wrote:

In the US, there is a credit card feature called "Blink" (Chase Bank)
where one just touches the card against the reader and the charge is
instantly posted. This is faster than cash or conventional credit
cards. Some big chains accept this, like McDonald's, CVS drugstores,
and the Wawa convenience store chain.

Proximity card. A tiny transponder and chip are built into the card.
RFID technology.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:40:08 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

wrote:

In the US, there is a credit card feature called "Blink" (Chase Bank)
where one just touches the card against the reader and the charge is
instantly posted. This is faster than cash or conventional credit
cards. Some big chains accept this, like McDonald's, CVS drugstores,
and the Wawa convenience store chain.

Proximity card. A tiny transponder and chip are built into the card.
RFID technology.

The major German and Swiss cities with S-Bahns and/or U-Bahns (like
Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, and Zurich) do this with paper tickets and
cards (I think some with photo-id) that are read by roving inspector.
POP obviously works even on heavily used systems. At least in some US
cities like San Diego, California and Newark, New Jersey, the legal
framework is available for it to work in the United States. Go
Transit in Toronto also uses POP.

Clark Morris

Proximity card. A tiny transponder and chip are built into the card.
RFID technology.

No, it's contactless EMV which is not RFID.

Please do at least a few milliseconds of research before guessing.

R's,
John

John Levine wrote:

Proximity card. A tiny transponder and chip are built into the card.
RFID technology.

No, it's contactless EMV which is not RFID.

Please do at least a few milliseconds of research before guessing.

They aren't proximity cards? The standard is IEC 14443, which has
the "proximity cards" in its title. The standard doesn't define a
technology that uses radio frequencies in identification?

Sorry, I thought RFID could be used, generically, to describe any
proximity card that used radio frequencies in identification technology,
but perhaps you can explain how the term is incorrect when used to
describe technologies involving radio frequencies and identificaiton.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding entirely. Is sonar involved, perhaps?
Maybe infra-red?

Do tell us, John Levine, why I cannot use RFID generically to describe
a proximity card identification device that uses radio frequencies.

In message , at 14:13:48 on Tue, 24 Jan
2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:
They aren't proximity cards? The standard is IEC 14443, which has
the "proximity cards" in its title. The standard doesn't define a
technology that uses radio frequencies in identification?

Sorry, I thought RFID could be used, generically, to describe any
proximity card that used radio frequencies in identification technology

Apparently not. The name seems to be PICC, with RFID reserved for tags
which are (broadly speaking) electronic serial numbers.

Looking at http://www.rfid.org/, there's a conspicuous absence of
anything to do with "paywave" credit cards or ICAO passports.

(But note that a US passport *card* does seem to qualify as an RFID due
to its very limited capabilities).

That doesn't mean that in the popular press the terms aren't often
blurred.
--
Roland Perry

On Jan 24, 3:04*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:13:48 on Tue, 24 Jan
2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:

They aren't proximity cards? The standard is IEC 14443, which has
the "proximity cards" in its title. The standard doesn't define a
technology that uses radio frequencies in identification?

Sorry, I thought RFID could be used, generically, to describe any
proximity card that used radio frequencies in identification technology

Apparently not. The name seems to be PICC, with RFID reserved for tags
which are (broadly speaking) electronic serial numbers.

Looking at http://www.rfid.org/, there's a conspicuous absence of
anything to do with "paywave" credit cards or ICAO passports.

(But note that a US passport *card* does seem to qualify as an RFID due
to its very limited capabilities).

That doesn't mean that in the popular press the terms aren't often
blurred.

Though referring to it as "RFID technology" doesn't seem like the
greatest crime there is.

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
John Levine wrote:

Proximity card. A tiny transponder and chip are built into the card.
RFID technology.

No, it's contactless EMV which is not RFID.

Please do at least a few milliseconds of research before guessing.

They aren't proximity cards? The standard is IEC 14443, which has
the "proximity cards" in its title. The standard doesn't define a
technology that uses radio frequencies in identification?

Sorry, I thought RFID could be used, generically, to describe any
proximity card that used radio frequencies in identification technology,
but perhaps you can explain how the term is incorrect when used to
describe technologies involving radio frequencies and identificaiton.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding entirely. Is sonar involved, perhaps?
Maybe infra-red?

Do tell us, John Levine, why I cannot use RFID generically to describe
a proximity card identification device that uses radio frequencies.

Sigh. Despite having told John Levine numerous times over the years that
he is NOT to send me messages in email in lieu of posting a followup on
Usenet, because private discussions with him are most unwelcome, John
Levine troubled me with a reply in email including several pretty lame
insults. There was, of course, no reference to the paragraph in the
standard giving notice that describing this technology, involving radio
frequencies and identification, as an RFID technology, would trigger
a series of rants and a great gnashing of teeth from John Levine.

I'm sure there is a reason why RFID isn't RFID when it's IEC 14443,
but we'll never learn it from John Levine.

I return you to your regularly scheduled Usenet flame wars.

In message , at 16:48:57 on Tue, 24 Jan
2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:
several pretty lame insults

Is this misc.transport.pot.kettle ?
--
Roland Perry

On Jan 24, 5:02*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:48:57 on Tue, 24 Jan
2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:

several pretty lame insults

Is this misc.transport.pot.kettle ?

Bit of a shame that what was an otherwise perfectly legitimate and
interesting discussion has to degenerate in such a manner.

Roland Perry wrote:
at 16:48:57 on Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:

several pretty lame insults

Is this misc.transport.pot.kettle ?

I don't object to witty insults.