In article , (Clive Page)
wrote:

On 25/02/2017 19:39, wrote:

That's fine until you get a railcard. Then the only way to get the
railcard discount is to use Oyster, until 2018 at least.

What's changing in 2018?

Oyster will become like Contactless so presumably they have to find a way to
deal with railcard discounts in the back office system.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 17:18:33 on Sat, 25 Feb
2017, tim... remarked:

the auto-top-up that works for me is
5 pounds added when it goes below 5 pounds

Only £20 or £40 is available currently, and the trigger is £10.

yes

that's the point!

How can a £5 auto-topup work for you when it doesn't exist?

there's nothing in my post that says it exists

your saying "works", rather than "would work".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:37:12 on Sat, 25
Feb 2017, Richard J. remarked:

But if "the current rules are an utter pain", there must be some value
in a scheme which avoids the pain. So how much interest would you lose
by lending TfL £20? Isn't it worth it to avoid the utter pain?

I top up my Oyster manually when it gets to about £2. The only use I
have for it is two Z1 singles. The issue with pre-paid one-function
cards is that you can easily end up with a lot of them. A provincial bus
card being one example.

It's like those coffee-shop cardboard loyalty cards - when I buy a
coffee there's rarely a choice of vendor, so I'd need to be carrying
around half a dozen cards all the time.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 19:16:49 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2017-02-25 18:59:08 +0000, d said:

Gotta love contactless. Chip and pin arrives - there being a damn good reason
for the PIN - then the banks decide they'll get more transactions if they
remove the PIN and pretend its not really needed after all. So why do I
need one if I put the card in the slot but not if I use contactless? What
exactly is the qualitative difference? Answer: there isn't one.

There's a *quantitative* difference, namely the £30 cap, and the fact
that if you do more than N transactions in a row the PIN will be called
for.

Yes, thieves could nick a wallet and go around spending about 5 x £30
(£150) with it before they had issues. But that's not going to, er,
break the bank. And if it did happen, the end customer is not liable.

It's basically making cards more of an effective replacement for cash,
and I encourage that, as cash is a faff (and encourages the black
market etc).

Neil

Cash is so simple and fast. Perhaps not as fast as contactless but I
will not use contactless for lots of reasons. I have two such cards
and hope, when they are replaced to get new cards without that
dangerous and vulnerable feature.
Do you and others that use traceable payments not value just a tiny
bit of privacy? I have 4 credit cards (and a debit card) each used
for very specific purposes so no one creditor knows all about me.


Guy Gorton

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 19:16:49 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-25 18:59:08 +0000, d said:

Gotta love contactless. Chip and pin arrives - there being a damn good
reason
for the PIN - then the banks decide they'll get more transactions if
they
remove the PIN and pretend its not really needed after all. So why do I
need one if I put the card in the slot but not if I use contactless?
What
exactly is the qualitative difference? Answer: there isn't one.

There's a *quantitative* difference, namely the £30 cap, and the fact
that if you do more than N transactions in a row the PIN will be called
for.

For various values of N.

Yes, thieves could nick a wallet and go around spending about 5 x £30
(£150) with it before they had issues. But that's not going to, er,
break the bank. And if it did happen, the end customer is not liable.

Oh sure. All you have to do is get a crime number from plod

Oh no you don't

then sit on an
0845 number going through half a dozen menus to eventually get through to
some gimp from india who you need to convince that you're not trying to
commit fraud. And then you might get your money back next week.

that's probably true :-(

tim

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
wrote on 25 Feb 2017 at 02:29 ...
In article ,

(Richard J.) wrote:

wrote on 24 Feb 2017 at 07:40 ...
In article ,
(Matthew Dickinson) wrote:

From this April it should be possible to pick up online Oyster
purchases within 30 minutes, and without having to nominate a
particular station. It will also be possible to pick up purchases on
buses.

TfL are also planning to introduce an Oyster app to complement this
improvement.

Details are at:


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ttach/3/Issue%
2095%20Redacted.pdf

Hooray! The current rules are an utter pain for infrequent
out-of-London
users like me. I got caught out by the evening deadline too once,
topping up for a planned journey the next day. Living in Cambridge I
can't even be sure where I'll start an Oyster journey.

If you used Auto Top-up, you wouldn't have that problem.

I don't use Oyster enough to justify lending TfL so much money.

But if "the current rules are an utter pain", there must be some value in
a scheme which avoids the pain. So how much interest would you lose by
lending TfL £20? Isn't it worth it to avoid the utter pain?

what pain is that

going up to a machine and adding 5 pounds at the time that is convenient

tim

On 2017-02-26 09:59:24 +0000, Guy Gorton said:

Cash is so simple and fast. Perhaps not as fast as contactless but I
will not use contactless for lots of reasons. I have two such cards
and hope, when they are replaced to get new cards without that
dangerous and vulnerable feature.

It is not a dangerous and vulnerable feature. It is in fact a lot less
risky than having £150 cash in your wallet (the approximate most you
can spend on a card without hitting a PIN check). But unlike £150
cash, if that happens you'll get the money back - the vendor loses out,
not you.

Do you and others that use traceable payments not value just a tiny
bit of privacy? I have 4 credit cards (and a debit card) each used
for very specific purposes so no one creditor knows all about me.

I'm not very interesting, really (or rather my spending pattern isn't).
FWIW, that expectation of privacy seems to reduce further still the
younger people you speak to.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2017-02-26 12:59:28 +0000, tim... said:

Oh sure. All you have to do is get a crime number from plod

Oh no you don't

then sit on an
0845 number going through half a dozen menus to eventually get through to
some gimp from india who you need to convince that you're not trying to
commit fraud. And then you might get your money back next week.

that's probably true :-(

I've been hit by (pre-C&P) card fraud twice. In both cases, it was the
bank that pointed it out to me, by phoning and asking if I really did
make certain transactions.

I get an automated call like that every now and then if my spending
pattern is in any way out of character.

While if I have £100 in my wallet, and my wallet is nicked, my £100 is
gone for good.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message , at 14:23:40 on Sun, 26
Feb 2017, Neil Williams remarked:
Do you and others that use traceable payments not value just a tiny
bit of privacy? I have 4 credit cards (and a debit card) each used
for very specific purposes so no one creditor knows all about me.

I'm not very interesting, really (or rather my spending pattern isn't).
FWIW, that expectation of privacy seems to reduce further still the
younger people you speak to.

That's because they are young and dumb.
--
Roland Perry

On 2017-02-26 15:18:40 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 14:23:40 on Sun, 26
Feb 2017, Neil Williams remarked:
Do you and others that use traceable payments not value just a tiny
bit of privacy? I have 4 credit cards (and a debit card) each used
for very specific purposes so no one creditor knows all about me.

I'm not very interesting, really (or rather my spending pattern isn't).
FWIW, that expectation of privacy seems to reduce further still the
younger people you speak to.

That's because they are young and dumb.

No, it's because attitudes are shifting.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.