Thanks to NAFTA however, it would be very easy for OpenSRS to setup a presence
in the USA and get a merchant account through an american bank. This would
defeat the one signature/one transaction issues. We do it for companies all
the time, setting it up for canadian companies is a sight easier than other
countries.
In regards to PayPal, they charge a percentage of each transaction making it
not as attractive to potentially large volume clients. I've also heard
stories of PayPal dropping transactions quite often, sometimes as often as 40%
of the time in spurts. We've also converted a fair number of PayPal customers
(or ex-customers I guess) so these are just numbers I've heard from them.
Of course this doesn't eliminate fraud and chargebacks. It's always an
inherent danger in this industry. It also reduces the hands on feel of
registering with them, that I'm sure some people really prefer. In truth, it
wouldn't surprise me if they don't have something doing online transactions
already that is only open to their employees after they receive faxes for
customer orders anyhow.
Kimo Baenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Payment Online, Inc. http://www.paymentonline.com
877.376.5884 x 231
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 10:02:01PM -0500, Paul Chvostek wrote:
>
> At least in Canada, a vendor is required to have a signature *per
> transaction*. Regardless of other documentation, if the transaction
> does not have its own signature, then the transaction does not have a
> signature. And if the transaction does not have a signature, the
> customer can *very* easily call up VISA and have the charge reversed.
> The bank will not consider "blanket" authorizations; if they provide
> any protection, it's in the vendor's (OpenSRS) ability to litigate,
> thus incurring additional costs to be borne by the other RSPs.
>
> So taking unsigned VISA opens OpenSRS up to one kind of fraud, whether
> for regular payments or an "instant topup". And accepting PayPal makes
> OpenSRS subject to PayPal's refund policies, which (though I haven't
> reviewed them) I suspect are not as firm as the bank's policy of a
> signature per transaction as the proof of payment authorization.
>
> So, as I said in my previous email, does anyone see this as a business
> opportunity? A risk-managing "proxy payment" company for OpenSRS RSPs,
> providing an interface between faster less-secure payment methods and
> the safe methods provided directly by OpenSRS? Would RSPs be interested
> in paying a premium for such a service? Frankly, I don't think so, but
> heck, it's a biz-op.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 06:18:31PM -0700, Dave Warren wrote:
> >
> > > The second reason is the bank. OpenSRS currently requires *signatures*
> > > for credit card transactions. This presumably gives their bank
> > > confidence that despite the fact that OpenSRS' customers are from all
> > > around the globe and do Internet things (which is about as technical as
> > > most banks get in their understanding of this business), there is at
> > > least some physical document that OpenSRS can pull out in case of a VISA
> > > chargeback and say "But look, he signed this!"
> >
> > How about a one time form you'd fax in, with a credit card, expiry,
> > signature, yadda yadda, that would allow future transactions on that one
> > credit card to be processed via the web automatically.
> >
> > That should help with the protection side, but allow an instant midnight
> > topup when you realize your RSP account is out of credits.
> >
> >
> >
> > And no, this isn't the right list. Not sure if attempting to move a thread
> > is useful/possible though.
> >
> >
> > ========================================================
> > Dave Warren,
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Pager: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ========================================================
> >
>
> --
> Paul Chvostek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Operations / Development / Abuse / Whatever vox: +1 416 598 0000
> IT Canada http://www.it.ca/
>
>
