nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <xaY_I.155715$T_8.51231@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> There are exceptions to this, namely on-board purchases on an aircraft
>> where they are allowed to process transactions without authorization and
>> process them when they next land.
>>
>> Note that the airline has much info on each passenger, so if there is
>> fraud, they can contact the passenger.
>
> if the card is stolen, they'll have someone else's info.

I don't know how the validation is done, but airlines have the
exact name of the passengers and can compare that with the exact
name printed on the card. When they don't match, there could be
extra questions asked and/or service denied.

On 9/11/2021 5:01 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

> But I WOULD get it [check fraud money] back in the end, just like
> credit card fraud.

> Maybe. I wouldn't depend on that.

Fortunately I haven't ever needed to try (knocks on wood again).

> Have you locked your credit? I don't know the exact term used, but
> you can contact the 3 credit reporting agencies in the US and lock
> your credit. Then no one can apply for a credit card in your name.

Yep. 6 times. 3 for the wife and 3 for me.

> If you want a new card you need to temporarily unlock it. Since
> identity theft has become common, it makes sense.

Easy to do online.

> That lock also comes in handy when store clerks harass me about
> getting a store credit card. "Oh, you know I'd love to, but I keep my
> credit locked. Haven't you done that yourself? Oh, dear." :)

I just say no thank you. It's their job to ask you. Be nice to them...

On 9/11/2021 3:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> Yes, while they (checks) still exist, you might as well use them to
> your advantage. I think that in the cases you mention, we would use
> gift cards or cash.

Yep. And with gift cards I'd get cashback buying them with my credit
card. Greedy good idea. Still, it would be a PITA buying them. Gift
checks are so easy to write...

> As others mentioned, for us US checks are a pain. For example my US
> broker kept sending me small dividend checks which I couldn't cash
> without extreme cost - some $30 for a single check

Wow. Here I would just use the my phone bank app to cash the check.
Takes just a minute. No charge.

> - and even selling shares had way too prohibitive costs, both for
> the sale and for the (electronic) transfer of the proceeds).

I hold my shares directly. No broker. When I sell shares I use the
holding company's website. The money is then directly deposited into my
bank account, again no charge.

> So now I still have some shares and dividend in the US and I can't
> do anything with them/it! :-)

Mail them to me and I'll write you a check... :-)

On 9/11/2021 1:00 AM, Rob wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> I still find checks very handy. It's an easy way to transfer money
>> to an individual without needing to know anything but his name.
>
> In EU we can transfer money to someone without knowing anything but
> their IBAN (International Bank Account Number). And it is just as
> safe because knowing an IBAN gives you only capability to send money
> to it, not anything regarded withdrawing or abuse.

Safe? What if you screw up and use the wrong number? No backup info to
make sure you have the right account? It's hard for me to get the wrong
name on a check, though I'm sure the day is coming the older I get...

> In the past when I wanted to transfer money to an individual in the
> US I was very amazed that they did not want to give me their account
> number, and that this would be "because when I knew their number I
> would be able to take money from it". Weird!

My checks have the account numbers printed right on the bottom.

> Checks have been used here only as payment method in stores, not for
> any transfers between individuals.

I've not seen anybody use a check in a store here in a long time.

> And they have been discontinued decades ago. There is no way I can
> write a check to transfer money to a US citizen.

I wouldn't write a check to you either. I'd use a transfer. But to the
many individuals I do write checks to, having to know their bank account
numbers would be a nightmare. Checks are just another tool in my
arsenal, not the arsenal...

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/2021 1:00 AM, Rob wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> I still find checks very handy. It's an easy way to transfer money
>>> to an individual without needing to know anything but his name.
>>
>> In EU we can transfer money to someone without knowing anything but
>> their IBAN (International Bank Account Number). And it is just as
>> safe because knowing an IBAN gives you only capability to send money
>> to it, not anything regarded withdrawing or abuse.
>
> Safe? What if you screw up and use the wrong number? No backup info to
> make sure you have the right account? It's hard for me to get the wrong
> name on a check, though I'm sure the day is coming the older I get...

It is hard to get the number wrong because it usually has 2 levels of
checkdigits. The IBAN often consists of an existing accountnumber that
already had a checkdigit and a country/bank-specific prefix that also
adds 2 more checkdigits over the entire number.

Locally it is possible to have name/number checking, e.g. we have that
here in the Netherlands. But not everywhere. When I enter a name
and IBAN in a transfer, it will warn me when the name does not match
the number.

>> In the past when I wanted to transfer money to an individual in the
>> US I was very amazed that they did not want to give me their account
>> number, and that this would be "because when I knew their number I
>> would be able to take money from it". Weird!
>
> My checks have the account numbers printed right on the bottom.

That makes it even more confusing. But I hear that story all the time,
and Americans not wanting to give you their account number. Weird.

>> Checks have been used here only as payment method in stores, not for
>> any transfers between individuals.
>
> I've not seen anybody use a check in a store here in a long time.

Same here. It ended 20 years ago.

>> And they have been discontinued decades ago. There is no way I can
>> write a check to transfer money to a US citizen.
>
> I wouldn't write a check to you either. I'd use a transfer. But to the
> many individuals I do write checks to, having to know their bank account
> numbers would be a nightmare. Checks are just another tool in my
> arsenal, not the arsenal...

We have progressed from paper forms to using websites and apps.
There is no issue of "remembering account numbers" because the banking
websites and apps all have an address book where they remember the
names and accountnumbers you use.

In article <slrnsjpdqp.t0s.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> >> There are exceptions to this, namely on-board purchases on an aircraft
> >> where they are allowed to process transactions without authorization and
> >> process them when they next land.
> >>
> >> Note that the airline has much info on each passenger, so if there is
> >> fraud, they can contact the passenger.
> >
> > if the card is stolen, they'll have someone else's info.
>
> I don't know how the validation is done, but airlines have the
> exact name of the passengers and can compare that with the exact
> name printed on the card. When they don't match, there could be
> extra questions asked and/or service denied.

they don't cross check each transaction with the manifest. that would
take far too long.

Am 10.09.21 um 14:22 schrieb Chris:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> I have forgotten the phone more times than the wallet.
>>
>> And considering that the wallet also contains the ID card and the
>> driving license, and driving without that is a fine, there is barely
>> that risk here.
>
> The UK doesn't do ID cards and you don't need to have your drivers licence
> on you when driving, so going out with just your phone is not a problem.

Deepstate?

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 11/09/2021 14.22, Chris wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/09/2021 11.24, Chris wrote:
>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/2021 4:10 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>> On 11/09/2021 00.18, AJL wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I still find checks very handy. It's an easy way to transfer money
>>>>>> to an individual without needing to know anything but his name. No
>>>>>> app info required. For example I generally mail checks in birthday
>>>>>> cards to grandkids around the country because it's safer than
>>>>>> mailing cash and I know that they got them when the check clears.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would backfire here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kids can have a bank account, and you normally need a bank account
>>>>> to cash a cheque (and it goes into your account). However, the kid
>>>>> can not withdraw a cent out of his own account till he is of age. No
>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> An cashing a cheque without an account, into cash, incurs a high
>>>>> fee.
>>>>
>>>> Here the parents can countersign the check and use their phone to
>>>> deposit it into their account (no bank trip required). They can then
>>>> later go to the store with the kid to buy the gift, give him cash, or
>>>> combine the money with other cash gifts to buy something really special...
>>>
>>> That was banned here decades ago as it's easy to steal people's cheques
>>> that way. Only the account payee can cash/deposit a cheque.
>>>
>>> Gifting money is easy via direct deposit to their bank account.
>>
>> But not to kids, at least in my country. They can not withdraw from
>> their own accounts a single cent till they are 18.
>
> That does seem really very odd. How are kids supposed to manage their
> money? Many 15+ year olds have jobs and need to get paid here. How does
> that work in Spain?

Simple: no jobs. Forbidden for minors.

Having a minor working is considered an abuse and the employer could be
jailed.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 11/09/2021 15.49, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/09/2021 08.39, JF Mezei wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-10 19:15, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not really, the interaction is local, between the driver machine and
>>>> your card (which has a chip and memory). Internet is not needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> A connection is needed to verify that your card is
>>> 1-valid
>>> 2-has sufficient funds.
>>
>> Not with this type of cards, storage of the funds is local.
>
> We had those cards as well but they were phased out.
> The Dutch don't like part of their money being parked on a sheet
> of plastic where it can be only used for one purpose.

Of course, I agree, but my city uses that system. Obviously I don't know
every city bus system; Madrid now has a more modern and flexible system,
but mind: only since recently, few years ago they used their own system
with magnetic paper tickets.

>
> The system stored transaction records in the terminals which were
> sent to the bank in a batch transmission (e.g. end of the day over
> a phone modem), and the transactions included the balance of the
> card so the bank had an offline "track" of what happened with the
> card balance.
>
> So it would be infeasible to mess with the funds stored on the card
> without the bank finding out about it eventually.

Right.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 11/09/2021 15.43, nospam wrote:
> In article <xaY_I.155715$T_8.51231@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> There are exceptions to this, namely on-board purchases on an aircraft
>> where they are allowed to process transactions without authorization and
>> process them when they next land.
>>
>> Note that the airline has much info on each passenger, so if there is
>> fraud, they can contact the passenger.
>
> if the card is stolen, they'll have someone else's info.
>

There was a case in Australia where the previous prime minister shared a
photo of him and his airline ticket. A reporter took the chance and
demonstrated to him how that photo was enough to hack him, and published
the report after contacting him (which was not easy).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 11/09/2021 15.45, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> I have not seen a cheque perhaps in two decades now. I suppose you can
>> still have them, but no idea.
>
> I suppose you are thinking about EuroCheques, that was a system that
> was setup somewhere in the seventies. These were "guaranteed" in the
> sense that a merchant who accepted one written by a client up to
> a certain amount (comparable to 150 euro) would always get the amount
> from the bank, even when the client did not have the balance in their
> account. The bank would go after the money, the merchant would not
> have to. I think that does not exist in the USA.
>
> These were used for two purposes:
>
> - paying for goods in a store
> - when travelling, to get cash from your account while abroad in
> another country where this system existed (like France, Spain, Italy).
> you would usually go the the post office to cash them, and there
> was obligation to show an ID (passport).
>
> It was not usual to mail one to a private person or a company to
> transfer money. In fact that wasn't legally possible as the receiver
> had to witness the writer of the cheque signing it and compare the
> signature with one on a special card that was used with the system.
> (it wasn't a credit- or debit card, just a signature card)
>

Now I remember them, but no, I was thinking of plain cheques. An
employer in the 90's sometimes paid us with cheques. Not trusting him,
we always went to the exact bank office printed on the cheque, no risk
if there were no funds - a different branch would charge us a commission.

I don't remember if I have seen a cheque after then; I think I did, but
I can't remember when and who.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/11/2021 3:55 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 11/09/2021 02.38, nospam wrote:
>> In article <nc9t0ixbvc.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Except that merchants do not accept Apple/Google Pay here.
>>
>> apple and google say otherwise:
>
> Maybe, but the merchants say they don't, and that's where I look before
> trying to do a purchase, not at Apple/Google/Samsung information.

I forget, are you in Spain? Here's an explanation of the issue:
<https://theictscoop.com/apple-pay-arrival-in-spain-720e358a68c5>.

The other issue is that the merchant needs to accept the underlying
payment method. For example, in the U.S. you can use Apple Pay, Google
Pay, or Samsung Pay at Costco, but Costco only accepts Visa, not
Mastercard, Discover, or Amex, so if the underlying card isn't Visa you
can't use mobile wallet.

In article <shik11$nl7$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >>> Except that merchants do not accept Apple/Google Pay here.
> >>
> >> apple and google say otherwise:
> >
> > Maybe, but the merchants say they don't, and that's where I look before
> > trying to do a purchase, not at Apple/Google/Samsung information.
>
> I forget, are you in Spain? Here's an explanation of the issue:
> <https://theictscoop.com/apple-pay-arrival-in-spain-720e358a68c5>.

that's 5 years old. a lot has changed since then.

On Sep 11, 2021, sms wrote
(in article <shik11$nl7$1@dont-email.me>):

> On 9/11/2021 3:55 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> > On 11/09/2021 02.38, nospam wrote:
> > > In article<nc9t0ixbvc.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> > > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Except that merchants do not accept Apple/Google Pay here.
> > >
> > > apple and google say otherwise:
> >
> > Maybe, but the merchants say they don't, and that's where I look before
> > trying to do a purchase, not at Apple/Google/Samsung information.
>
> I forget, are you in Spain? Here's an explanation of the issue:
> <https://theictscoop.com/apple-pay-arrival-in-spain-720e358a68c5>.
>
> The other issue is that the merchant needs to accept the underlying
> payment method. For example, in the U.S. you can use Apple Pay, Google
> Pay, or Samsung Pay at Costco, but Costco only accepts Visa, not
> Mastercard, Discover, or Amex, so if the underlying card isn't Visa you
> can't use mobile wallet.

So? In my Apple wallet I have the GS Apple Card (Mastercard), a Visa card issued by my bank, an Amex Gold, an Amex Platinum Everyday Card, and my bank debit card (Visa), but since I do not have a Costco membership that issue has never arisen. However, for my most recent overseas trips in February & March 2020 ApplePay& Amex worked just fine in the Netherlands, and South Africa.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 9/11/2021 7:27 AM, Rob wrote:

> We have progressed from paper forms to using websites and apps.
> There is no issue of "remembering account numbers" because the
> banking websites and apps all have an address book where they
> remember the names and account numbers you use.

It's nice to have both paper and electronic systems available.

A paper birthday card with a few comments hand written by me, mailed in
a paper envelope with a birthday sticker, and a paper gift check
enclosed, just seems a little more personal to me than a happy birthday
text with a link. YMMV of course...

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> Now I remember them, but no, I was thinking of plain cheques. An
> employer in the 90's sometimes paid us with cheques. Not trusting him,
> we always went to the exact bank office printed on the cheque, no risk
> if there were no funds - a different branch would charge us a commission.

That was never a thing here, we went straight from payment in cash
to payment to a payment account at a bank.

In fact the state established a special bank for that, which operated
from the post office. Commercial banks existed back then but mainly
for businesses. Now that every working person had to get a bank
account, this bank was establised especially for that. More wealthy
people usually got an account at a commercial bank who also implemented
this service.

In those days it was still very customary to go to the bank (or post-)
office once a month and collect a big part of the money in cash, only
leaving some for payments that already could be made bank-to-bank
(like energy bill, rent, mortgage payment, etc)

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> We had those cards as well but they were phased out.
>> The Dutch don't like part of their money being parked on a sheet
>> of plastic where it can be only used for one purpose.
>
> Of course, I agree, but my city uses that system. Obviously I don't know
> every city bus system; Madrid now has a more modern and flexible system,
> but mind: only since recently, few years ago they used their own system
> with magnetic paper tickets.

What I discussed was a chipcard system issued by the banks, and used
for small payments e.g. at parking meters or to buy a coffee.

For transport, we have a completely separate system operated by the
transport companies and with functionality oriented towards that.
You present the card at both entry and exit from the system, and the
system calculates the fare and subtracts it from the balance on the
card. "It cannot be done" using the existing chipcard system, said
the transport companies, because that only handles money and not
the special functions for transport.

Now after a decade and with everyone thinking a bit more, that system
will be phased out as well and in the future will be able to just use
our debit cards or phones on the public transport, without need for
a special card (with its own balance) and now apparently the issue
of functionality will be solved in the backend.

It is understandable how that becomes possible: in the days of the
design of the previous system, such terminals were offline. Both
the payment chipcard terminals and the terminals in the stations
and buses. They only communicated with the central system in batch
mode.

The new system of course will require that all terminals are more or
less online, so the place where you check in and out can be
communicated to the backend where the fare will be calculated and
you can see it in your app when checking out.

All of these systems have encountered resistance due to the fact that
the accounting company behind all this can (and does) keep an exact
log of all travels made by everyone.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsjpdqp.t0s.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> >> There are exceptions to this, namely on-board purchases on an aircraft
>> >> where they are allowed to process transactions without authorization and
>> >> process them when they next land.
>> >>
>> >> Note that the airline has much info on each passenger, so if there is
>> >> fraud, they can contact the passenger.
>> >
>> > if the card is stolen, they'll have someone else's info.
>>
>> I don't know how the validation is done, but airlines have the
>> exact name of the passengers and can compare that with the exact
>> name printed on the card. When they don't match, there could be
>> extra questions asked and/or service denied.
>
> they don't cross check each transaction with the manifest. that would
> take far too long.

Are you sure? That could be going on without you knowing.

In article <slrnsjpq3u.iqi.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> >> >> There are exceptions to this, namely on-board purchases on an aircraft
> >> >> where they are allowed to process transactions without authorization and
> >> >> process them when they next land.
> >> >>
> >> >> Note that the airline has much info on each passenger, so if there is
> >> >> fraud, they can contact the passenger.
> >> >
> >> > if the card is stolen, they'll have someone else's info.
> >>
> >> I don't know how the validation is done, but airlines have the
> >> exact name of the passengers and can compare that with the exact
> >> name printed on the card. When they don't match, there could be
> >> extra questions asked and/or service denied.
> >
> > they don't cross check each transaction with the manifest. that would
> > take far too long.
>
> Are you sure?

quite sure.

> That could be going on without you knowing.

in other words, you are just guessing.

a lot of things could be going on. this isn't one of them.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/2021 3:40 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, while they (checks) still exist, you might as well use them to
> > your advantage. I think that in the cases you mention, we would use
> > gift cards or cash.
>
> Yep. And with gift cards I'd get cashback buying them with my credit
> card. Greedy good idea. Still, it would be a PITA buying them. Gift
> checks are so easy to write...

Yes, gift checks would be easier than buying gift cards, especially
because they have a specific value, so it's impractical to buy them in
advance.

> > As others mentioned, for us US checks are a pain. For example my US
> > broker kept sending me small dividend checks which I couldn't cash
> > without extreme cost - some $30 for a single check
>
> Wow. Here I would just use the my phone bank app to cash the check.
> Takes just a minute. No charge.

Yes, checks are fine within the US (and also within some other
countries which still use checks), but for international use, they're a
nightmare (except when their value is high, say $2K or more).

> > - and even selling shares had way too prohibitive costs, both for
> > the sale and for the (electronic) transfer of the proceeds).
>
> I hold my shares directly. No broker. When I sell shares I use the
> holding company's website. The money is then directly deposited into my
> bank account, again no charge.

Perhaps 'broker' isn't the right term. The company was Computershare
and the shares were held in electronic form. But 'because' I didn't have
a US bank account, they 'couldn't' transfer the dividends and proceeds
of sales in electronic form. I use scare quotes around 'because' and
'couldn't', because if I'm not mistaken, there are these thing like
'electronic banking', 'SWIFT', etc.! :-(

> > So now I still have some shares and dividend in the US and I can't
> > do anything with them/it! :-)
>
> Mail them to me and I'll write you a check... :-)

Don't ask for the impossible! They are in electronic form, which
'obviously' means they cannot be transferred in electronic form, so they
'have' to be converted to (paper) certificate form, which costs more
than they're worth.

I asked them to close/delete/<whatever> my account, but they can't,
'because' there are/is still shares/money in it. Can't even give the
proceeds to some charity (like you can with frequent flyer miles). They
kept quiet for nearly 3 years and then sent an e-mail inviting me to
(electronically) vote at the shareholder's meeting for the shares. Go
figure!

But in the meantime, I found an Australian caravan park wich managed
to needlessly make life nearly as difficult, so ... :-)

On 11/09/2021 18.03, sms wrote:
> On 9/11/2021 3:55 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 11/09/2021 02.38, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <nc9t0ixbvc.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that merchants do not accept Apple/Google Pay here.
>>>
>>> apple and google say otherwise:
>>
>> Maybe, but the merchants say they don't, and that's where I look before
>> trying to do a purchase, not at Apple/Google/Samsung information.
>
> I forget, are you in Spain? Here's an explanation of the issue:
> <https://theictscoop.com/apple-pay-arrival-in-spain-720e358a68c5>.

Interesting link, thanks. Makes a lot of sense.

The article also mentions that debit card use is cheaper than credit
card, here.

>
> The other issue is that the merchant needs to accept the underlying
> payment method. For example, in the U.S. you can use Apple Pay, Google
> Pay, or Samsung Pay at Costco, but Costco only accepts Visa, not
> Mastercard, Discover, or Amex, so if the underlying card isn't Visa you
> can't use mobile wallet.

{chuckle}

Well, here everything is Visa or Mastercard :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 11/09/2021 19.32, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> We had those cards as well but they were phased out.
>>> The Dutch don't like part of their money being parked on a sheet
>>> of plastic where it can be only used for one purpose.
>>
>> Of course, I agree, but my city uses that system. Obviously I don't know
>> every city bus system; Madrid now has a more modern and flexible system,
>> but mind: only since recently, few years ago they used their own system
>> with magnetic paper tickets.
>
> What I discussed was a chipcard system issued by the banks, and used
> for small payments e.g. at parking meters or to buy a coffee.

Yes, I know that system but have not seen it.

>
> For transport, we have a completely separate system operated by the
> transport companies and with functionality oriented towards that.
> You present the card at both entry and exit from the system, and the
> system calculates the fare and subtracts it from the balance on the
> card. "It cannot be done" using the existing chipcard system, said
> the transport companies, because that only handles money and not
> the special functions for transport.

Ah, because the fare changes with distance?

> Now after a decade and with everyone thinking a bit more, that system
> will be phased out as well and in the future will be able to just use
> our debit cards or phones on the public transport, without need for
> a special card (with its own balance) and now apparently the issue
> of functionality will be solved in the backend.
>
> It is understandable how that becomes possible: in the days of the
> design of the previous system, such terminals were offline. Both
> the payment chipcard terminals and the terminals in the stations
> and buses. They only communicated with the central system in batch
> mode.

Yep.

>
> The new system of course will require that all terminals are more or
> less online, so the place where you check in and out can be
> communicated to the backend where the fare will be calculated and
> you can see it in your app when checking out.

Right, that's the new system in Madrid which I have not experimented.

There is something that I do not know for sure: the articles I read
mention that you pay one trip fare with your card; and one trip fare was
more expensive previously than buying a 10 trips ticket or one month of
trips.

So what will they do, lower the price of the single fare bought with
debit/credit cards or not?

Also, there is the issue of taking two or three buses in a single trip.

> All of these systems have encountered resistance due to the fact that
> the accounting company behind all this can (and does) keep an exact
> log of all travels made by everyone.

Ah... well, the dedicated card system also can do similarly - well,
maybe not, the card in my city doesn't know my name or ID. But the
monthly pass in Madrid does know my name.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 11/09/2021 at 17:03, sms wrote:
> The other issue is that the merchant needs to accept the underlying
> payment method. For example, in the U.S. you can use Apple Pay, Google
> Pay, or Samsung Pay at Costco, but Costco only accepts Visa, not
> Mastercard, Discover, or Amex, so if the underlying card isn't Visa you
> can't use mobile wallet.

You can have a number of cards, Visa, Mastercard, Amex, in your mobile
wallet and whilst there will be a default one, you can choose another if
the merchant doesn't accept that one. I do that all the time. It's
very easy to select a different card for the current transaction.

--
Wilf

On 11/09/2021 19.24, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> Now I remember them, but no, I was thinking of plain cheques. An
>> employer in the 90's sometimes paid us with cheques. Not trusting him,
>> we always went to the exact bank office printed on the cheque, no risk
>> if there were no funds - a different branch would charge us a commission.
>
> That was never a thing here, we went straight from payment in cash
> to payment to a payment account at a bank.

Oh, we were supposedly paid directly on our banks, but the company was
in trouble. Currently, the law mandates payment to the bank, cash is
forbidden.

>
> In fact the state established a special bank for that, which operated
> from the post office. Commercial banks existed back then but mainly
> for businesses. Now that every working person had to get a bank
> account, this bank was establised especially for that. More wealthy
> people usually got an account at a commercial bank who also implemented
> this service.
>
> In those days it was still very customary to go to the bank (or post-)
> office once a month and collect a big part of the money in cash, only
> leaving some for payments that already could be made bank-to-bank
> (like energy bill, rent, mortgage payment, etc)

Yes, that culture existed in Spain for many years. The payment day you
would see lineups at the banks to withdraw probably the entire salary.
Especially retired folk.

Recently (5 years?) banks started placing hurdles to this practice, like
reducing the man power, the number of cashiers, or the hours dedicated.
Or removing the cash service altogether on some branches.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/11/2021 11:00 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 11/09/2021 18.03, sms wrote:
>> On 9/11/2021 3:55 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 11/09/2021 02.38, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <nc9t0ixbvc.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that merchants do not accept Apple/Google Pay here.
>>>>
>>>> apple and google say otherwise:
>>>
>>> Maybe, but the merchants say they don't, and that's where I look before
>>> trying to do a purchase, not at Apple/Google/Samsung information.
>>
>> I forget, are you in Spain? Here's an explanation of the issue:
>> <https://theictscoop.com/apple-pay-arrival-in-spain-720e358a68c5>.
>
> Interesting link, thanks. Makes a lot of sense.
>
> The article also mentions that debit card use is cheaper than credit
> card, here.
>
>>
>> The other issue is that the merchant needs to accept the underlying
>> payment method. For example, in the U.S. you can use Apple Pay, Google
>> Pay, or Samsung Pay at Costco, but Costco only accepts Visa, not
>> Mastercard, Discover, or Amex, so if the underlying card isn't Visa you
>> can't use mobile wallet.
>
> {chuckle}
>
> Well, here everything is Visa or Mastercard :-)

The EU interchange fee cap doesn't apply to Amex, which is probably why
Amex acceptance in Europe is much lower than Mastercard or Visa, see
<https://www.adyen.com/blog/eu-interchange-fees-cap>.

In the U.S. a lot of small businesses don't take Amex because of the
high fees, while larger businesses can negotiate low merchant fees with
Amex.

It was also interesting to see that Mastercard's fees are higher than
Visa's, see
<https://www.valuepenguin.com/interchange-fees-na-vs-eu#north-america-vs-europe>.