[ignites]

Carriers at odds with RIM over NFC payment data -- Engadget

From Engadget:

We've already heard a fair bit about RIM's plans for NFC-based mobile payments, but it's starting to look like some of those plans don't quite line up with what the carriers have in mind. As the Wall Street Journal reports, there's a brewing dispute between RIM and a number of carriers including AT&T, T-Mobile and Rogers over just how NFC payment-related data, or "credentials," are stored, and who actually controls that data. For its part, RIM unsurprisingly wants to store the data in a secure area of the phone itself, which would obviously tie folks to their BlackBerry more than ever, while the carriers are pushing to have that data simply stored on the phone's SIM card, which would let customers move from one phone to another more easily. While things apparently haven't gotten that heated just yet, it does certainly seem like there's a bit of a fight in store -- according to the Wall Street Journal, RIM is already reaching out to banks on its own in an effort to strike some deals, while Canadian carriers have apparently been telling RIM in a "gentle" way that "you won't be doing this."

What would you prefer store on phone or store on sim card?

[JRSCCivic98]

How about store on nothing local! The NFC subsystem should tie into authentication data or whatever it needs (funds access, etc.) via encrypted wireless transmission for each session it needs to make. All the user should need to configure is an NFC account ID identifying them to the mobile system. That way, the NFC info can not be stolen when the phone is stolen. Only negative to this is if there's no cellular coverage available to make it work... for the sake of customer security, that's something the system should be limited to.

Besides, there were rumors that LTE phones from Verizon wouldn't do SIMs and that even in the future manufacturers like Apple were looking into doing a SIMless iPhone for whatever wacky carrier limiting intentions they had in mind.

[lnichols]

Only negative to this is if there's no cellular coverage available to make it work... for the sake of customer security, that's something the system should be limited to.

That's a pretty big negative. If you start relying on NFC, and you don't have coverage then you could be stuck with no way to pay for something. I mean no provider has coverage everywhere.

[JRSCCivic98]

That's a pretty big negative. If you start relying on NFC, and you don't have coverage then you could be stuck with no way to pay for something. I mean no provider has coverage everywhere.

That's only because they're too cheap to make it happen and I mean cheap because they want more money for their own pockets than they want to spend on their overpriced technologies.

If the world wants a connected world, then there should be no corporate greed dictating what "acceptable" dependability upon technology should be rated at. There is no reason other than money that is keeping everyone from being able to live in perfect bliss. Sure, companies like to say they are partnering with each other to make things better, but in the end, they're looking at ways to use each other to insurrect the markets of the other. What the world needs in unity of direction... right now there is none.

[rollingrock1988]

I think in general, carriers have far too much control. With that, I think it should be on the phone. Also, it shouldn't be on a sim card- I believe that this is too risky for such sensitive information.

[lnichols]

That's only because they're too cheap to make it happen and I mean cheap because they want more money for their own pockets than they want to spend on their overpriced technologies.

If the world wants a connected world, then there should be no corporate greed dictating what "acceptable" dependability upon technology should be rated at. There is no reason other than money that is keeping everyone from being able to live in perfect bliss. Sure, companies like to say they are partnering with each other to make things better, but in the end, they're looking at ways to use each other to insurrect the markets of the other. What the world needs in unity of direction... right now there is none.

Building networks and lighting up areas with coverage costs money, both recurring and non-recurring. All of the carriers are carrying debt that was/is incurred from the building out of what they have now and building out in the future. They have balance running up more debt and more monthly recurring costs with the money that they can make to pay off that debt and investors. So lighting up some area with a few people in it won't make them money. That's not corporate greed, that's keeping yourself from going in default on your debt/bonds. In the end how much per month for service are people willing to pay for coverage everywhere?

In a Utopian society where a provider had endless resources to build out a network for the greater good and didn't have to worry about making money off the deal then I'm sure their would be coverage everywhere, but unfortunately that ain't reality.

[papped]

Weird, this thread is a debate about capitalism...

[John Yester]

Weird, this thread is a debate about capitalism...

LOL I know right.......

[i7guy]

That's only because they're too cheap to make it happen and I mean cheap because they want more money for their own pockets than they want to spend on their overpriced technologies.

If the world wants a connected world, then there should be no corporate greed dictating what "acceptable" dependability upon technology should be rated at. There is no reason other than money that is keeping everyone from being able to live in perfect bliss. Sure, companies like to say they are partnering with each other to make things better, but in the end, they're looking at ways to use each other to insurrect the markets of the other. What the world needs in unity of direction... right now there is none.

Before we resolve this issue, can we work on unemployement, the economy, housing prices, social security, securing our borders, healthcare (not the prezs version) just to name a few?

[TheScionicMan]

Would I prefer security for my financial details or ease of phone switching which most people only do once every year or two? I think I'd prefer the security to be top priority.

It also seems odd that they would base it on a technology that only half the phones in the US utilize.

[_StephenBB81]

How about store on nothing local! The NFC subsystem should tie into authentication data or whatever it needs (funds access, etc.) via encrypted wireless transmission for each session it needs to make. All the user should need to configure is an NFC account ID identifying them to the mobile system. That way, the NFC info can not be stolen when the phone is stolen. Only negative to this is if there's no cellular coverage available to make it work... for the sake of customer security, that's something the system should be limited to.

Besides, there were rumors that LTE phones from Verizon wouldn't do SIMs and that even in the future manufacturers like Apple were looking into doing a SIMless iPhone for whatever wacky carrier limiting intentions they had in mind.

That system would be useless in Canada where there are large geographical portions of the country where there is limited/no cell service indoors, and minimal out doors.


I would Rather the data stored in a secured location on my device over my SIM, I trust RIM with security slightly more than I do my Carrier, though even that is limited.

I would like to see a bit of a hybrid system in place between ON device storage and the Remote data storage you speak of Civic, Make the Ondevice data storage be like a prepaid credit card? that without wireless access you are limited to X amount of dollars until recharged, when connected you can authorize larger payments using a Passcode.

[JRSCCivic98]

The more I think about it, the more I think NFC has no business being on a phone to be used for transactional uses. I think we're better off using NFC for other things that don't deal with money. Seriously, nobody walks around with a phone but no ID or plastic/cash. At least no one should. I think it's just asking for security troubles. Besides, NFC is in use now at many stores. I have yet to see anyone use the terminals for payment. I've even asked people at the counter and they say they almost never see anyone use it.

[sivan]

NFC this or that is not important, just implementation details.

In developing countries people already conduct many of their business transactions using primitive phones instead of cash and plastic. It's strange how far behind we are on this, but at least we can play games.

[dooodads]

The more I think about it, the more I think NFC has no business being on a phone to be used for transactional uses. I think we're better off using NFC for other things that don't deal with money. Seriously, nobody walks around with a phone but no ID or plastic/cash. At least no one should. I think it's just asking for security troubles. Besides, NFC is in use now at many stores. I have yet to see anyone use the terminals for payment. I've even asked people at the counter and they say they almost never see anyone use it.

Whether you prefer it or not it will be the future. Look at Japan, they have it implemented quite strongly already. You can pay with your phone at vending machines and many many other places for example. In the future it will become second nature for us. Just where things are going.

[breakmedown]

Vending machines don't even accept credit cards around here and what I would assume to be most places. If they can't seem to get that everywhere, NFC is still behind.

As cool of an idea as I think these chips in phones may be, I don't think it's worth it. I agree that there's no reason not to carry around a single card, especially and even when you have your phone with you. They even make special cases just for that.

As for the NFC in use today, I work for a company that has had them for years. We get upwards and over 500 cashless transactions a day and I bet I see one person a week use the NFC rather than sliding their card. So I'm really not convinced it's the "future" everyone thinks it is. Atleast not very soon.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Skeevecr]

I think tying anything to a sim would be far too limiting, you'd want something that was usable on multiple devices so a system where you logged your device of choice into an account to use this stuff.

[_StephenBB81]

The more I think about it, the more I think NFC has no business being on a phone to be used for transactional uses. I think we're better off using NFC for other things that don't deal with money. Seriously, nobody walks around with a phone but no ID or plastic/cash. At least no one should. I think it's just asking for security troubles. Besides, NFC is in use now at many stores. I have yet to see anyone use the terminals for payment. I've even asked people at the counter and they say they almost never see anyone use it.

I would love to drop carrying cards. I currently carry a steel business card case that I use as a wallet, it holds 6 plastic cards, to keep me limited to what I have on my person, if I could remove my bank card, I would be able to carry one different card in the wallet,

[TheScionicMan]

Seriously, nobody walks around with a phone but no ID or plastic/cash.

I agree that there's no reason not to carry around a single card, especially and even when you have your phone with you.

They probably scoffed at the first mobile phones the same way. "Nobody's going to carry a phone around wherever they go..." Credit and debit cards had a slow time gaining acceptance at first.

It's called progress. People aren't walking around with "just a phone" because the ability is not there in widespread usage. But if it was, many more people will use it and it will become the norm.

It's the oddest argument against new technology I've ever heard. "We don't need that because we don't do it now (because we don't have it available...)

[K Bear]

I think this all comes down to what consumers want and are willing to trust vs. technological advancement and the destruction of the dollar as we know it.

[JRSCCivic98]

They probably scoffed at the first mobile phones the same way. "Nobody's going to carry a phone around wherever they go..." Credit and debit cards had a slow time gaining acceptance at first.

It's called progress. People aren't walking around with "just a phone" because the ability is not there in widespread usage. But if it was, many more people will use it and it will become the norm.

It's the oddest argument against new technology I've ever heard. "We don't need that because we don't do it now (because we don't have it available...)

Don't be goofy. We have NFC now and people don't carry an NFC key fob or card and most banks can issue them. That's what I meant. We have it and people don't use it and the things they'd need to have to carry now (key fob or card) are easy to carry. I'd rather have an NFC implant instead of a phone to make it happen if we're going to make such big use of it for payment. Lol

[dooodads]

Don't be goofy. We have NFC now and people don't carry an NFC key fob or card and most banks can issue them. That's what I meant. We have it and people don't use it and the things they'd need to have to carry now (key fob or card) are easy to carry. I'd rather have an NFC implant instead of a phone to make it happen if we're going to make such big use of it for payment. Lol

Ehhh we don't have nearly enough of an infrastructure for NFC to become mainstream but once that infrastructure is built it will just become another natural form of payment in the evolution of payment systems. I don't even understand how this can be argued. It probably won't dominate payment systems for an extremely long time but it will be another way that people do things.

[K Bear]

Ehhh we don't have nearly enough of an infrastructure for NFC to become mainstream but once that infrastructure is built it will just become another natural form of payment in the evolution of payment systems. I don't even understand how this can be argued. It probably won't dominate payment systems for an extremely long time but it will be another way that people do things.

Anyone remember Exxon/Mobile Speedpass, or the keyfob that Mastercard release, Visa has their own swipe to pay at places like Arby's. NFC has been used for many years, it just isn't taking off very well.

[_StephenBB81]

Anyone remember Exxon/Mobile Speedpass, or the keyfob that Mastercard release, Visa has their own swipe to pay at places like Arby's. NFC has been used for many years, it just isn't taking off very well.

Half the places I use my Mastercard all I do is hold it against the Point of sale for 3 seconds and I've paid, no swiping or inserting my card.


Someone needs to push NFC for the public to adopt it, I actually remember having to check if places took debit cards and I'm still in my 20's!

now many places prefer electronic over cash for payment.
I think if a Company like RIM pushed NFC, on the front end with devices, and then went on the Backend with working with Banks for direct access you would see it take off.


IN a perfect world if I was at RIM looking to Push NFC, I would be looking at getting into the Debit/Credit Card device market, and have them link to a BES/BIS, so that I can further control the means at which NFC works, controlling both the business and consumer side of things, AND creating more lockin into my BES/BIS infrastructure.

[K Bear]

Half the places I use my Mastercard all I do is hold it against the Point of sale for 3 seconds and I've paid, no swiping or inserting my card.


Someone needs to push NFC for the public to adopt it, I actually remember having to check if places took debit cards and I'm still in my 20's!

now many places prefer electronic over cash for payment.
I think if a Company like RIM pushed NFC, on the front end with devices, and then went on the Backend with working with Banks for direct access you would see it take off.


IN a perfect world if I was at RIM looking to Push NFC, I would be looking at getting into the Debit/Credit Card device market, and have them link to a BES/BIS, so that I can further control the means at which NFC works, controlling both the business and consumer side of things, AND creating more lockin into my BES/BIS infrastructure.

There's something disconcerting about giving that much control to a company other than my banking institution. Then again, how much faith can you put into banks here in the US anymore?

[TheScionicMan]

Don't be goofy. We have NFC now and people don't carry an NFC key fob or card and most banks can issue them. That's what I meant. We have it and people don't use it and the things they'd need to have to carry now (key fob or card) are easy to carry. I'd rather have an NFC implant instead of a phone to make it happen if we're going to make such big use of it for payment. Lol

Nothing goofy about it. Trading a card for a card or having to have a separate fob around isn't the advancement the platform needs. Having it in your phone makes a lot more sense. It's something most of us have with us everyday. Some of the newer cars can be unlocked/started with your phone. It's not that much different from your argument of "Why should I have to carry a phone and a laptop when the phone can handle my needs?"

There's something disconcerting about giving that much control to a company other than my banking institution. Then again, how much faith can you put into banks here in the US anymore?

Do you realize how many companies are involved in your transactions right now? Most of the ATM and payment networks were built and are operated by the companies that have the generic ATM machines in place, not your banking institution.