> ...
> trademark of someone. Interac is actually the biggest of the "ATM
> cross-use" networks (or whatever you call them) that let you withdraw
> money from bank machines of banks other than your own. (There's
> usually a small charge for this, around a dollar or so.) Similar
> networks, such as Plus and Cirrus, exist in the U.S.
Back in 1994 finnish banks established a new company and outsourced all the
ATM's into it under a common brand. Now any customer can use any ATM with
his or her debit or credit card. A few very small banks were left out but
even their cards work with all the ATM's for a small fee. Typically ATM
withdrawal doesn't cost anything but is included in the small basic monthly
fee. The same debit cards are used for payments in the shops but then the
reader is typically connected to a specific bank.
> For all of these guys, moving to POS was a reasonable extension,
> though I'm not sure how they make money at this. As they don't
> charge the user, presumably they charge a fee to the merchant.
So? Handling cash is an expense too and if there's a common infrastructure
to handle charges efficiently it will be cost effective to the merchant.
The point is that you cannot introduce 20 separate systems or expect to get
2% fee of everything but to build technology and payment infrastructure to
make life easier to both the customer and the merchant. Personally I use
cash a few times a month (unless travelling, U.S. is really the worst with
all the tipping and other dollars here and there), 95% is debit card
directly from the bank accounts and the rest is credit cards.
The only problem is the lack of chip-based payments (yes, there's a chip and
payment system in my credit&debit card but it's not widely accepted) for
small purchased and this is the area were mobile payment could shine.
Obviously the signature for debit&credit card usage is a minor disadvantage
and could use development as well.
> (Well, ok,
> the restaurant example doesn't really apply in Japan, where you
> rarely pay at your table.)
In France they use portabledevices to swipe you card at the table. Neat and
effective ;-)
I'm not sure if there is an advantage with our barcode example over e.g.
Bluetooth. The waitress' BT device could have a range of 1 metre or less so
that the distribution of the payment request is more controllable.
The actual process could be semi-public, the payment request is broadcasted
and can be picked up by any phone. However when the customer acceps the
charge, a session is established between the BT device and the phone to do a
proper, encrypted session with all the required authentication, information
data for the bill, etc. I believe all the authentication and encryption
requirements are already solved and the technology is available. When the
charge has been paid, the BT device could do another public broadcast to
make the the charge disappear from other near-by phones.
You could even have a small competition in a table who's the fastest to pick
the tab ;-)
My goal is to see an easy, straightforward payment process with the
necessary security in place. In theory the system could even work with
pre-paid cards but a contract would obviously add a new level of trust.
Bluetooth is superior to both IR and barcode as it doesn't require any
pointing of devices or other hassle, which both could be more troublesome
than writing a signature for a debit or credit card payment.
BTW, anyone more familiar with the Wallet feature available in the very
latest Nokia GSM phones? Is that for Club Nokia or something more useful?
I'm torturing myself with Ericsson's T68 right now (the worst phone I've
used for 5+ years, a lot of small issues, awful keypad and the color screen,
GPRS and Bluetooth just don't compensate enough) so I haven't paid much
attention to it..
Petri
Received on Mon Jan 21 18:40:34 2002