Re: Conflict of Oyster Cards

In article <FLS8n.63249$2R.55087@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, hounslow3@xxxxxxxxxxx ()
wrote:

On 30.01.10 7:22, ticketyboo wrote:
On Jan 29, 5:00 pm, Stephen Furley<fur...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Jan, 14:31, ticketyboo<di...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And the terminal does not implement the anti-collision function...

I have a Smartlink (similar to Oyster) card for PATH in New Jersey.
It works fine with my Oyster card next to it, but the Oyster will
never read unless I take the Smartlink card away. Not too much of a
problem in this case, since I'm seldom going to want to use both on
the same day, but it could be a real problem as these cards become
more common if you need to carry several around with you, and they
interfere with each other. Clearly they don't have to do this, as
the Smartlink readers will quite happily ignore the Oyster card.

Which further suggests that indeed today Oyster does not implement the
anti-collision function. Maybe the next generation of Oyster terminals
will do that - they have to be rather more powerful, in order to be
able to handle all of the ITSO card types (about 4 in truth) as well
as Oyster and contactless bank payment).

Are there indeed plans for new oyster readers? I imagine that they
would not look any different from an external point of view.

Surely no reader hardware change would be needed, just firmware/software?

--
Colin Rosenstiel
.

Quantcast