On Mar 9, 2:34*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

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.

FWIW, in the old days, banks would occassionally honor a slight
overdraft by good customers without charge or fee.

One common tactic is charging fees for anything and everything, but
willing to waive them if the customer calls up to request it. The
banks and other businesses know most people are too busy today to (a)
scruintize their statements carefully and (b) call up and go through
the phone mail jail to get a knowledgeable human.

But one bank pushed it too far and went out of business.


Technology products are typically amortized over 3-5 years. *20 years?
You're way, way behind the curve in both costs and capabilities, to the
point it's almost certainly costing your business more (in both lost
revenue and higher operating costs) than buying replacements would cost.

Amortization time is often based on tax issues rather than the actual
expected life of the equipment. Many companies seek to amortize as
fast as possible in order to get the biggest expense tax reduction
from the depreciation charge. Cash for replacement is a separate
issue and planned for separately.


OTOH, lots of folks didn't understand this until the 1980s or even
1990s; they had amortized tech on a 10 or 20 year cycle like they would
for heavy machinery--and then got burned when they needed to upgrade and
couldn't because they were still paying for equipment that was only fit
to be used as paperweights.

A normal company will replace equipment when it is economically
desirable to do so regardless of its past amortization. If they do so
early they 'write down' the asset as a special charge. A company with
weak fiances may 'make do' with old equipment if it is still viable,
but again, it depends on various factors on what work is actually
being performed.

Lifespan of "technology" units (or heavy machinery) varies greatly
depending on many factors.


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. *"Disruptive" new
technologies can have an ROI of 6-9 months. *Nobody sane wants to have
to wait 5+ years to adopt new technology--unless they're a monopoly and
therefore don't have to worry about competitors adopting it first.

Being the "first on the block" to adopt new technology is highly
risky. New technology needs time to get the physical, software, and
workplace bugs ironed out. New for "newness sake", so avidly pushed
by techies over recent years is not always a prudent approach.

Some company owners have an ego thing to show off how their business
has the latest and greatest. That might be good for the vendors, but
lousy for the business.

I remember in the early days when newcomers were producing PBX
switches how many customers suddenly found themselves without phone
service because certain functions--once taken from granted because Ma
Bell did them--no longer worked. Others had so many features that no
one needed or could understand how to use that using the phones became
a nightmare, not an improvement.

A big retailer cut over to price tag scanning too early. As a result,
checkout lines became horrid and people simply abandoned their
purchases and walked out. That business took a huge beating thanks to
"new technology".

Returning to railroads, the PRR once always prototyped new technology
in a small order to get the bugs out before a large order. That
research was a reason the GG-1 was such a huge success.
Unfortunately, when they ordered the Metroliner MUs, they rushed the
purchase before testing and it took years to debug the cars.

(In contrast, they carefully researched the Budd Silverliners, and the
production models lasted in service for 49 years.)

In message , at 12:59:18 on
Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Clark F Morris remarked:
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.

Is that a special tariff that allows cheaper overseas roaming if you pay
so much for domestic airtime?

In the UK, a typical plan will be 200 domestic minutes and virtually
unlimited texts, and virtually unlimited calls to the same mobile
network - for about $20.

Within either the US or Canada, most carriers are nationwide so far as
roaming is concerned.

I'm getting that message. Understood!
--
Roland Perry

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.

Here in Victoria, if you are down by the waterfront, you may get hit by
roaming changes for even a local call.

Why? Because your call gets picked up by a cell tower in Blaine, Washington
State. :-)


--
Cheers.

Roger Traviss


Photos of the late HO scale GER: -

http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

On 12-Mar-12 12:01, wrote:
On Mar 9, 2:34 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
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.

FWIW, in the old days, banks would occassionally honor a slight
overdraft by good customers without charge or fee.

One common tactic is charging fees for anything and everything, but
willing to waive them if the customer calls up to request it. The
banks and other businesses know most people are too busy today to (a)
scruintize their statements carefully and (b) call up and go through
the phone mail jail to get a knowledgeable human.

But one bank pushed it too far and went out of business.

IIRC, the bank that "pushed it too far" was found guilty of charging
fees that weren't warranted in the hope that customers wouldn't notice
and complain. Most didn't, but enough did and it made the news.

Similarly, banks across the US have been foreclosing on houses they
don't even hold the mortgages for because of all the craziness in
mortgage trading over the last decade. A few high-profile cases
(including one in which the victim foreclosed on the bank's local branch
in retaliation--and won) hit the news and Congress is now whacking them
with a giant stick. They won't learn their lesson, though; they never do.

Technology products are typically amortized over 3-5 years. 20 years?
You're way, way behind the curve in both costs and capabilities, to the
point it's almost certainly costing your business more (in both lost
revenue and higher operating costs) than buying replacements would cost.

Amortization time is often based on tax issues rather than the actual
expected life of the equipment. Many companies seek to amortize as
fast as possible in order to get the biggest expense tax reduction
from the depreciation charge.

You are, again, confusing depreciation in the tax books with
depreciation in the real books. If they do not follow IRS rules for the
tax books, they get fined by the IRS and potentially go to jail. If
they do not follow GAAP rules for the real books, they get fined by the
SEC and potentially go to jail (if they are a publicly-traded company;
if not, it's irrelevant).

Cash for replacement is a separate issue and planned for separately.

Agreed, but cash is irrelevant to such decisions anyway if the business
is operating under accrual-based accounting; if not, they do not use
depreciation and this discussion does not apply.

OTOH, lots of folks didn't understand this until the 1980s or even
1990s; they had amortized tech on a 10 or 20 year cycle like they would
for heavy machinery--and then got burned when they needed to upgrade and
couldn't because they were still paying for equipment that was only fit
to be used as paperweights.

A normal company will replace equipment when it is economically
desirable to do so regardless of its past amortization. If they do so
early they 'write down' the asset as a special charge.

No executive willingly does that because it will hurt their reported
earnings for the quarter and therefore their stock options. What is
best for the business in the long-term is irrelevant; they only care
about what happens until they pull the ripcord on their golden parachute.

A company with weak fiances may 'make do' with old equipment if it is
still viable,

Continuing to use fully-depreciated assets may be materially
understating the actual cost of operations. If they admit that, it's
one thing, but many do not--and should be in jail for it.

Lifespan of "technology" units (or heavy machinery) varies greatly
depending on many factors.

There are extraordinary cases where 5yrs is appropriate, but 3yrs is the
norm, and a competent accountant will question anything longer because
it's likely a violation of GAAP and/or IRS rules.

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. "Disruptive" new
technologies can have an ROI of 6-9 months. Nobody sane wants to have
to wait 5+ years to adopt new technology--unless they're a monopoly and
therefore don't have to worry about competitors adopting it first.

Being the "first on the block" to adopt new technology is highly
risky. New technology needs time to get the physical, software, and
workplace bugs ironed out.

Of course, and there are best practices to deal with that.

New for "newness sake", so avidly pushed by techies over recent years
is not always a prudent approach.

I know _lots_ of techies, and none of them advocates "new for newness
sake". At worst, I see people underestimating the costs, not fully
understanding the problem to be solved and/or not implementing things
properly.

I remember in the early days when newcomers were producing PBX
switches how many customers suddenly found themselves without phone
service because certain functions--once taken from granted because Ma
Bell did them--no longer worked. Others had so many features that no
one needed or could understand how to use that using the phones became
a nightmare, not an improvement.

Both cases sound like failures to understand users' needs, test the
proposed products and select the best option.

Returning to railroads, the PRR once always prototyped new technology
in a small order to get the bugs out before a large order. That
research was a reason the GG-1 was such a huge success.

Any savvy customer does that with "bleeding edge" technology, and
vendors typically propose it as well. Some customers don't listen.

Unfortunately, when they ordered the Metroliner MUs, they rushed the
purchase before testing and it took years to debug the cars.

And that's why you do your testing /before/ implementation.

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

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:57:49 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:59:18 on
Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Clark F Morris remarked:
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.

Is that a special tariff that allows cheaper overseas roaming if you pay
so much for domestic airtime?

What I meant was I purchased 100 US airtime minutes for my Canadian
phone. Text messages in the US will cost me 75 cents a message unless
I spend 10 dollars to cut the cost to 25 cents a message.

Clark Morris

In the UK, a typical plan will be 200 domestic minutes and virtually
unlimited texts, and virtually unlimited calls to the same mobile
network - for about $20.

Within either the US or Canada, most carriers are nationwide so far as
roaming is concerned.

I'm getting that message. Understood!

On Feb 24, 4:17*am, "Roger Traviss"
wrote:
My newest debit card, arrived yesterday, lets me use it like a credit card
for on-line purchases and like a credit card when travelling outside Canada,
although it still debits my bank account.

I've got two like that, though in the US I have to draw money by
selecting 'checking account' & in Germany 'current account

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:08:51 -0700, "Roger Traviss"
wrote:

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.

Here in Victoria, if you are down by the waterfront, you may get hit by
roaming changes for even a local call.

Why? Because your call gets picked up by a cell tower in Blaine, Washington
State. :-)

That has been alleged to have happened on English south coast
shores/beaches which are screened from the local transmitter by high
cliffs but within range of French base stations.

"Charles Ellson" wrote

That has been alleged to have happened on English south coast
shores/beaches which are screened from the local transmitter by high
cliffs but within range of French base stations.

Certainly has happened at St Margarets Bay (on the coast between Dover and
Deal - Ian Fleming used to live there).

Eurotunnel are equipping the tunnel for mobile phone reception, The South
running tunnel will be connected to French networks, and the North running
tunnel to British networks. So passengers will (normally) be connected to
their home network on the outward journey, but face roaming charges on the
return, with complications in case of Single Line Working.
http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uploa...nnelTunnel.pdf

Peter

In message , at 04:55:58 on
Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Charles Ellson remarked:
Here in Victoria, if you are down by the waterfront, you may get hit by
roaming changes for even a local call.

Why? Because your call gets picked up by a cell tower in Blaine, Washington
State. :-)

That has been alleged to have happened on English south coast
shores/beaches which are screened from the local transmitter by high
cliffs but within range of French base stations.

I've had that happen to me near Dover, but I didn't make any calls!
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:46:39 on Mon, 12 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:

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?

Nothing different, it's just that they would need to place an order with
that company, and as far as I can see they have no intention of doing
so. So having the data doesn't help much.

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.

Indeed, and I'm saying the saving might well be less than zero (ie a
greater cost). The recent introduction of card-based terminals to pay
for refreshments on board the trains I catch to London has been
scrapped, and they went back to accepting cash only, citing the cost of
operating (including leasing, probably) the terminals.

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?

The problem you identified exists, but is not serious enough that it
needs a solution.

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's even a possibility that opportunity costs are less than zero.
People dislike travelling on crowded trains, and the availability of a
few "spare" seats is a benefit. The existence of "First Class" fares,
which on many routes provide little more than a guarantee of a seat, are
proof of this.

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?

There's never been a question of not-accepting debit cards. Some now
deprecated *versions* of debit cards are not accepted, but this is well
known and anyone boarding a train with no means to pay (in most cases
having deliberately not bought a ticket beforehand) isn't going to score
any points with the public.

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.

That may apply to some situations, but not this one. It's a sledgehammer
to crack a nut.

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.

They are secure (in as much as anything can be - one day someone will
rob Fort Knox), but there's a very small risk of the payment being
"bounced" if the cardholder has no funds.

(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

No, because you'd have to make a Chip (for the C&P) that validated
correctly. So far, there's been no reported incidence of someone being
able to counterfeit the chips (and I'm quite sure a lot of people have
been trying for years).

If you don't understand that very basic parameter, no wonder the rest of
your posting doesn't make sense to us in the UK

--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.

So it has to be a stolen one, where you know the PIN.

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.

s/_customers_/_domestic_customers_/ makes it clearer

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.

Indeed, and I should have made it clear that in my example it was
implied that someone's "service area" would only have been one of the
twin cities, and not both. With predictable consequences when they
picked up a tower in the wrong one.
--
Roland Perry