On 2008-12-18 10:13:36 +0000, Peter Campbell Smith
said:

Robert wrote in news:2008121807091316807-
coppercapped@googlemailcom:

The technology is a solution looking for a problem. Somebody, somewhere
is trying to skim a few percent off small everyday transactions. Why
else would they be pushing the idea? Why increase the costs of small
transactions and complicate something that is very simple - and above
all, works?

I don't disagree with what you say, but there are some other reasons. One
is the cost of handling cash, especially when it has to be collected from
otherwise unmanned places like vending machines. The other is security and
audit; for example vending machines are frequently stolen or broken into
and the cost of repair or replacement usually greatly exceeds the value of
the money inside.

I assume the machines have to be visited to be re-stocked. Then remove
the money at the same time. It is not necessary to make two visits.

If they are so often stolen or broken into then they can't be very
profitable because of all the extra costs. Remove them.


Coin, and especially note, accepting equipment is expensive and much less
reliable and prone to vandalism than RFID interfaces.

Agreed.


Even at a manned position, RFID transactions are faster than cash, so that
at a busy place fewer counter staff are required, or queues can be handled
faster (as can be seen by reduced dwell times on buses since the
introduction of Oyster).

Peter
I have seen supermarkets (on the continent I will admit) where the
change (in coin) was held in an automatic machine at the checkout. You
handed the check-out person your money, the amount was registered in
the till and the change was automatically delivered down a chute. Only
notes were handed out by hand. It was very quick.

This could be adopted for all sorts of other transactions. even
ruggedised to work on buses. The buses in Munich are fitted with coin
operated ticket issuing machines and I have never yet found one that
hasn't worked.

I am not familiar with this 'Oyster' thing, so I have no experience of
the reduced dwell times. If dwell times do cause a significant cost,
then the dwell time can be reduced to zero (i.e., excess time above
that required for getting on and off) by bringing back the conductor....

--
Robert