AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile Bet Big On Mobile Payments 88
An anonymous reader writes "Bloomberg reports that AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile USA will be dumping over $100 million into developing their mobile payment system, Isis, in an effort to battle back against Google Wallet. 'Isis aims to get ahead of its rivals by relying on its carrier partners' existing distribution network and customer relationships. Phones set up for Isis service are expected to be available at carrier stores in the trial cities. ... The carriers could potentially preinstall Isis software onto their phones, making it easier to use. They also may push handset manufacturers to adopt Isis software.'"
Re: (Score:2)
No.
But forget about technology making things cheaper for the consumer. Technology is now simply a way to streamline the ability of peripheral entities to extract new rents, while lowering the actual "service" they "provide".
The payment of a transaction USED to be between you, the payee, and a penny-slice for the bank.
If the service-providers are salivating enough to "Bet Big"? You will take a haircut.
With an Internet like this? Give me back USENET and a 14.4K modem. It really was that much better a way
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not a 30% cut, but if they develop their own system you can bet there will be some sort of cut...
Too bad all these mobile payment services can't standardize on a multi-connection protocol for their transactions. You have some using QR codes, some using NFC, some using Bluetooth and some going through the Internet, all in their own little walled garden. What a sad clusterfuck this is going to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I really do NOT want any form of payment to be available on my phone handset.
I'm trying to do less by credit, and more by cash these days.
I don't want another potential theft place either (my phone). It does plenty now...phone, txt, camera, games....but I prefer to keep my finances in my wallet. I rarely run the risk of pulling my wallet out and leaving it mistakenly on a counter somewhere....
Re: (Score:2)
They'll get a "cut" by not allowing it on any of their hardware in lieu of their own.
Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that the carriers are going to be sticking their dicks into this one. I wonder what surcharges and fees will be associated with this. I also wonder what handset and device restrictions will be imposed as a result of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Back when the airline industry's faced a similar rite of passage (at the dawn of online-transaction awareness in early 2000) we WON and distributors lost economically. Commissions used to encourage individual travel agents to sell tickets, and people had to physically show up at a local agency to get accurate quotes and close an airplane ticket sale.
But that reseller industry was crushed and the mom-and-pop travel agencies all over the US either closed down, or became cellphone stores, or some tax-prep / cy
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. I remember the bad old days when an actual human agent was digging through databases on my behalf. Obviously it is much better to dig around in a bunch of databases myself. If nothing else, my old travel agent never figured out how to play advertisements over the phone when I was talking with her, so I'm sure I missed out on many exciting opportunities to discover new things I needed to buy.
FWIW, my transactions were almost always by phone and US mail, with no visit to an office necessary.
Egyptian God ISIS (Score:2)
Isis is said to listen to the prayers of the wealthy power brokers, while acting like a friend to the working people and poor. Sounds like a very apropos name.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I'm just making this up.
Two words: Bitcoin (Score:3, Funny)
Please don't laugh, but that is one hope for being able to cut down on transaction fees, lower the barriers to starting escrow services, and get rid of unnecessary middlemen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, seriously. Dream on, and stop trying to convince the world how great B**coin is. It's not and we're tired of hearing about.
Re: (Score:1)
Really? Please explain what's not great about it for the rest of us. I tend to agree with the OP, even though I'm a latecomer to Bitcoin. I think it's absolutely brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he highlights the important part - not bitcoin specific, but that alternate payment methods are going to be needed because this stuff done by the carriers is just retarded.
What solution exists? Nothing great at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying not to laugh but it's starting to hurt.
Like that high school friend I had that made a hilarious joke about breast cancer, for months I had to work hard to hold it every time somebody brought up breast cancer...damn him...
Re: (Score:3)
Oh Bitcoin Kenobi, you are my only hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't laugh
That does seem to be the strategy driving bitcoin. You hear about it one time: you laugh hysterically. You hear about it more, you stop laughing and start pointing out what's wrong with it. You hear about it even more and you just ignore it, and then hopefully the rubes will invest in it, and the people pushing it can cash out right before the thing collapses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and then hopefully the rubes will invest in it, and the people pushing it can cash out right before the thing collapses.
And this is where the entire of Slashdot fails.
Bitcoin is not something to "invest" in. It's a payment system. You use it to get money from A to B, without the involvement of such trusted middle-men as Paypal [wikimedia.org].
When you say "collapses", I presume you refer to the exchange rate between BTC and USD. This is completely irrelevant to anybody using it as a payment system. All it means is that, in order to send $10 to someone, you'll have to send 100 BTC instead of 1 BTC. The actual number of BTC involved is utterl
Re: (Score:2)
When you say "collapses", I presume you refer to the exchange rate between BTC and USD. This is completely irrelevant to anybody using it as a payment system. All it means is that, in order to send $10 to someone, you'll have to send 100 BTC instead of 1 BTC. The actual number of BTC involved is utterly unimportant.
That makes more sense than I gave it credit. Good form, my apologies for jumping on the bash wagon.
Enough money for this.... (Score:1)
so they have enough money to dump into this, but yet they were so cash strapped they had to seek bailouts and bandwidth caps???
Re: (Score:1)
No Thanks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume they would also have PIN codes for the mobile payments. However, the reference to Visa is interesting to me. As evil as Visa and Mastercard are, if any companies can make them look good, it's AT&T and Verizon. ugh.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No Thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have at least one card with "swipe to pay" via a RFID chip in the plastic.
I'd break & bin that straight away, you're just asking to be robbed if you carry that.
Re: (Score:2)
I have at least one card with "swipe to pay" via a RFID chip in the plastic.
I'd break & bin that straight away, you're just asking to be robbed if you carry that.
That's a little extreme... I have a card like that. Once I realized the danger, I leave it at home and use it exclusively for online transactions...
Its hilarious, how they invested billions in infrastructure to make it easier to spend in person, which made it so dangerous to use, that I now exclusively use that card for online purchases... maybe not so hilarious, knowing that I'm paying those billions out of my fee and interest payments...
Re: (Score:2)
You need to understand that getting your credit card number "borrowed" has virtually zero risk associated with it. If you use it at all, you are going to get it copied down by someone sooner or later. You can sell them in bunches if you have enough - something like $50 for 100 good, fresh numbers with expiration date, CVV2 and sometimes the billing zip code.
I get a credit card borrowed in this fashion at least once a year and it has never cost me a dime. Most people I know either do not use credit cards
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.money-rates.com/advancedstrategies/creditcards/t-mobiles-new-cell-phone-payment-system.htm [money-rates.com]
Doesn't have the same protections as credit cards.
Re: (Score:2)
well if it's anything like the other nfc systems, like the one in use in uk.. first you open your lock-code protected phone, then you fire up an application on the phone, type in your pin and let it sit on the reader. it's much more of a hassle than just sticking your visa into the reader. yeehaw for progress! and before that you've used your internet banking to load up cash on the account tied to it, easy huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sprint (Score:2)
No mention of Sprint in the article... I wonder who'll end up winning from this.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Sprint is a mom & pop provider compared to The Big Two.
Re: (Score:2)
Google will promptly change the name of their Wallet service to ODIN.
I wish I had mod points for you today...
I LOL'd (Score:4, Insightful)
Isis aims to get ahead of its rivals by relying on its ... customer relationships.
Yup, because most people have a great relationship with their mobile providers right?
Additionally I'm not so sure I want these people [blogspot.com] responsible for my "virtual wallet".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally I'm not so sure I want these people [blogspot.com] responsible for my "virtual wallet"
At least Sony isn't involved... yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmmm abuse of power, it;s what's for breakfast. (Score:2)
So basically it sounds like the phone cartel is using every bit of their power derived from the oligopoly to exclude Google. Go free market!
Re: (Score:1)
It's not just the phone market. This is actually a good example of a free market. Google is doing it's thing. The carriers are desperately doing it's own. Apple will come out swinging with their own NFC platform. RIM as well. And then there are big big hitters from card processors that basically have full blown out platforms already in production. There are so many players, it's actually nice to see such a huge possible market being fought by every single company.
Message From AT&T&T(Mo) (Score:3)
-- AT&T&T(Mo) Customer Service
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, on the payments page, AT&T says you may be limited in the number of payments that can be made in a 24-hour period, so the legalese is already there!
Fix the RSS feed! Amp amp amp amp... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad to see rapid corporations (Score:1)
Customer service (Score:2)
Ever get a strange charge on your phone bill? Ever try to get it reversed? Yeah, good luck with that. For all their problems, I'll stick with bank credit / debit cards for payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever get a strange charge on your phone bill? Ever try to get it reversed?
Yes on both accounts, and never had an issue getting them reversed. Even after admitting that they were legitimate charges but I just didn't feel it was reasonable. My banks have also been fairly decent about this, until recently. I the last year I would say I would much rather dispute a charge with a cell phone provider than a bank.
One more way of reducing your privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Folks, the rush towards mobile payments is a gold mine for marketers and other creepy advertising types. Bank cards may be electronic but they aren't the equivalent of a primary key. Bank cards might be tied to a name and unique number but the information is quite fragmented across multiple systems in tables which can't be joined.
A mobile payments system tied to a phone number which follows somebody for decades does have a suitable primary key. Everything you buy will be part of a giant telco database, sold to the highest bidder.
What's more, large retailers will also have your phone number or device ID as the primary key for you in their own databases.
Nerds should have the understanding to realize that this push towards anti-privacy has been engineered by megacorporations and plutocrats for their benefit, not ours. We should be able to understand the pitfalls. Why do we embrace something designed in their favor, not ours?
Mobile payments were designed to make their sales pitches to you more convenient. Your shopping experience is a secondary concern. They're counting on herd-like neophiles to sign up for even more intrusive marketing.
The same understanding which drives us to run AdBlock Plus and Noscript should lead us to avoid this intrusive garbage, lest we end up like tagged cattle.
So many of the world's sustainability problems are the result of 150dB of advertising noise blaring orders at us to spend money we don't have on things we don't need. I love technology as much as the next Slashdotter, but more is not always better. I'd argue that a society free of advertising and mindless consumerism is more advanced than one with the spiffiest gadgets.
Mobile payments are like a superglobal loyalty card.
One loyalty card to rule them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Mobile payments are like a superglobal loyalty card.
One loyalty card to rule them all.
Aw come on, you can choose between US Alliance and Team Advantage! :-P
I don't use any of this crap. Not curated computing devices, not social networking, and I don't see myself using this either.
But, not even all geeks avoid these things, and geeks are a small minority.
Re: (Score:2)
A mobile payments system tied to a phone number which follows somebody for decades does have a suitable primary key. Everything you buy will be part of a giant telco database, sold to the highest bidder.
Use a google voice number for calls/texts, and change carriers/phones/real phone numbers as often as you choose.
zero balance (Score:1)
It's all about the cost. (Score:1)
What's wrong with cash? (Score:1)
Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone remember how badly the phone companies fucked pretty much everyone back in the days when they were willing to act as billing agents for anyone and everyone that was willing to claim that callers intended to pay for things via their phone bill?
Remember how much fun it was when the phone company automatically took the vendor's side because they only got paid for successful payments? They threatened to cut off your phone service and send your bill to collections, unless you could prove that you didn't authorize the payment.
Remember the delight of the offshore scammers when they realized that the phone companies were essentially acting as willing accomplices, and they started making "mistakes" knowing full well that many people would just pay up rather than try to fight the phone company?
If the only food in the world was being sold by someone that only took payments through this system, I would rather starve to death than give that power back to the phone companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think that's what the $2.95 was for...
Won't end well for the consumer (Score:2)
Oh great (Score:1)
I know I'm the exception here, but... (Score:1)
But then again, when I purchased my cellphone and my service, I was purchasing a phone. Which is what I own. I do not have a smartphone, an iPhone, an Android, or any of the recent offerings. I have no interest in being able to read my email wherever I am, could care less about texting, alr