AT&T And Verizon In A Mobile Payment Alliance. Yeah, That’ll Last
Written by Evan SchumanAugust 5th, 2010
With word spreading rapidly of a mobile contactless payment alliance between AT&T and Verizon--with T-Mobile thrown in, pretty much so that the first two carriers have someone to complain to about each other--the analysis generally has leaned to this being groundbreaking. In reality, this grouping is not likely to last long, nor will it make much of an impact while the companies stick it out. The alliance does bring together some key players in an attempt to challenge Visa and other card brands. But this deal has all the markings of something that five executives sketched out--five people who will never get within 5,000 yards of the conference rooms where the hard details will be worked out.
Please don't get me wrong. Mobile payment is a huge issue and some major players will need to jump in, but retail is the key. More precisely, retailers are the key. The issue of mobile payments comes down to sharing revenue, and it will require lots of trust. Now there's a word not typically associated with AT&T. Asking retailers "Who do you trust more, Visa or AT&T?" is like giving parents of 3-year-old twins a babysitting choice of Jeffrey Dahmer, Idi Amin or Osama bin Laden.
This Story Is Only Available For Premium Subscribers. Click Or Login In Below To Read The Rest Of This Story.
Already a Subscriber? Login Here
6 Comments | Read AT&T And Verizon In A Mobile Payment Alliance. Yeah, That’ll Last
Leave a Reply
Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.
-Christine
August 5th, 2010 at 9:48 am
While these guys squabble over who gets the biggest slice of pie, they invariably forget the requisite stakeholder proposition (remember, those pesky merchants who will need to suppport this?) – better, faster and cheaper. Better? Potentially. Faster? Probably. Cheaper? Doesn’t sound like it.
August 5th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
You are absolutely correct in assessing the challenges of this alliance. There are many examples where big telcos had the right idea, but failed because of conflicting objectives internally or simply poor execution….
August 5th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
It should be pointed out that the carriers have not always failed at working together. SMS is a good example of a case where the carriers worked out a business relationship and it has driven enormous growth in the medium. Not exactly like payment, but still a very germane example. It’s easy to dismiss something as impossible when it has challenges, but to do so blithely would be to ignore the importance of this space in the future of payments, and the years of effort the carriers have put into getting this far. I agree it’s going to have it’s challenges, but I would encourage your readers to take it seriously. For more of my thoughts on this, check out http://www.paymentsindustryconsultant.com.
August 5th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
For what it’s worth, the story didn’t dismiss anything as impossible nor did it suggest anything blithely. It merely pointed out that to make a material step forward on mobile payments is going to require many of the largest chains to fully participate. And the chance of that happening is much more likely if the companies start the efforts with a history of trust or, in this case, an absence of a history of distrust. It’s going to require retail AND consumer AND carriers to make mobile payments happen and the column was merely suggesting that there are several players who would have a much better chance of succeeding with those groups than AT&T and Verizon, such as Apple, PayPal and JCB.
August 5th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
A critical element for this alliance or any other payment system is what do you do when something goes wrong with the transaction. Anybody can handle the payment; that part’s pretty easy. It is handling the disputes, refunds, chargebacks (a black art in itself), and all the other things that can go wrong that will make or break any payment system.
Taking care of things when they go wrong is the value a payment brand brings to the table in addition to trust. Try calling a phone company — any phone company — to resolve a billing dispute, and compare that with calling Amex or your bank card issuer. The differences might have you questioning why you would ever trust a phone carrier with your money.
August 9th, 2010 at 5:09 am
Re the SMS analogy — not a good example. SMS was a technical feature of the GSM standard which was baked in to every operator’s infrastructure. Engineers from various European operators collaborated to build the spec — they do this well! Business people weren’t in the room. It wasn’t even originally intended for consumer use. Only later did unanticipated revenue opportunties arise, when it weas already built — kind of like e-commerce only arose decades after the internet had been standardised by tekkies. Then the business people carved up the existing cake — they are good at this – not baking cakes. Mobile payments is being led by business people at the U.S. operators — very unlikely to be able to agree to the commercials — let alone standards.