Thread

Why should I have to pay more for buses if I don't use a smartphone?

65 points · 89 comments · DamonHD

unified101 · 1791017006 · focus · HN ↗
The actual answer is there's operational cost to handling cash, or payment methods beyond the ones that cover 99.9% people well. You pay more for the extra hassle the whole system has to serve that .1%
You may not like or disagree with it. But it's the true answer.
1. metalman · 1791018205 · focus · HN ↗
  £264.00 per year, per head extra, is operational theft, and it will be MUCH higher than 1% of rides, and further more , cash rides will exist in perpetuity as there is NO OTHER WAY to deal with edge cases and contingencies of public transport, making the 'extra' cost look more like some wienie frustrated managers little play at despotism.
2. bell-cot · 1791018258 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't know Britain, but in my part of America the extra costs of taking credit cards are so high that most gasoline (petrol) stations give a ~3% discount to customers paying with old-fashioned paper cash. And I know little grocery stores with signs by their register, asking customers to please pay with cash - because margins are tight, and the bank takes an X% cut of every credit card payment and a Y% cut of every debit card payment.
  1. graemep · 1791018452 · focus · HN ↗
    That is illegal in the UK.
    CGamesPlay · 1791018580 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't' know what "that" you're referring to, but in the USA it is against the payment processor agreement to give a discount for cash. So not illegal, but a contract breach.
    graemep · 1791018808 · focus · HN ↗
    In the UK it is actually against the law.
    Joker_vD · 1791019571 · focus · HN ↗
    To give discounts for cash or for the payment processors to charge above 0% from the sellers?
    KellyCriterion · 1791020149 · focus · HN ↗
    Id guess the discrimination itself between these two things and putting it in a contract?
    victorbjorklund · 1791021488 · focus · HN ↗
    A discount for cash is the same as an extra fee on cards.
    <a href="https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-and-tax/making-receiving-payments/electronic-cash-payments/index_en.htm" rel="nofollow">https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-and-tax/making...
    (Yes, I know UK isn’t in EU anymore but pretty sure their rule is legacy from EU)
    bell-cot · 1791018961 · focus · HN ↗
    The gas stations doing it have large, permanent roadside signage displaying the different prices for "Cash" vs. "Credit". So there may be exceptions in the fine print of those payment processor agreements. Or the gas stations all know the laws giving them such rights, which the agreements can't override. Or something.
    simoncion · 1791019911 · focus · HN ↗
    > ...but in the USA it is against the payment processor agreement to give a discount for cash. So not illegal, but a contract breach.
    This may be true, but State and Federal law prevail. In California, this [0] looks to be the relevant regulation:
    1748.1. (a) No retailer in any sales, service, or lease transaction with a consumer may impose a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means. A retailer may, however, offer discounts for the purpose of inducing payment by cash, check, or other means not involving the use of a credit card, provided that the discount is offered to all prospective buyers.
    Most mom-and-pop places I shop at here in San Francisco either offer discounts for paying in cash or have signs up suggesting that folks pay in cash so the business keeps more of the transaction.
    [0] <<a href="https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/part-4/title-1-3/section-1748-1/" rel="nofollow">https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/...> The official place to find this would probably be [1] , but that's super down for me at the moment, so I link to something unofficial.
    [1] <<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1748.1" rel="nofollow">https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...>
  2. aaron695 · 1791020108 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  3. kakacik · 1791023117 · focus · HN ↗
    Well from what I've heard folks in US frequently revert credit card transactions, something almost impossible to do with same companies in Europe for example (tried it once, got automated feedback email in 2 weeks and nothing happened).
    Just life frequent insurance accidents, this raises overall costs. May be some other forces too of course
    snottynose · 1791037627 · focus · HN ↗
    It is possible in Europe with credit cards and with SEPA Direct Debit (commonly used for recurring debits such as subscriptions), but indeed regular bank transactions are difficult to reverse. To me this is the big benefit of credit cards and Paypal: it gives the consumer real leverage when disputing a transaction, and it shifts some of the burden to resolve the issue to the vendor.
3. takipsizad · 1791018280 · focus · HN ↗
  You dont have to handle cash directly, you can have kiosks that are dedicated to adding cash to a public transit card and they will solve the problem you are talking about.
  1. jbs789 · 1791019225 · focus · HN ↗
    Who collects the cash? Who maintains the kiosks?
    takipsizad · 1791020106 · focus · HN ↗
    First: You can have kiosks (in central locations like metro stations) or you can have dedicated points like where a market collects the cash and they add the balance that way. Second: The public transit company. we aren't splitting the atom here.
    jbs789 · 1791029693 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah, and those services are free?
    crtasm · 1791031430 · focus · HN ↗
    In London you can top up your Oyster card in many small shops. Maybe someone here can confirm what the financial arrangement is - my assumption is the shop doesn't charge the operator as they get the benefit of more customers spending on other items.
    fsflover · 1791033952 · focus · HN ↗
    Are the credit card transactions free?
    jbs789 · 1791039325 · focus · HN ↗
    Cheaper than managing cash, which is the relevant comparison.
    fsflover · 1791056385 · focus · HN ↗
    Citation needed.
    quickthrowman · 1791024536 · focus · HN ↗
    Contractors. There are companies that provide cash handling and equipment maintenance services.
4. fsflover · 1791018754 · focus · HN ↗
  Then why should I have to pay more if I don't use Apple's and Google's smartphones? I use a GNU/Linux phone. Web app would work flawlessly.
  1. pjmlp · 1791021994 · focus · HN ↗
    True in theory, except in many places that Web app comes packaged inside a Web view.
5. graemep · 1791018763 · focus · HN ↗
  There are operational issues with phones (e.g. batteries running out).
  This has nothing to do with handling cash. It is to do with the elimination of paper tickets for monthly passes. Where I live you can pay cash for one off tickets, but they refuse to sell you paper monthly tickets.
  1. KellyCriterion · 1791020071 · focus · HN ↗
    why are they so focussed on "monthyl paper tickets"? are these any different to daily paper tickets?
    AstroJetson · 1791021086 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, they are good for a month and you get the monthly rate which can be much less than the daily rate. In my area the difference is about 20%
    graemep · 1791028427 · focus · HN ↗
    Its even greater where I live for some people. My daughter was able to get a young person's tickets last year for unlimited bus travel within the county (not sure whether it was all bus companies, or just the biggest) for £80/month whereas individual fares were more quite a lot than that each just into town and back on weekdays.
    compton · 1791030439 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think Kelly is asking for the price advantages of paying monthly.... I think they're asking why are bus companies so hot and bothered about not selling paper monthly tickets when they don't apparently object to selling paper daily tickets?
    KellyCriterion · 1791039264 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly, thanks for clarifying!
    Over here in Europa you get bombarded with the monthly/yearly subscription. And for companies it makes much more sense, regarding cashflow/projection etc.
    graemep · 1791050042 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the regulator might have something to do with it. They might also be less keen on selling the less profitable discounted tickets.
    gunalx · 1791021173 · focus · HN ↗
    Cheaper per ride over the month usually.
    Arnt · 1791033757 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, they're worth more.
    A single ticket has to be printed and used in the space of a few hours. A monthly pass can be printed at any time and sold until the beginning of the month, for a much higher price. Much more risky for the transportation company.
    KellyCriterion · 1791039157 · focus · HN ↗
    Err how can a ticket be sold at a higher price towards the end of the month?
    Isnt it that ticket price should somehow decrease?
    Arnt · 1791043791 · focus · HN ↗
    Say you have a fancy printer and can print fake monthly passes. You can print a hundred fakes today "dated" November 23, valid for December 2026, and sell them until the end of November to people who can use them in December.
    Ie. the end of the month November, not the end of December. I suppose you could also sell the remainder at a discount in December.
    graemep · 1791050228 · focus · HN ↗
    I do not think fake tickets are a risk as monthly tickets can be numbered so you cannot just print them out. Issue a UUIS per ticket and they you go.
    One bus company embedded the signing key for the ticket app in the app so that was not a good way of precenting fakes,
    Much higher value train tickets are widely used in printed form and forgeries have not been a problem.
6. damethos · 1791020399 · focus · HN ↗
  Are you implying that there isn't an operational cost for maintaining the infrastructure to support cashless payments or that it's cheaper? Unless I see actual numbers I am not convinced and that 1% you mention sounds completely random to me and not really "the true answer".
7. simoncion · 1791020404 · focus · HN ↗
  > The actual answer is there's operational cost to handling cash...
  Really? From TFA:
  When comparing the prices of First’s weekly bus pass in my area, which is available to purchase on the bus, and its monthly pass, which is exclusive to its app...
  If the reason were "operational cost to handling cash", you'd expect that cost to be substantially less for the one where you handle cash only once per month than the one where you have to handle it four times per month, no?
8. ArnoVW · 1791020446 · focus · HN ↗
  And for some transactions that makes sense. But for something that is supposed to serve everyone, and where there is a (natural) monopoly, that cannot be and acceptable answer.
  Also, having your entire economy depend on companies that are not under your control, and that are even actively being weaponised, that seems like a stupid thing to do.
  Also, nothing in all of that precluded a web app.
  It'll take a couple of years but people will figure it out eventually.
9. hilbert42 · 1791021381 · focus · HN ↗
  If paying cash is more expensive for a company then so be it. One should not be forced to pay extra simply because one uses the official method of exchange provided by the State.
  If legal tender is offered as a method of exchange then it should automatically be the best (least expensive).
  Frankly, what's happened here is outrageous. By not legislating and outlawing this practice we've another instance of government ineptitude.
  1. snottynose · 1791034791 · focus · HN ↗
    Agreed, and I would like to see practices such as these challenged in court. On grounds of consumer law: unreasonably burdensome terms are not allowed, on grounds of not discriminating against people who do not wish to use a smartphone. If the judiciary does not see any law applicable; representatives should enact it. We must not be penalized for wanting Big Tech OS out of our personal transactions using .... legal tender!!! Disgraceful state of affairs.
10. 63stack · 1791021993 · focus · HN ↗
  How does that compare to the operational cost of developing an app, maintaining an app, paying for the infrastructure behind it, and having the payment processors take their cut, operate customer support etc?
  1. spwa4 · 1791064886 · focus · HN ↗
    Banks charge business customers 0.3% to 0.6% to deposit cash into bank accounts. So if 1% of people would pay cash that would be 20 billion * 1% = 200 to 400 million GBP per year, purely in deposit fees.
    On top of that they'd need to pay their employees more and of course handling cash comes with security and, inevitably, enforcement. Additionally, you need people at every place where cash can be used as opposed to having almost all public transport stations unmanned like in Italy.
    So let's say ~double that and round to 600 million to a billion GBP per year.
    You can do some serious app development with that I would think. And because they don't pay the app store tax it's going to really be close to that amount.
11. lta · 1791022255 · focus · HN ↗
  That's a public service that should serve everyone, no ?
12. Juliate · 1791022271 · focus · HN ↗
  And?
  Why shouldn't this (small) cost be mutualised? Why should everything be tuned and customised and priced to every single individual characteristics?
  There's also operational cost to handling tons of different situations of people in every practical way of life.
  EDIT: my point is that practicality is a clumsy way of disguising the fact that there is a objective, political choice behind it.
13. ndndjdjnd · 1791022350 · focus · HN ↗
  Older people cost the NHS more than younger people but tax rates are the same so yes we can do socialism and it can be a good thing!
14. Brian_K_White · 1791024508 · focus · HN ↗
  Public busses aren't a luxury, so this doesn't matter.
  Making all the allowances for wheelchairs and the blind costs way more, yet you don't charge them more.
  That is even if it were true enough to matter, which it's probably not, and there were no other ways to address it, which there absolutely are.
  It's not the real reason but it probably is given as part of the excuse, while the real reason is either simple thoughtlessness, lack of consideration, developers doing whatever is easiest, and/or all the same reasons that cash is being gradually more and more disfavored across the board in all things. You can track and control people sooooo much better without anonymous offline cash.
  Probably both. Some people involved are doing it for the first reason, and others are allowing it for the second reason. It's just super convenient synergy for everyone except the consumers.
15. throw0101a · 1791029947 · focus · HN ↗
  > The actual answer is there's operational cost to handling cash, or payment methods beyond the ones that cover 99.9% people well.
  Overhead handling cash is understandable, but otherwise the point makes no sense.
  If you use an app, you probably have an account in some database someplace that holds your contact, billing, and balance information. That account has to be available online for the app on people's smartphones via API calls.
  You also need a web portal: if someone loses/breaks their smartphone, and they need to re-install their app, they need to be able to login without the app to perhaps get their credentials again to attach to their app.
  That backend has to be able to handle automated monthly payments, as well as manual top-ups via debit, and even cash for those not comfortable with giving payment information:
  * <a href="https://www.gotransit.com/en/ways-to-pay/many-ways-to-pay-using-presto/types-of-machines" rel="nofollow">https://www.gotransit.com/en/ways-to-pay/many-ways-to-pay-us...
  The effort needed to be able to register/handle NFC cards is not much more than having to register/handle the NFC system on smartphone wallets:
  * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_fare_collection" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_fare_collection
  * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calypso_(electronic_ticketing_system)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calypso_(electronic_ticketing_...
  * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIPURSE" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIPURSE
  In many cases the cards came first and were later addable to various e-wallets:
  * <a href="https://prestocard.ca/en/products/presto-on-iphone" rel="nofollow">https://prestocard.ca/en/products/presto-on-iphone
  * <a href="https://prestocard.ca/en/products/presto-in-google-wallet" rel="nofollow">https://prestocard.ca/en/products/presto-in-google-wallet
16. vinyl7 · 1791036751 · focus · HN ↗
  I wish we could live in a world where everything wasn't optimized to make the most amount of money with the absolute bare minimum of costs. What a world we could live in if convenience, quality and enjoyability of a product were taken into account instead of how a business can save $1 to buy the CEO another private jet.
17. seba_dos1 · 1791040738 · focus · HN ↗
  Others already answered why you're wrong so I won't repeat it; just wanted to point out how your comment reads like a silly "you may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like" meme.
18. smitty1e · 1791056113 · focus · HN ↗
  A non-networked, physical system is not an "extra hassle".
  It is a sensible fallback plan to keep the system functioning when the Magic Wand, inevitably, has its failure moment.
  Affording users of public services a modicum of choice to avoid the Magic Wand is an important side effect.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.