I remember watching some of the hearings onthe DT Bill on CSPAN and seeing the cellular industry people note that the DT Bill would make it difficult to implement encryption/authentication measures. Rob
The phone companies that are complaining about fraud have inadequately arranged for security and need to adopt a mode that fixes this. Since physical money can't be fed into the slots of a handheld cell phone (or at least can't then be delivered to the service owner!), the solution has traditionally been an account-based payment system. (Accounts can also be better protected against fraud by having PINs, etc.)
The technology to reduce cellular fraud, through encryption and authentication, is easily implementable, but for some reason neither the operating companies nor the manufacturers want it.
In contrast, European cellular (GSM) products do implement encryption and authentication (at least as far as laws allow). GSM mobile phones can be equipped with a slot for a card that identifies the subscriber. Billing is based on the subscriber's identity, not the phone's.
I'd say that the problem isn't just a lack of a proper payment model, but also an unwillingness to provide adequate technology to the problem. Of course, the GSM approach does nothing for anonymity or digital cash.
allen@well.sf.ca.us It's dangerous, child, to come to conclusions ethridge@netcom.com when you don't have any facts. my opinions are my own Dr. Hemlock, The Eiger Sanction