Mobile News

As we have seen, the advent of m-payment negates the four-tier relationship (payer and bank, payee and bank) of current payment models and the issue does not solely pivot on an operator-bank axis. The Paybox payments system in Germany (no operator involvement) could usurp the role of credit card companies through a bank-granted credit line. Fora such as EMPS and Mobey protect bank/credit card company interests. The often-emphasised assertion that operators could provide billing systems veils the counter argument that banks have more experience in cash flow and card management. Moreover, the EMI directive  that conceivably allows operators to morph into banks is not as liberating as it seems. The directive specifically covers prepaid forms of payment solutions but is less lucid on the invoicing of payment through a monthly phone bill. In addition, contrasting regulatory climates variously interpret the definition of a bank–payment provision does not always constitute banking and therefore does not require more supervision. Banks aim to circumscribe innovation within the mobile channel through connection with existing payment instruments.

To date, bank and operator cooperation has been one of natural partnership because of what each can offer the other. A symbiotic potential for customer retention, if not quite acquisition, is compounded by the advantages for operators of value-added services. The early stage of m-commerce evolution reveals that:

* Partnership between banks, operators and other players on the m-commerce value chain (platform vendors, content providers, software developers, device manufacturers) is in flux: ownership of the customer is unpredictable

* No single business model applies to the creation of mobile banking services; alliances that are cooperative, commission-based, or full-blown joint ventures will co-exist

* Both banks and operators will need to leverage traditional strengths in order to create a trusted environment for mobile banking to flourish.