Miles Bader writes:

Phil writes:
Miles Bader writes:
As Brewers law states, the quality of the beer is inversely proportional
to the price.

Hmm, I don't think I've _ever_ lived in a place where that's true...

It is almost always true, posh hotels very rarely sell proper beer, and
if they do it use usually something bland and not very well kept. It is
usually just lager and keg beer.

Go to a local pub however and the beer will be proper, often local.

No doubt, but that doesn't generalize -- the cheapest beer is still
typically the nastiest (bars/pubs where the emphasis is on "get you
drunk / get in a fight").

I was refering to the price of the accomodation rather than the
beer. Some of the best places to stay are pubs that have a few rooms.
On personal trips the CAMRA Good Beer Guide has never let me down when
finding somewhere to stay.

In my experience, the price of beer doesn't vary much within a region,
and in 30 plus years of beer drinking I have never seen, let alone been
involved in a fight in a pub.

The places where the emphasis is on getting drunk usually only sell
lager or gas beer, call themselves bars and are in converted shops.

Phil

In message , at 20:21:10 on Sat, 10 Mar 2012,
Phil remarked:
As Brewers law states, the quality of the beer is inversely proportional
to the price.

Hmm, I don't think I've _ever_ lived in a place where that's true...

It is almost always true, posh hotels very rarely sell proper beer, and
if they do it use usually something bland and not very well kept. It is
usually just lager and keg beer.

Go to a local pub however and the beer will be proper, often local.

And the cheaper beer in that local pub won't be as good as the more
expensive beer.

The only general rule is that "places with a high average price" might
be serving worse beer, but even that is suspect. I went to a lovely
rural pub for lunch a couple of weeks ago, and the beer was well kept
and delicious. The only problem was they wanted £4/pint for it. A week
later I was paying under £2 a pint in a City Centre pub, for beer that
was pretty much the same quality (but certainly not noticeably better).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:56:00 on Sat, 10 Mar 2012,
Phil remarked:
Roland Perry writes:

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).
Often in the middle of cities the networks can get very congested, if you
want to stream radio to your phone you are better off in the suburbs.

I only want to collect my email.

I am suprised you needed to use 2.5G in London, in my experience 3G
coverage is pretty unversal. Even in rural Shropshire I rarely need to
use 2.5G.

I was in the basement of a hotel, and the only Vodafone coverage in the
room was 2.5G. From bitter experience I also know there wasn't any
Vodafone 3G coverage in the departure lounges at my local airport. More
recently I couldn't get any 3G, or 2.5G throughput, in a country pub a
few miles from Derby.

Is there no domestic "roaming" between carriers?

No there isn't (apart from between the two carriers who recently
merged: T-Mobile and Orange).
3 also roam onto Orange (2.5G) where they have no network
coverage. AFAIK they don't roam onto Orange 3G or T-Mobile.

Do they still do that - I had an idea they'd stopped because they were
getting too big a bill from Orange for the 2.5G roamed data (which
they'd sold to subscribers at a cheap flat rate).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry writes:

In message , at 20:21:10 on Sat, 10 Mar
2012, Phil remarked:
As Brewers law states, the quality of the beer is inversely proportional
to the price.

Hmm, I don't think I've _ever_ lived in a place where that's true...

It is almost always true, posh hotels very rarely sell proper beer, and
if they do it use usually something bland and not very well kept. It is
usually just lager and keg beer.

Go to a local pub however and the beer will be proper, often local.

And the cheaper beer in that local pub won't be as good as the more
expensive beer.

The only general rule is that "places with a high average price" might
be serving worse beer, but even that is suspect. I went to a lovely
rural pub for lunch a couple of weeks ago, and the beer was well kept
and delicious. The only problem was they wanted £4/pint for it. A week
later I was paying under £2 a pint in a City Centre pub, for beer that
was pretty much the same quality (but certainly not noticeably
better).
I probably didn't do it very well, but the price of the beer was not
what I meant. I was refering to the price of accomodation.

In my experience business hotels, which accept amex, only serve lager
and gas beer.

Phil

Roland Perry writes:


I was in the basement of a hotel, and the only Vodafone coverage in
the room was 2.5G. From bitter experience I also know there wasn't any
Vodafone 3G coverage in the departure lounges at my local
airport. More recently I couldn't get any 3G, or 2.5G throughput, in a
country pub a few miles from Derby.

That is true, often 3G doesn't penetrate buildings very well. One of my
local pubs is an example. T-mobile has rock solid 3G outside, but inside
it falls back to Orange 2.5G.

Is there no domestic "roaming" between carriers?

No there isn't (apart from between the two carriers who recently
merged: T-Mobile and Orange).
3 also roam onto Orange (2.5G) where they have no network
coverage. AFAIK they don't roam onto Orange 3G or T-Mobile.

Do they still do that - I had an idea they'd stopped because they were
getting too big a bill from Orange for the 2.5G roamed data (which
they'd sold to subscribers at a cheap flat rate).
You could be right about roaming data on orange, AFAIK you can
still use orange for voice calls and texts.

I have been experimenting with a 3 SIM in my phone with a view to
switching to their One Plan.

The only place I lost 3G was in the same local pub, I was able to make a
voice call and send/recieve texts. Was unable to use data however.

Phil

In message , at 20:51:58 on Sun, 11 Mar 2012,
Phil remarked:
I have been experimenting with a 3 SIM in my phone with a view to
switching to their One Plan.

The first dongle I got was from 3, and I used to top it up monthly. But
stopped using it when contention in Central London meant I was unable to
make VoIP calls in the evening. (I wasn't just being cheap, this was for
teleconferencing which combined VoIP and text-chat).

Last year I returned to 3, with an annual top-up (now expired), and was
very happy with the performance. But in the short term I still have some
Vodafone credit to use up.
--
Roland Perry

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.

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

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).

Even ancient 2G systems could do 9.6kbit/s, and 2.5G could do
56-115kbit/s (GPRS) or 237kbit/s (EDGE).

For any of those to drop to "a few bytes per second" would require
signal conditions so bad that the connection would fail.

Whatever you are using to model the performance of such systems, it
doesn't apply to those I've been using the last 12 years. The
performance figures you quote are the maximum with no contention over
the airwave or backhaul. Like the "2Mbit" or whatever that's promised
for 3G, it's extremely rare to get connections of that speed, and it's
relatively independent of the "number of bars" signal strength too.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

Clearly it isn't.

you would have to redo this analysis frequently--and the cost of doing
that would need to be added to the costs above.

You only need one analysis, then put each month's fraudulent transaction
totals into the spreadsheet.

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).

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?

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?

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.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:58:02 on Sat, 10 Mar
2012, David Lesher remarked:
I wonder how many retail businesses accept only plastic ?

It's quite difficult to buy airline tickets with cash (notwithstanding
the alarms bells that would ring at Homeland Security).

Buy the airline "gift cards" at the supermarket....

Do keep up. In the UK they are not part of the "credit/debit card"
space.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:18:34 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

much snipped

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?

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?

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.

If you have an out of country phone in either Canada or the United
States, the roaming costs to go to the other country are noticeable.
I'm going to pay 40 dollars of 100 minutes of air time in the US for
one month so that I don't get hit with really bad roaming charges.
Within either the US or Canada, most carriers are nationwide so far as
roaming is concerned.

Clark Morris

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