On 29-Feb-12 02:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:27:15 on Tue, 28 Feb
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
That's why any sensible merchant uses some sort of shipping with
delivery confirmation. Once delivered, their liability for a "FOB
destination" shipment ends.

Also, most customers _expect_ shipment tracking these days, and are
willing to pay a few dollars extra to get it. I would not do business
with a merchant that didn't offer _at minimum_ delivery confirmation,
for exactly this reason. I've had shipping problems in the past (mostly
with DHL, but once with UPS--never with FedEx) and have no desire to get
into a battle with the merchants or my bank over whose fault it is.

This is another US vs UK thing. Here in the UK it's quite unusual (and
somewhat expensive) to use a DHL/UPS/FedEx courier for most mail order
transactions. The majority still use the Royal Mail (and most often not
with either a tracking or delivery confirmation component) or one of a
variety of "low cost carriers" (cf: low cost airlines) who appear to use
part time workers and unmarked vehicles.

What would Amazon use in the USA if you bought a book for say $10?

I recently ordered a book (price: USD 15.18) from Amazon using their
free "Super Saver" shipping, which they claim is USPS with Delivery
Confirmationâ„¢.

Item(s) Subtotal: $15.18
Shipping & Handling: $1.74
Super Saver Discount: -$1.74
-----
Total Before Tax: $15.18
Sales Tax: $0.00
-----
Total for This Shipment: $15.18

The link for tracking the shipment reveals that it was actually sent via
FedEx Smartpost®, an interesting hybrid system in which FedEx delivers
the package to the local post office and USPS does the final delivery to
the customer.

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

In message , at 09:29:57 on Wed, 29 Feb
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
Perhaps I'm being too strict about my definition of "money", but debits
and credits are just accounting entries until cash (or checks, or wire
transfer) is used to settle them at some later point.

A "debit card" is special because it is settled every day by the issuing
bank with no further action by the customer

Maybe in the USA, but here in the UK a debit card transaction is in
effect a wire transfer. Perhaps because the various banks are so much
more integrated with each other.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 08:27:38 on
Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Robert Neville remarked:
Upgraded (extra fee) shipping is offered for 2 day or overnight
service. Those are available from the Postal Service, Fed Ex and UPS at
Amazon's discretion.

What sort of order of magnitude is that extra fee?

In my experience, standard shipping for a $10 book might be $2, two day service
might be $10 and overnight might be $15.

Which of those are tracked or signed-for?
--
Roland Perry

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.

Granted, you likely won't get anywhere with LEOs unless they are aware
of a _pattern_ of such behavior by a given merchant; they'll just tell
you to dispute the charge with your bank.

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 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.

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

In message , at 09:56:32 on Wed, 29 Feb
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
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.

It's only supplier fraud if

(a) the local law defines it as such - in some jurisdictions it's
possible the default is FOB.

(b) the supplier refuses to accept that the delivery failed (goods
stolen in transit or delivered to the wrong address), and doesn't send
the goods a second time.

(c) it isn't customer fraud.
--
Roland Perry

On 29-Feb-12 03:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:13:12 on Tue, 28 Feb
2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avantix_Mobile

Right. I didn't think those were wireless devices.

That's probably right. I thought perhaps they had a version with GSM/3G
data built in, but perhaps not. As a result, the range of credit/debit
cards they can accept is restricted.

However, if the transaction appears suspicious then the ticket seller
can opt to make a mobile phone call to obtain authorisation.

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.

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".

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. 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.

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 28-Feb-12 16:54, Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:48 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
on Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Neil Williams remarked:

There's still a way for waiters to 'game' the system. If they hand
the terminal to the customer after themselves entering a zero tip,
the customer is "forced" to leave a cash tip (or query the lack of
tip, which hardly ever seems to happen).

Or to leave nothing.

Which is what tends to happen if I'm the customer. If I'm paying by card
it's probably because I don't have suitable cash on me. But it doesn't
bother me because I assume it's the waiter gaming the system and losing,
and that was his choice.

They might not care whether or not you leave a tip paid for by card
(indeed they might prefer you didn't), if they're unlikely ever to see
any of that tip come their way. Unfortunately a fair few
establishments don't do a very good job of routing tips paid for by
card back to their staff (if indeed any of it gets to them). I prefer
to leave a cash tip if possible.

In the US, I rarely hear of restaurants not passing on tips to waiters,
but they _do_ have to take out taxes and report that income to the
gov't, whereas it's up to the waiter to report cash tips--and most
don't. This can add up to a significant difference in income for a
waiter, especially given all the special tax credits and such they can
qualify for by not reporting most of their income.

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

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.

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.

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.
--
Roland Perry

In my experience, standard shipping for a $10 book might be $2, two day service
might be $10 and overnight might be $15.

Which of those are tracked or signed-for?

Two day and overnight are tracked. Signatures cost extra so are only
used on stuff that is expensive or restricted (alcohol.) On USPS
priority mail, which is typically two days, tracking is free if you
pay online and print the label yourself, costs a little extra at the
PO.

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.)
--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly