AT&T And Verizon In A Mobile Payment Alliance. Yeah, That’ll Last

Written by Evan Schuman
August 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—which will reportedly include banker Barclays and payment network Discover Financial Services and will “kick off soon with a pilot program at retailers in four selected cities, including Atlanta,” according to The New York Post—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.

Todd Ablowitz, president of payment consulting firm Double Diamond Group, put it well when explaining the financial issues that are behind—and that might ultimately derail—this deal.

“It’s widely known that the limiting factor to NFC/contactless adoption has been that the very large players have not been able to agree on how the proceeds from this new payment type should be shared. Actually, they don’t even agree that it should be shared,” Ablowitz said. “Each of the major players is looking to make sure they can extract maximum value from this inevitable new paradigm. The major card brands and banks say, ‘It’s our consumer. We have the trusted financial relationship and we shouldn’t have to share interchange.’ The carriers say, ‘No, it’s our customer. We are the ones who supply and support the phone, so we deserve a (big) piece of the pie.’ The retailers then turn around and say, ‘This is just payment. The whole reason our customer is paying for something is because they’re loyal to our store. We pay too much already for payments and this new technology should lower our costs substantially. And, by the way, we’re fresh off a victory in Congress, and we’re going to get this whole interchange thing fixed there.'”

Another powerful take on this issue came from Nick Holland, an unusually plugged-in analyst at the Yankee Group. He compares the move to a 2003 European alliance effort called Simpay that featured Vodafone, Orange and T-Mobile. (T-Mobile. Always the bridesmaid and, well, I guess always the bride, too. It’s just that the marriages seem to fail.) In 2005, the plug was pulled.

Holland argues that this alliance has a somewhat better shot because the technology is more mature and the geographic target is more limited. But he still fears the worst. “One issue remains, however. Consortium. Not to suggest that the triumvirate of AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile can’t come to some equitable agreement on forming a mobile payments network, but it didn’t work before. And, all it took for Simpay to implode was for one of the players to drop out. Lesson learned?”

Several players are well positioned to handle mobile payments, and they have a much better chance of playing well with the largest retailers.

  • Apple’s iTunes
    Apple generally engenders very good feelings among its customers, and it has yet to alienate retail leaders. Yes, the Cupertino consumer electronics giant does have a knack for strongly infuriating business partners, but at least it starts off with a clean plate.

    Apple knows mobile intimately, directly controlling the hottest mobile brand today: the iPhone. And iTunes has mastered mobile payment. Indeed, most players judge their own efforts against the ease and convenience of iTunes.

  • eBay’s PayPal
    PayPal has been the innovative—and respected—leader of alternative payments for years. And its eBay corporate parent gives it a good feel for what retailers care about. PayPal arguably has the best combo position here, a comfortable partner for any major chain and world-renowned payment expertise in non-traditional environments.

    Don’t forget that this is not merely a popularity contest among retailers. Consumers have a huge say, as well. Consumer comfort with PayPal could be a critical factor here.

  • JCB
    This huge credit card giant in Japan and throughout Asia is a rarely referenced candidate, but look at what it has to offer. In terms of payment processing experience and global reach, JCB is a powerful player. It has little penetration in the U.S., which means it has relatively few enemies here. If the boards of some chains would rather have a plastic payment veteran handling mobile transactions, bringing in JCB—which has been looking for a way to boost its U.S. presence for years—might be a face-saving approach.

  • advertisement

    6 Comments | Read AT&T And Verizon In A Mobile Payment Alliance. Yeah, That’ll Last

    1. SilverC2 Says:

      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.

    2. Commodore Says:

      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….

    3. Todd Ablowitz Says:

      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

    4. Evan Schuman Says:

      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.

    5. Walt Conway Says:

      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.

    6. Fox in Socks Says:

      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.


    StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

    Most Recent Comments

    Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

    I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
    Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
    A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
    The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
    @David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

    Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.