Although we are OT, would you comment on how that goes for seniors who have no credit cards nor [reasonable] ways to acquire one and rely on debit cards/accounts? Is this a case of ‘I am all right so there couldn’t be a problem’?
3 Likes
That is indeed where I had in mind to go. I am not entirely comfortable with 80-20 as exact numbers, but it does well as a label for an idea. Another label is the old proverb, that a cobbler should stick to his last; do what you do best, do it well, and leave everything else to other, alternatively skilled people.
If we are talking about core customers - the hypothetical 80 out of every 100 - then I entirely agree. My concern, however, is with the provision of non-core services to non-core customers. At this point, providing extra services becomes not a cost of business, but rather a cost of bankrupcy. And bankruptcy means no services for both core and non-core customers alike.
The basic fact, like it or hate it, is that the only way that a business can survive is to provide a package of services to each customer that costs less than the income it creates. This becomes impossible if the business is required to provide universal service - every possible service such as may be requested by every possible customer.
On this point, I absolutely agree. My stance on this is that (a) it is useless to ask businesses to do things that put themselves out of business, not even it it will benefit a few of that business’s customers; (b) it is useless to ask businesses to do something illegal, such as by asking Telstra to ignore what I understand to be a legal requirment that it verify phone account holders’ identities (which is, I think, the very definition of ‘intrusive’); and (c) the challenge for Choice is to identify and fix business service issues that cause not merely cusomer inconveniences, but all-of-society inconveniences - which of necessity involves discussing some very complex issues.
In this latter regard, I think firstly of Amazon, which is the USA is being sued for being ant-competitive, on the basis that - in effect - it offers too many services, thus hurting competition, and thus, in very round-about way, hurting consumers. By implication, universal service not only hurts businesses, but also everyone else, customers and competitors alike.
Secondly, I think of India, which has resolved the payment issue by making payment by credit card almost the only way to pay, other than for very small transactions. In other words, intrusiveness has become the order of the day. 
1 Like
Sure. Off topic.
For those who do not have a credit card and rely on a debit card attached to a transaction account, those may well have an overdraft facility.
My account does.
Used it a few months ago when I failed to transfer funds and it went overdrawn. The bank automatically extended me credit and honoured payments for a very modest fee. And I am talking about a few percent interest.
Another transaction account I have has a sweep facility that automatically transfers funds from a high interest savings account into the card account when a certain balance is reduced below a user selected amount.
But using a credit card, and I am in the position that I would struggle to get another if I gave up my current one, provides a buffer between a direct debitor, and one’s money. Of course, the credit card company pays, but you need to pay them back. Within a month.
Comparing a market stall and Telstra in unintended consequences of legislation shows limited understanding of legislation.
Also the no obligation to use is pretty weak also when Telstra is concerned as due to lack of coverage they’re the only option for some.
It probably sounds stupid to you because you haven’t had a company unjustly take money from your account beyond your normal bill, putting it in overdraft, leaving you with no money for essentials and taking weeks to pay back excluding the overdraft fees they cost you.
Step out of your bubble once in a while and consider how things can impact people outside of your socioeconomic standing.
People seem to forget that a company can lodge any fee they want and have it taken out of your account once you’ve authorised direct debit access and you can’t do anything about it until after the fact, and even then there’s no guarantee you’ll get your money back.
There’s a distinct difference between supplying accurate information and justifying that information.
There’s a whole lot of justifying clearly unethical business practices going on in this forum.
This seems to be the prevelant stance on almost anything these days. It’s only a problem until it impact you. It’s a heartbreaking trend that’s getting worse.
I’ve seen on other forums for example people blaming customer for banks known predatory lending because they were dumb enough to sign up. Not for a second considering that people that are raised in a low socioeconomic background are generally less financially savvy, not to mention the intended targets of said lending schemes as they have no other options available.
Do you have some examples? Can you explain what is unethical about each?
“Unethical Business Practices” -
The ACCC has an ongoing Digital platform services inquiry 2020-25. Links to the interim reports as well as the many public submissions received can be found by using the links from:
There are submissions by socially aware organisations and NfPs concerning a wide range of business practices (large and not so large). Too many to list here or select quotes from just one or two fairly.
There’s no standard definition of what is ethical, although boards make regular attestations to their values and priorities. The ethics of the boardroom are not necessarily the same their customers may judge the business by.
1 Like
There are many large business that only offer one form of payment. Many online businesses only offer card payments. I also provided examples of other large, including multinational, companies which also only offer one form of payment - one industry where credit cards are only accepted (which is even more restrictive to consumers and has been the focus of other threads in the community).
Just because one isn’t happy with the form of payment being offered, it doesn’t mean that the government should prescribe that businesses must provide a form of payment suitable to each and every customer (this is what realistically is being asked for). This is a unreasonable extension of government power and misuse of the legislative process.
The method of payment offered by Telstra would be acceptable to and usable for almost all Australians. The only ones which it wouldn’t be acceptable is the rare case where one does not have a bank account.
If a business say offered two forms, BPay and direct debit, there still would be others which the payment form isn’t preferred or would argue why they don’t want to use it - and why other forms should also be legislated. This would mean that and legislative change may force businesses to provide every form of payment possible so that it satisfies every customer. This is an unreasonable request and a possible outcome.
1 Like
And that is precisely why I do not use direct debit. For any ongoing payments like phone, subscriptions, etc, where a company insists on card debit, I use my credit card. And one can do that with Telstra Autopay.
Am I one of the priviledged few who have a credit card? Hardly.
If 69% of adults have one and there are 1.4 cards per household on average, ‘few’ might be inappropriate but ‘almost everyone has one’ would be equally misleading.
Money Pty Ltd (trading as Money) Australian Credit Licence 528698 provides information about credit products and is authorised to do so as the holder of Australian Credit Licence 528698.
1 Like
Well said! 
1 Like
In summary, it seems clear that people, between them, want a very wide range of solutions … which no individual business can supply. To resolve this dilemma, three possible legislative solutions spring to mind.
-
Legislate that companies with extremely large (>50%) footprint in the national retail sector be required to provide all possible kinds of service. This would quite certainly have the perverse side-effect of forcing affected businesses to either raise prices to uncompetitive levels (putting their survival in jeopardy), or split themselves into smaller ‘pseudo-competing’ units to avoid the law - as has happened overseas in the past.
-
Set up a national registry of information about relevant consumer options (e.g. in the context of the current debate, payment options), and legislatively compel businesses to refer to this information, much as food companies are required to provide standardised dietary information. Personally, I’d like to have a ‘proforma’ set of information (set, perhaps by the ACCC?), which could be re-published by other businesses or organisations translated into different languages, and re-written and re-published to suit the purposes of individual businesses (though on the basis that you can add information, but not take anything away).
-
Follow the lead of India, and mandate that everybody have a fee-free, Internet-friendly debit card (provided by the national Government), whether they like it or not - and that every business, including down to the tiniest market stall-holders, honour it. Government payments such as unemployment or pensions would go into these cards or associated bank accounts, and the ATO would pour over everybody’s expenditures. All problems would be solved except for screams of intrusiveness.
Personally, I am a believer in the idea the the more information the better, and so I prefer the second option. Given my druthers, I’d extend it to allow inclusion in the mandated information of lists of companies, on an industry by industry basis, that allow different payment options, so that people who didn’t like one company’s options could brouse for a suitable rival. However, I have no idea how that this could be meaningfully done, so that everybody knew where to look, hand access to the right technology to look, and could be certain that they they could discover the opportunity costs of the different options.
One issue I find confounding is how many ‘answers’ seem binary with an all or nothing view. It could be the case that it is reasonable for a category of businesses to be required to offer say 3 payment options, all different. eg cash, credit, bpay; or credit, bpay, direct debit, etc, whatever and the consumer can choose/has a choice.
For argument wouldn’t that be the ideal in a cashless society although not necessarily implemented as done in India, for better or worse?
1 Like
To be fair … that is what you asked. You asked “is it legal?”. That’s what people answered.
I wouldn’t necessarily look at the size of the company. I would look at the nature of the service and whether it is essential. These days I think most people would regard telecommunications services as “essential” and as such there may be more legitimate calls for government intervention. But those calls would have to start with you (and others) making representations to the government.
Given the great difficulty in cancelling and/or otherwise managing “direct debit” arrangements, if this does represent a trend towards that being the only way to pay in many situations of ongoing service, it does seem problematic.
I would therefore draw no connection between “Telstra” and “Uber”. The latter is hardly an essential service and it’s not even a “company” as such. It is a platform. A platform for connecting service providers with service consumers. Or at least that is how they spin it.
Given the proliferation of “digital only” providers in the new economy - like Uber - unfortunately crappy customer service goes with the territory. A shop front you will never get.
1 Like
For a business, every choice adds costs. Once a business is required, by law, to offer more than one choice, it is mandated to add costs, and hence, ultimately, to raise prices. Since customers only want one payment option at a time, your solution would necessarily involve everybody paying a higher than necessary price for their purchases. If the aim of the game is to raise prices, this strategy would be a winner. But does it meet the challenge of making like easy for social minorities who want ‘alternative’ ways of payment?
Let us suppose that this forum is populated entirely by contrarians who want the exact opposite of what everybody else wants, and that we represent, let’s say, 2% of the national population. Two things need to be said. The first is that, as will be obvious to all intelligent people, we also represent the 2% of most intelligent and worthy people in the nation, whose opinions must and should be respected by everyone else. In that case, which two payment options should be added to whatever is the majority preference of all those dumb-bunnies out there? By what criteria should this list of three options be drawn up?
I mentioned India’s credit card policies as a means of illustrating my underlying point that both people and governments choose their payment options for utiltarian reasons. India chose to create a nation-wide debit card system precisely to reduce national reliance on cash (and hence money laundering and tax evasion). I personally use debit or credit cards for online shopping convenience. Other people choose other options, each for their own reasons. In each case, as you say, for better or worse.
Earlier, I mentioned Amazon’s fight with the U.S. Government as an example of how ‘for better or worse’ can impact everybody: not only the Government; not only Amazon’s competitors and customers; but everyone else, including everybody in Australia. If the complaints about Amazon are correct, the payment options on its websites are adversely affecting you, even though (for all I know) you may never even have heard of Amazon.
This is why I say: let us plan ways of providing customers with better information, rather than ways to merely raise prices or force bankruptcies.
Let us suppose offering easier/more ways to pay increased their custom and thus profitability? The example, although imperfect, was hoped to be illustrative of the failure of a binary mindset of good/bad and more consumer centric than take it or leave it. We could devolve into the equivalent of a Gish Gallop but is that necessary since our respective points are made?
I’ll not accept setting a single payment option that many are uncomfortable with, eg direct debit in this case, would be improved by providing more information.
That seems a step very far from reality, especially in these days where surcharges are so common.
2 Likes
I updated the topic title to reflect what are mostly two tracks, one being sufficient support and the other limited/dictated payment methods. It would have been better if I could have culled out one or the other into two topics, but most posts have included both tracks, hence the titular update.
2 Likes
No, there’s more reasons than just not having a bank account for someone to find AutoPay as the only payment form available unacceptable.
Now I hate government overreach more than most, but in this instance where there is no valid reason to only offer AutoPay (another form of overreach) and it’s Telstra, which being the nations largest telco (there is a social obligation that comes with that), is the only network some people can be on then yeah government intervention is required.
