On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:26:55 +0000, Mizter T
wrote:


On 20/01/2012 21:29, Roland Perry wrote:
[London Congestion Charge)
There's also some enforcement by foot patrols, although I've never been
sure how widespread they are. That's because you have to pay by the day
once inside, which can't be enforced solely by entry cameras on the
periphery.

There aren't any foot patrols - rather, there are mobile camera vans
(dunno how many there are - maybe even just be the one?) that position
themselves on roads inside the zone:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aderowbotham/56561330/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adinazed/6191499533/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photo/205582779/

There are also fixed cameras on some key routes inside the zone, in
addition to the fixed cameras at every entry/exit point around the
periphery of the zone.

Mobile cameras will also be dealing with the problem of drivers who by
various means (false number plates are alleged to be common) have
managed to avoid their vehicles being properly recorded at the
boundary, including e.g. :-
http://www.mocgb.net/forums/showthre...n-zone-cameras

On Feb 29, 5:14*pm, John Levine wrote:
[...]
The relationships among shippers in the US are quite tangled. *Both
UPS and Fedex have hybrid services where they deliver the package to
the local post office who then delivers it with the next day's mail
(or in my case, right away into my PO box.)

We've a similar thing in the UK - "downstream access", with the mail
handed over by the alternative mail company to the Royal Mail at a
local delivery office for the 'final mile' - some more info he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downstream_access

The above wonkypedia entry reads a bit on the optimistic side when it
comes to the talk under the 'future developments' heading about the
new world of "bypass mail" (that's post delivered directly to the
front door by an alternative company, without the involvement of the
Royal Mail whatsoever) - the only company who really seem interested
in pursuing that idea at the moment here is TNT Post UK (part of the
Dutch PostNL group).
http://www.postandparcel.info/45246/

On Feb 29, 5:06*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:34:27 on Wed, 29 Feb
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:

There's a proposal to do *daily* billing via paywave credit cards for
travel in London, but I don't know how they propose to "inspect" the
ticket, because you can't 'load' one onto a credit card. I suppose
they'd need to use your credit card number to make an enquiry from their
own merchant account, to confirm you'd "touched in" recently.

Depending on how the fare scheme is organized, it's possible the readers
could just record the card numbers they "see" during the day and upload
them to a central server at the end of the day; the central server would
then figure out the correct fare(s) to charge for the day, based on the
when(s) and where(s) each card had been "seen".

That's how it's expected to work - but spot-checks by inspectors on
trains will need access to that "recently seen" list, so it'll probably
be done in real time. Unless they flag such a credit card as "checked
for fare evasion today", and if it doesn't show up later as having been
previously "seen" at a gate, charge a penalty fare.

EMV-specification contactless cards will apparently allow a small bit
of read/write space (i.e. on the card itself) to be used by public
transport undertakings for the purpose of recording that a card has
been validated - I dunno the details, but at the very least I'd think
the data recorded would have to include date/time and location of
validation.

Of course this raises all sorts of interesting questions as to how
this will work - e.g. how do different public transport undertakings
play nicely with each other on these cards (maybe they don't need to,
the only important thing is the last validation) - but the point is
that spot-checks by inspectors won't need real-time access to the
central database to check if a card has been validated or not, as the
card itself will hold the answer.


For instance, in many places there are daily and monthly passes; the
logical way to handle that with daily billing is to charge the daily
rate for the first several days the card was "seen" each month and then
stop billing when the monthly rate is reached.

That's the kind of capping algorithm they run in London, but on a daily
basis (adding up single fares until it reaches the cost of an "all day"
pass). I don't think there's a proposal to try to consolidate a week or
month of travel.

Actually, there have indeed been proposals for 'account based' systems
made by TfL. I'd imagine that if such a system was to come about, then
a punter would have to actively opt-in to it, and I'd also think that
the time windows used to calculate a potential weekly or monthly cap
would have to be set universally (e.g. a calendar month, or a week
that runs Monday-Sunday or whatever).


Likewise, if there is a
single-ride rate, then within a single day the single-ride rate would be
charged each time the card was "seen" until the daily rate was met.

Yes, like that. But there's also a complicated set of timeouts for
individual journeys, to stop you (eg) touching in near home in the
morning, and out again at the next nearest station in the evening, and
only being charged one short-distance fare rather than two long distance
ones.

On Feb 26, 9:49*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:30:31 on Sun, 26 Feb
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:

The pumps had a sign suggesting that Electron card users put in at least
GBP 20 worth or else a larger amount of the balance on the associated
account would remain earmarked for a few days.

Sounds like they're authorizing the card for GBP 20, as discussed
elsewhere in this thread.

Not authorising, because that's "Electron" is a debit card on an account
which doesn't allow an overdraft. They will be deducting the £20
straight away, and allowing only up to £20 of fuel. If you buy less, it
sometimes takes a while for them to credit it you with the balance.

That would be pre-payment - and I don't think that happens, does it?
If one presents an Electron card which is then pre-authorised online
for a sum of up to £99 (or whatever), there's no need to actually get
pre-payment - because the pre-authorisation means that the card holder
is known to be good for payment.

Rather, this sounds to me like some sort of artefact that occurs when
an Electron card is pre-authorised for £99 (or whatever) but only a
small fuel purchase is actually made, then the pre-authorisation hold
on those funds takes longer to clear than if a more substantial
purchase of £20 plus was made.

On Feb 26, 7:40*pm, Goalie of the Century wrote:

In message , Graeme Wall
writes

Tescos in UK have a facility to "Pay at Pump" *You insert your credit
card and enter PIN and then fill up and drive off.

All the Tescos I've seen also have a shop and the option to pay there
instead but I recently came across an ASDA that was entirely unmanned.
[...]

There are some about in the UK - the justification is that they are
monitored by the store's CCTV system and on-site security staff, but
I've also read some misgivings about this practice from Fire Bridage
types.

In message
, at
11:44:01 on Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Mizter T remarked:
how do different public transport undertakings
play nicely with each other on these cards

That's what ITSO is about, and currently we've yet to find any
interoperability between cards from different bits of the same company,
let alone from one to another!
--
Roland Perry

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 28-Feb-12 14:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 28-Feb-12 01:37, Roland Perry wrote:
on Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:

If the card company finds in favour of the consumer, I'm sure the
merchant doesn't get paid,

The merchant was _already_ paid, so if the dispute is resolved in favor
of the consumer _and_ the merchant is liable for the fraud, the
merchant's account is charged back.

It's not always a fraud. Chargebacks can arise because an item is "lost
in the mail".

If the goods are "lost in the mail", that is not fraud (since fraud
requires intent), but it is the merchant's responsibility* to cure that
defect. If they do not, it becomes fraud. . . .

Uh, given that the merchant shipped the goods, there's no fraud here if
the merchant questions his responsibility to fulfill the order again.
That's a contract dispute.

There is no question; if the order was "FOB destination", as is the norm
for mail-order operations, and they accept payment but do not deliver
the goods to the destination as promised, that is fraud.

There is no question that you got it wrong. Not all contract disputes
rise to the level of fraud. There is no intentional deception. There
is no misrepresentation. The seller may have good reason to disbelieve
the buyer, depending on what his vendor tells him.

FOB Destination DOES NOT MEAN "placed in the buyer's hand", it means
delivered to the location specified. We're not talking about registered
mail here. If it's dropped off at the wrong address, it hasn't been
delivered. If it's stolen from the buyer's premesis, even if the
buyer didn't realize, that's the buyer's responsibility.

I don't know if the buyer's responsibility is waived if it's the
usual practice to drop off packages in an unsecured location where
theft has not been a problem in the past, and theft occurs for the
first time. If the buyer has given explicit instructions NOT to
leave the package in an insecure location, but it's stolen, that's
another matter.

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 28-Feb-12 14:23, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 27-Feb-12 14:50, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
Nor is it "paid". If the card company finds in favour of the consumer,
I'm sure the merchant doesn't get paid, whether the transaction was
originally authorised or not.

If authorized, the merchant is paid if the dispute is due to third party
fraud.

The merchant always gets paid. However, if there is a dispute, the
merchant may or may not (depending on various factors) be charged back.

This is why you are so well beloved on Usenet, Stephen.

Chargeback=payment reversal. If the payment is reversed, the merchant
was not paid.

They were paid, and then they were un-paid. That is different from them
never being paid in the first place.

Considering no one said "never being paid in the first place" until
you just said it here, thanks ever so, Stephen, for clarifying a
point that was never discussed to save face.

Roland Perry wrote:
at 20:25:31 on Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:

I suppose the devices used in restaurants wouldn't survive being
dropped onto a hard surface outdoors.

Not inevitable. I wonder if they work after being flushed down the
toilet or thrown in a barbecue ?

Dude: The article YOU CITED said that the spec included surviving being
dropped on a hard surface from waist height.

Then I'm not sure why you said they wouldn't, or is there something
special about outdoor hard surfaces?

(I didn't read the detail of the article).

I was just curious if you could tell by eyeballing it, having seen
both types of devices. It's not important.

Roland Perry wrote:
at 14:13:12 on Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:

I wasn't thinking about ticket-printing machines, per se, but getting
back to another discussion we had in which the credit card number itself is
used as the ticket medium and the passenger gets billed for all passage
at the end of the month.

I've never encountered such a scheme.

Phoenix, Arizona, bus system, many years ago, attached card readers to
fareboxes. It was a home-made system. They had a way of uploading the
list of bad cards into the fareboxes once a day. At the end of the month
(or a 30-day period), they billed passengers at the lowest combination
of rates, whether a combination of single-ride fares or a monthly pass,
depending on how frequently they rode.

It was the most convenient fare collection system I'd ever heard of and
I always hope someone else will implement something similar.

What we're implementing in Chicago in a couple of years is going to be
handled by the banks and the card processors (with Cubic participating
as a small minority partner in the consortium) in which open-standard
proximity cards as credit/debit cards or transit-only cards will be
used as the ticket media at 4 cents an unlinked trip.

I sure as hell hope it's not going to result in a separate transaction
posted to the credit card per unlinked trip but something posted once
a month. These details haven't been made public.

There's a proposal to do *daily* billing via paywave credit cards for
travel in London, but I don't know how they propose to "inspect" the
ticket, because you can't 'load' one onto a credit card. I suppose
they'd need to use your credit card number to make an enquiry from their
own merchant account, to confirm you'd "touched in" recently.

Interesting.