I wonder if any if any passenger ships that cross the Atlantic Ocean
offer such a service, such as Cunard's Queens.

Many cruise ships offer incredibly overpriced cell service with satellite uplink.
Prices are upwards of 2 quid/minute.

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

wrote:
Clive wrote:
Mizter T writes
I'm not aware of any of the cross-channel ferries offering their own
on-ship base stations, at least on the eastern crossings, e.g. Dover-
Calais/Dunkirk. My experience has been that you retain mobile
reception from one side or another for the whole cross-channel ferry
crossing.

I also noticed that mobile reception switched over pretty seamlessly
between France and the UK when I did Dover-Calais, a few years back.

But I also noticed that I lost signal completely on Liverpool-Douglas.

Does anybody what the situation is for service between Holyhead and Dublin
or Hartlepool and Douglas?

I always lose signal completely on Stena between Holyhead and Dublin/Dún
Laoghaire.

On 13-Mar-12 05:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:46:39 on Mon, 12 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:

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).

I don't deny that; a careful analysis would be required, and I would
hope they have done so rather than simply saying there's "no money" to
solve the problem and moving on.

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.

Interesting. In contrast, the airline I usually fly stopped accepting
cash for in-flight snacks several years ago; they only accept cards
now--and they _do_ have online authorization.

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.

That is a much more reasonable response. I even grant that may be the
case, but we don't have sufficient data to presume it is correct.

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,

That isn't how the problem was initially presented in this thread: that
_all_ debit cards were refused, based on the assumption that they were
more likely to be declined and therefore a higher risk for offline
transactions.

If that is not actually correct, that changes the entire conversation.

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.

All that it takes to beat an offline payment system is to obtain a valid
card with no funds available--hardly equivalent to breaking into Ft Knox.

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.

Are you sure they require EMV, eg. they don't accept US non-EMV cards?

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).

It may have been an earlier "Chip and PIN" system, but I recall a case
of a man in France being jailed in the 1990s for demonstrating to a bank
his ability to counterfeit their chips.

Even if that wasn't EMV, it's just a matter of time until someone
figures out how to do it.

--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.

In the above case, the man created a chip that accepted _any_ PIN and
could be programmed with _any_ card number.

Again, I don't know if that was EMV, but if not it's just a matter of
time until someone figures out how to do it.

The entire "smart card" industry, like the DRM industry, relies on
hackers not being able to access data that they physically possess.

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.

I don't know that case in particular, but the much larger Dallas/Ft
Worth area was a single "service area". OTOH, as stated (and snipped),
it would have been entirely possible to end up on the "other" carrier's
towers--and pay roaming charges--even in your home service area if you
wandered into a dead spot in your own carrier's coverage.

It sounds like similar nonsense still afflicts the UK, which could
explain why your coverage is so spotty: there is no incentive for
carriers to improve it.

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 , Stephen Sprunk
writes
It sounds like similar nonsense still afflicts the UK, which could
explain why your coverage is so spotty: there is no incentive for
carriers to improve it.
I remember a few years ago that because coverage was so sparse in north
west Scotland that the gov'mint wanted service providers to share masts
there. Anyone know what became of this?
--
Clive

In message , at 07:31:20 on Mon,
19 Mar 2012, Clive remarked:
It sounds like similar nonsense still afflicts the UK, which could
explain why your coverage is so spotty: there is no incentive for
carriers to improve it.
I remember a few years ago that because coverage was so sparse in north
west Scotland that the gov'mint wanted service providers to share masts
there. Anyone know what became of this?

I don't know (assuming you mean sharing of base stations), but sharing
of *masts* has been common for a long time all over the country. Each
mast having more than one set of equipment on it.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 23:18:10 on Sun, 18 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
the airline I usually fly stopped accepting cash for in-flight snacks
several years ago; they only accept cards now--and they _do_ have
online authorization.

Presumably using the same infrastructure as permits in-flight phone
calls? I wonder if it works offshore.

(On another note, I flew Transatlantic with such an airline last year,
and did wonder how they cope with unaccompanied minors, who almost
certainly won't have any cards).

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

That is a much more reasonable response. I even grant that may be the
case, but we don't have sufficient data to presume it is correct.

There is plenty of data (for example an understanding of the way that
industries such as that conduct themselves) to support my point of view.
As it's a UK company, I'm in the UK, and you aren't, I'm not
particularly surprised that this data is less evident to you than it is
to me.

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,

That isn't how the problem was initially presented in this thread: that
_all_ debit cards were refused, based on the assumption that they were
more likely to be declined and therefore a higher risk for offline
transactions.

If that is not actually correct, that changes the entire conversation.

I don't know if you had a different posting in mind, but looking up the
subthread I found this one:

In message , at 15:19:12 on Fri, 2
Mar 2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:
This Web page discusses payment methods that also apply to paying
on train:
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_...t_methods.html

Credit/Debit/Charge Cards

All National Rail train companies accept the major cards
such as Visa, Visa Delta, MasterCard, Maestro and Amex.
Some train companies also accept Diners Club International,
Solo and Electron.

Where the only debit cards not accepted are Solo and Electron (and where
I think the "some also accept..." should really read: "a very few might
also accept...").

All that it takes to beat an offline payment system is to obtain a valid
card with no funds available--hardly equivalent to breaking into Ft Knox.

Obtain (along with the PIN for the Chip) by theft?

Getting one in your own name, then "doing a runner" is not something you
are likely to be able to repeat, as previously discussed.

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.

Are you sure they require EMV, eg. they don't accept US non-EMV cards?

Absolutely sure.

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).

It may have been an earlier "Chip and PIN" system, but I recall a case
of a man in France being jailed in the 1990s for demonstrating to a bank
his ability to counterfeit their chips.

Even if that wasn't EMV, it's just a matter of time until someone
figures out how to do it.

In the mean time, it's so unlikely, especially if the objective is
stealing a few train tickets, that we can discount it.

--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.

In the above case, the man created a chip that accepted _any_ PIN and
could be programmed with _any_ card number.

Again, I don't know if that was EMV, but if not it's just a matter of
time until someone figures out how to do it.

The entire "smart card" industry, like the DRM industry, relies on
hackers not being able to access data that they physically possess.

See above.

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.

I don't know that case in particular, but the much larger Dallas/Ft
Worth area was a single "service area". OTOH, as stated (and snipped),
it would have been entirely possible to end up on the "other" carrier's
towers--and pay roaming charges--even in your home service area if you
wandered into a dead spot in your own carrier's coverage.

It sounds like similar nonsense still afflicts the UK, which could
explain why your coverage is so spotty: there is no incentive for
carriers to improve it.

All calls are at the same national rate, so geographic service areas
simply don't exist. It's true, however, that "domestic roaming" between
the different networks would improve the coverage experienced by
customers.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland Perry
writes
I don't know (assuming you mean sharing of base stations), but sharing
of *masts* has been common for a long time all over the country. Each
mast having more than one set of equipment on it.
Sorry, I meant service providers sharing their services at no extra
charge.
--
Clive

On 19-Mar-12 05:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:18:10 on Sun, 18 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
the airline I usually fly stopped accepting cash for in-flight snacks
several years ago; they only accept cards now--and they _do_ have
online authorization.

Presumably using the same infrastructure as permits in-flight phone
calls? I wonder if it works offshore.

I haven't seen any details on how (or where) it works. However,
in-flight phone and WiFi works for transoceanic flights because it's
satellite-based.

(On another note, I flew Transatlantic with such an airline last year,
and did wonder how they cope with unaccompanied minors, who almost
certainly won't have any cards).

Just tell minors to use their cash to buy a gift card before they board.

Even ignoring that, minors certainly _can_ have cards; I got my first at
15 and could have gotten one sooner if there had been a reason to. In
theory, a minor can't be the _primary_ cardholder since they aren't
considered competent to execute contracts, but there is no minimum age
for a secondary card. And some banks don't ask the applicant's age, as
in my case, so a minor can indeed get their own card from such banks.

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

That is a much more reasonable response. I even grant that may be the
case, but we don't have sufficient data to presume it is correct.

There is plenty of data (for example an understanding of the way that
industries such as that conduct themselves) to support my point of view.
As it's a UK company, I'm in the UK, and you aren't, I'm not
particularly surprised that this data is less evident to you than it is
to me.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

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,

That isn't how the problem was initially presented in this thread: that
_all_ debit cards were refused, based on the assumption that they were
more likely to be declined and therefore a higher risk for offline
transactions.

If that is not actually correct, that changes the entire conversation.

I don't know if you had a different posting in mind, but looking up the
subthread I found this one:

In message , at 15:19:12 on Fri, 2
Mar 2012, Adam H. Kerman remarked:
This Web page discusses payment methods that also apply to paying
on train:
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_...t_methods.html

Credit/Debit/Charge Cards

All National Rail train companies accept the major cards
such as Visa, Visa Delta, MasterCard, Maestro and Amex.
Some train companies also accept Diners Club International,
Solo and Electron.

Where the only debit cards not accepted are Solo and Electron (and where
I think the "some also accept..." should really read: "a very few might
also accept...").

The discussion was about Visa debit cards, which supposedly had the
stigma of only being possessed by people who couldn't get a credit card.

All that it takes to beat an offline payment system is to obtain a valid
card with no funds available--hardly equivalent to breaking into Ft Knox.

Obtain (along with the PIN for the Chip) by theft?

Or just wait until EMV "gift cards" appear, if they don't already exist
somewhere.

Getting one in your own name, then "doing a runner" is not something you
are likely to be able to repeat, as previously discussed.

That is obviously not a successful strategy.

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).

It may have been an earlier "Chip and PIN" system, but I recall a case
of a man in France being jailed in the 1990s for demonstrating to a bank
his ability to counterfeit their chips.

Even if that wasn't EMV, it's just a matter of time until someone
figures out how to do it.

In the mean time, it's so unlikely, especially if the objective is
stealing a few train tickets, that we can discount it.

Unlikely? It's a certainty. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has
already done so and just hasn't publicized that fact--for obvious reasons.

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.

I don't know that case in particular, but the much larger Dallas/Ft
Worth area was a single "service area". OTOH, as stated (and snipped),
it would have been entirely possible to end up on the "other" carrier's
towers--and pay roaming charges--even in your home service area if you
wandered into a dead spot in your own carrier's coverage.

It sounds like similar nonsense still afflicts the UK, which could
explain why your coverage is so spotty: there is no incentive for
carriers to improve it.

All calls are at the same national rate, so geographic service areas
simply don't exist.

OTOH, your entire country is smaller than some of our "service areas".
Remember that the US has roughly twice the area of the entire EU, so our
"domestic" is your "international".

It's true, however, that "domestic roaming" between the different
networks would improve the coverage experienced by customers.

It certainly did in the US.

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 11:10:46 on Mon, 19 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
(On another note, I flew Transatlantic with such an airline last year,
and did wonder how they cope with unaccompanied minors, who almost
certainly won't have any cards).

Just tell minors to use their cash to buy a gift card before they board.

Eventually you may come to accept that gift cards like that are only
available in the USA. It's been mentioned half a dozen times already,
but maybe if we keep saying it you'll believe it.

Even ignoring that, minors certainly _can_ have cards; I got my first at
15 and could have gotten one sooner if there had been a reason to. In
theory, a minor can't be the _primary_ cardholder since they aren't
considered competent to execute contracts, but there is no minimum age
for a secondary card. And some banks don't ask the applicant's age, as
in my case, so a minor can indeed get their own card from such banks.

That's most likely another USA thing, and a bit of a sledgehammer to
crack this nut.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:10:46 on Mon, 19 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
There is plenty of data (for example an understanding of the way that
industries such as that conduct themselves) to support my point of view.
As it's a UK company, I'm in the UK, and you aren't, I'm not
particularly surprised that this data is less evident to you than it is
to me.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

It's the plural of experience and research.
--
Roland Perry