase (all those mobile
data bills).

We can debate _how large_ the cost saving will be, and therefore whether
it is worth solving, but it is not zero.

Even assuming they wanted to borrow the money to buy the
new machines.

Whether they need to borrow money depends on their cash management
strategy and does not affect the ROI calculation; either way, the ROI on
capital programs must exceed the Cost of Capital.

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

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

Then either the vendor is doing a poor job of selling their product or
that niche really doesn't need to be filled. Given how incompetent some
vendors are, I wouldn't assume it's always the latter.

You are promoting a classic "solution looking for a problem to solve",
and there isn't one.

I clearly identified the problem to be solved and was told there was no
solution; now that I identify the solution, you claim there is no problem?

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.

The marginal cost of service (not cost of sales, which refers only to
selling the ticket itself) may be close to zero, but unless you have
spare capacity, there is an opportunity cost: the non-paying "customer"
prevented a paying customer from using your service--and giving you
money for it.

Unless the train is so full no-one else can squeeze aboard, or the car
park is completely full, the opportunity cost is zero.

Opportunity costs are _never_ zero. They may be small, perhaps not
worth worrying about, but once dismissed such costs have a nasty
tendency to grow and surprise you later.

There is also opportunity cost in not accepting money
from potential paying customers who only have a debit card.

You can use cash as well. Although the chances of (eg) needing paid car
parking and not having plastic is pretty small.

And if someone has only a debit card and no cash, you're going to throw
them off the train? What is the cost of doing that--particularly the
cost in PR?

Obviously, one would need some analysis to figure out if these costs
were more or less than the cost of better terminals. If more, you buy;
if not, you don't.

And they aren't (buying).

Lots of folks don't buy things that will save them money because they
either haven't done the analysis or don't think they have the money--but
one of the reasons they "don't have" the money is that they're not
adopting cost-saving technologies and processes, so it's a vicious cycle.

Also, since this is a gaping security hole just waiting to be
exploited by the masses,

Clearly it isn't.

There is no debate he offline credit/debit payments _are_ insecure.

(Digital cash systems can be made secure, but that's not what we're
talking about here--and it's shockingly difficult, even in theory.)

It might end up being worth the upgrade just to not have to do the
analysis--or to avoid the risk of making the papers when a few million
teens figure out they can easily beat your system and ride all over the
country for free without getting caught. All it takes these days is one
Facebook post that goes viral.

They would ride for free (avoid stations with barriers, and trains with
ticket inspectors) rather than have their credit rating trashed the
first time they tried this on (their account going into an unauthorised
overdraft that they then walk away from).

Someone (you, I think) said that the current terminals accept _any_
credit card presented. That means I can just print up my own cards with
random numbers and ride for free--and the carrier doesn't know until the
terminal uploads the card information later, long after I'm off the train.

Using _my_ credit/debit card for such a fraud would be silly.

the regulators have been steadily reducing the cost of roaming.

Our regulators don't care since _customers_ don't pay for roaming;
that's a problem for the carriers to hash out between themselves.

Really, so I can get a refund for that $1/minute I was charged when
roaming in the USA last year?

I think some context got snipped: US customers do not pay for domestic
roaming. You were neither a US customer nor doing domestic roaming;
what you pay is up to your non-US carrier, and US regulators obviously
have no power over that anyway.

My own choice of voice carrier (Virgin) was made because their
International Roaming was about half the price of others.

That's just not a consideration here for several reasons, some good and
some bad.

So if you went on holiday to France, the cost of calling would be the
same irrespective of which network you were with?

No, because that's not domestic roaming.

However, ~77% of Americans don't even have a passport, and only a tiny
fraction of those who do actually travel abroad in any given
year--especially if you exclude Canada, which is in many respects
treated like the 51st state.

OTOH, I do remember the days of paying roaming charges on my 1G phone
even a few miles from home.

I remember the stories, like people being charged vast roaming fees to
call from (eg) Minneapolis to St Paul.

The other end of the call had no effect on roaming charges; what
mattered was the "service area" you subscribed to and from which
carrier. So, if you lived in NYC, traveled to Chicago and made a call
to a "local" number, you would be charged roaming fees for being out of
your service area plus the LD fees from NYC to Chicago.

Worse, because coverage was so bad, it's entirely possible that said NYC
customer would end up paying roaming charges _even in NYC_ because their
phone couldn't find towers from the correct carrier.

Worse again, when making a call while moving, if _any_ tower used was
via roaming, the entire call would be charged at roaming rates, even if
99% of the call was on the correct carrier's towers.

All of that nonsense went away with 2G, where "national" plans (i.e. no
domestic roaming and "free" long distance) became the norm. "Local"
plans similar to the 1G model were slightly cheaper, but not enough for
most people to bother--and often ended up more expensive in the end.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking