In message , at 21:37:25 on Thu, 24
May 2012, Graham Nye remarked:
(But younger people now might dispense with a TV and just watch
programmes on a laptop.)

My children are much more likely to "watch TV" by using BBC iPlayer, and
the several similar sites for other channels, than having to sit in
front of a conventional TV at exactly the right time.

We have a PVR, but that needs setting in advance, and almost everything
they might have recorded is available online for a week or more.

On the other hand, they are quite likely to use a "TV" as the monitor on
the PC, because that's what we happen to have a surplus of.

The problem with this business model is what's also afflicting Facebook
delivered onto smartphones. There is so much less opportunity to
advertise to the users, that it's not clear where the long term funding
is going to come from.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 24 May 2012 17:42:09 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 24/05/2012 10:33, Max Demian wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 23:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Harris

There is a major problem with PTT machines in that they encouraged
people to pay 5 pence for a journey and then not pay at the
destination even if they had more cash in their possession.

What do you mean by "then not pay at the destination"? do you mean
refuse to pay, or avoid payment by dodging any barriers or ticket
inspectors? If the former, presumably the rail companies have some way
of dealing with non-payers. If the latter, they could dodge payment
whether the PTT machines existed or not.

The latter. If stopped without a ticket, you were probably up to no
good. If stopped with a 5p permit to travel, you could say you intended
to pay later - and if not stopped, you got a journey for 5p.

The solution is to put in more barriers, as they did a year or two ago
at Paddington for the Maidenhead line, or employ more ticket
inspectors.

When there weren't PTT machines the ticket inspector just had to take
your word for where you got on. The 'permit to travel' system
regularises this, provided the machines are available and work.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:54:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 21:37:25 on Thu, 24
May 2012, Graham Nye remarked:
(But younger people now might dispense with a TV and just watch
programmes on a laptop.)

My children are much more likely to "watch TV" by using BBC iPlayer, and
the several similar sites for other channels, than having to sit in
front of a conventional TV at exactly the right time.

We have a PVR, but that needs setting in advance, and almost everything
they might have recorded is available online for a week or more.

On the other hand, they are quite likely to use a "TV" as the monitor on
the PC, because that's what we happen to have a surplus of.

The problem with this business model is what's also afflicting Facebook
delivered onto smartphones. There is so much less opportunity to
advertise to the users, that it's not clear where the long term funding
is going to come from.

Drifting OT here, but it was amusing yesterday, to see the mask slip at
Facebook, when a FB exec jokingly said that they *really* needed people
to click on ads, now they are expected to make a profit:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...facebook_exec/

for my money, I agree with the commentators on the story, that FB will
have to find a way to charge users - probably by introducing a "FB
premium" account.

On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:03:29 -0700, ian batten wrote:

On May 24, 3:44Â*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote:

In the SWT area, there are a fair proportion of card only machines, but
AFAIAA only where multiple machines are fitted alongside one another.

And there are card-only machines in LUL stations, although again only
(in my limited experience) in multiple with more full-service machines.
However, it's an interesting question as to whether if you have a pair
of machines, one of which takes cash (or your preferred method of
payment) and the other of which doesn't, and the "wrong" one fails,
whether that constitutes "full working order". A pair of machines which
together accept two forms of payment might be seen as one machine which
takes both, or as two machines either of which needs to be working.
Presumably, someone with money and time on their hands will get
themselves PF'd, force a testcase and get a resolution.

ian

What would be more interesting would be a court ruling, on how far (if at
all) T&Cs can mandate payment method. I appreciate in a very specialist
transaction, a vendor might be able to stipulate "credit cards only".
However, in a situation where a service is nominally offered to the
general public, would a clause insisting you pay by card, or magic beans
be regarded as "unfair". And if not, what *exactly* is the concept of
"legal tender" ?

In message , at 09:02:46 on Fri, 25
May 2012, Jethro_uk remarked:
FB will have to find a way to charge users - probably by introducing a
"FB premium" account.

They are already trialling a scheme where you have to pay to have your
postings "highlighted", which could mission-creep very quickly into "so
your postings are circulated at al1".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:06:01 on Fri, 25
May 2012, Jethro_uk remarked:
What would be more interesting would be a court ruling, on how far (if at
all) T&Cs can mandate payment method. I appreciate in a very specialist
transaction, a vendor might be able to stipulate "credit cards only".
However, in a situation where a service is nominally offered to the
general public, would a clause insisting you pay by card, or magic beans
be regarded as "unfair". And if not, what *exactly* is the concept of
"legal tender" ?

If you owe someone some money and they are threatening to sue, you can
pay the disputed amount into court (apart from anything else, that
defuses much of the debate about the creditor's legal costs). Legal
tender is what the court will accept. It's perhaps helpful to think of
it as "tender accepted by the legal system", rather than "tender that is
legally obliged to be accepted in a wider context".

Separately, traders can also make it a contract condition (ie it's not
automatic) that you must pay according to the same[1] rules (eg that
they won't accept more than £5 of 10p pieces etc).

But they could just as easily have a different (either stricter or
laxer) rule.

An obvious example of a stricter rule is those machines that won't
accept smaller denominations of coins (and probably aren't set up to
accept 25p's and £5 coins either).

On the other hand, some machines will accept huge numbers of coins (I've
never found a limit at Tesco's self-checkouts for example).

[1] On the basis that if the rule is good enough for the courts, it's
good enough for them as well.
--
Roland Perry

On May 25, 10:06*am, Jethro_uk wrote:

However, in a situation where a service is nominally offered to the
general public, would a clause insisting you pay by card, or magic beans
be regarded as "unfair". And if not, what *exactly* is the concept of
"legal tender" ?

Legal tender is irrelevant to retail payments.

The idea that shop-keepers have to accept payment in the forms that
prospective customers want to use was pretty much scotched by
supermarkets and petrol stations deciding to stop taking cheques, even
when backed by cheque cards, which precipitated the end of the cheque
card scheme. Booking and paying for a hotel room without a card
would be close to impossible, I suspect, although I've never tried it,
and that's a service offered to the general public.

ian

On May 24, 7:56*am, Jonathan Harris
wrote:
On May 23, 11:33*pm, CJB wrote:









There is increasing concern that traincos serving London (and
eslewhere around the country) are refusing to accept cash as payment
for tickets from their automatic ticket machines.

This is causing massive disrupution to potential customers especially
those youngsters who do not have a credit card, or in London those
whose Oyster card has run out and cannot be topped up. This situation
also disadvantages thousands of tourists who expect to be able to
purchase train tickets from machines with cash.

In the greater London area the National Rail stations are in what is
termed a 'Penalty Fare Zone.' Travelling within this zone without a
ticket can incur a huge penalty fine. If tickets cannot be purchased
for travel within this zone - even if the automatic ticket machines
are u/s - then 'Permit to Travel' tickets are supposed to be purchased
from another machine for a nominal amount of cash. These tickets then
make the travel legal. The balance of the fare is then supposed to be
paid at the destination. These are the ONLY tickets available for cash
- well used to be.

However despite PTTs being a legal requirement in the Penalty Fare
Zone(s) the Permits to Travel ticket issuing machines are frequently
switched off, or have been removed altogether.

Notices clearly displayed at most stations state that it is a legal
requirement to purchase these special PTT tickets. Yet many (most /
all?) traincos have closed down or removed the PTT machines.

So what is the legal situation whereas the requirement is to purchase
these PTT tickets, yet the machines that issue them have been removed?

CJB.

There is a major problem with PTT machines in that they encouraged
people to pay 5 pence for a journey and then not pay at the
destination even if they had more cash in their possession.

The legal position is surely to buy a ticket if you have the money to
pay for it (as it was with the Permit to Travel machines into which
you were meant to put all the money you had available up to the value
of the fare (and not 5p)).

Yes - but most (all?) of the ticket machines have been altered so as
not to take cash. Only the PTT machines could take cash. Now these
latter are all out-of-contract and are being removed or left switched
off. However the law states that a PTT MUST be purchased if a normal
ticket cannot - yet it is now impossible to purchase a PTT. So either
new PTT machine must be provided or the law has to be changed. Its a
catch-22 for customers that cannot be acceptable. CJB.

On May 24, 2:39*pm, Jahbulon wrote:
ian batten wrote in news:4e48f480-cbaf-4680-
:

As I explain above, legal tender is irrelevant to this
debate, as a debt doesn't exist at the point of payment.

If you offer payment, they're not going to take you to court owing to their
own failures, regardless of what the law may or may not say. They'd risk
having a judge throw the matter out as an abuse and being told to find a
better hobby.

--

Praise be to Jahbulon, holy god of Royal Arch Freemasons

Yes - but this doesn't stop the gateline staff at Ealing Broadway and
Paddington from bullying those who turn up without tickets. Quite
frequently I have seen passengers - usually tourists - being given a
hard time at Paddington, and have had to point out to gateline staff
that the machines at Hayes are frequently u/s or do not take cash, and
that the one remaining PTT machine has been out-of-order for the last
year. CJB.

On May 25, 1:55*pm, CJB wrote:

Yes - but most (all?) of the ticket machines have been altered so as
not to take cash. Only the PTT machines could take cash. Now these
latter are all out-of-contract and are being removed or left switched
off. However the law states that a PTT MUST be purchased if a normal
ticket cannot - yet it is now impossible to purchase a PTT.

It's going to come down to a debate about the precise meaning of
section 2 in the conditions of carriage (and isn't it a pain that the
paragraphs aren't numbered properly)?

"You will not be entitled to any discounts or special
terms [[ such as not paying a PF in a PF area ]] unless either:
(i) at the station where you started your journey, there was no
ticket office open and there were no self- service ticket machines
or no self-service ticket machines were in full working order
[[ I'll call this (i)(a) ]]
and

in Penalty Fares areas you bought a Permit to Travel unless no Permit
to Travel issuing machine was in full working order [[ I'll call this
(i)(b) ]]

....

In circumstances where (i) or (ii) apply, you only need to pay the
fare that you would have paid if you had bought a ticket immediately
before your journey."

The debate's going to be whether a TVM which by design takes only
cards is "in full working order". On its face, the answer is "yes",
but it's for a court to decide. Even when cheques were at their peak
no TVM took cheques, so clearly it's OK for machines to only accept a
subset of payment methods, and as we've discussed at length there is
no right to pay with cash. It may be bad customer service, it may be
a problem for a small subset of customers, but it's a commercial
decision by the operator as to if they care. As an analogy, a PTT
machine usually only takes coins, so someone who offers cash but only
has notes won't be able to buy a PTT either. If a TVM which only
takes cards is deemed to be in full working order, then (i)(a)
applies, so (i)(b) is irrelevant.

So either
new PTT machine must be provided or the law has to be changed. Its a
catch-22 for customers that cannot be acceptable. CJB.

Alternatively, they could just get debit cards and stop whining. Pre-
pays are hardly difficult to obtain.

ian