|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (December 2006) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
- 1 Debit Card
- 2 Terminal per Person in New Zealand?
- 3 NZ EFTPOS Historian?
- 4 New Zealand history and usage sources
- 5 Scheme Debit and the long term outlook for regular Debit
- 6 Page Restructure
- 7 EFTPOS
- 8 Neutrality of PayPass/payWave's "unilateral" introduction in Australia
- 9 PayPass and PayWave are not functions of eftpos
- 10 UK
Does this page add anything to the term 'debit card'? Does anybody use this term?
- The term is used fairly extensively in New Zealand (and possibly Australia). I don't know about anywhere else. But in New Zealand, the term "debit card" isn't used very much at all - I doubt most people would know what one is (I didn't, until I read the Wikipedia article). As far as I know, we usually just refer to them as "EFTPOS cards", or sometimes "Eftpos cards". -- Vardion 05:37, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- And Australia. Dysprosia 05:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- It also dosen't use the credit card systems like a debit card, instead it has it's own network and transation system. In Australia a "debit card" is purely a credit card with the 'credit limit' set to the amount currently in the bank account. --ElectraFlarefire 17:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is the same in the United States, as a debit card uses a credit card network (usually VISA) and then directly debits your account through the credit card network. In Canada, a debit card is synonymous with an ABM/bank card. Snickerdo 02:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, agreed. It's a well used term in NZ. --Dom 11:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- EFTPOS seems to be exactly the same thing as the thing known as "J-Debit" in Japan, where you use the cash machine cards for paying. These cards can be used solely for "J-Debit" and cash machines, and the money is instantly charged from your bank account. All shops call these cards debit cards (debitto kādo). (Stefan2 14:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
So if I understand right, both EFTPOS cards and debit cards use money stored on a bank account when paying, right? And in some cases, EFTPOS cards and/or debit cards use protocols also used for credit cards, and in some other cases they use separate protocols, right? So to me it seems that both things really are the same. (Stefan2 02:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
- No, there is a distinction: EFTPOS is the process used when using a debit or credit card to make payment for goods/services at a point of sale. An analogous distinction would be the act of driving versus a car. I think these should remain separate articles. Adw2000 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Terminal per Person in New Zealand?
Does anyone have an exact number for POS terminals per person in New Zealand? In Canada, there are 16,416 (2003) per one million people, which I understand is one of the highest in the world. I'd be interested to know the exact number for New Zealand. If no exact figure is available, the line in the article should be removed. Snickerdo 07:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
There are two EFTPOS transaction switching networks in NZ with approx 80:20 split, I have direct access to data for one of the switches only, so the numbers are not exact. As at July 2005 the total numbers for NZ are - the poulation of NZ is a shade over 4 million, there are approx 100,000 terminals in total, the total transaction volume was 65-70 million for the month. Network availability is better than 99.99%. Info provided by Jed999 22 August 2005.
I just added sources for the NZ section, hopefully that helps. The largest provider claims the per-capita rate is twice as high as anywhere else. --Mprovost 12:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
A report by the NZ Reserve Bank stated "over 95,000 terminals as at the end of 2002" and the Paymark website say their 75% stake is 80,000 terminals. So around 25,000 per million people. ETSL/Paymark conducted more recent research but have not published the findings as far as I know.
Here is a snippet from www.rbnz.govt.nz/payment/0108068.pdf: "EFTPOS transactions now account for around 40% of all non-cash payments by number and continue to grow annually. New Zealand also has a comparatively high number of EFTPOS terminals per capita – over 95,000 terminals as at the end of 2002 or 1 for every 41 inhabitants. EFTPOS transactions in 2002 averaged 148 per capita in number and $52 in value while the number of ATM transactions has levelled at around 50 per capita per annum. A total of 4.7 million debit cards were on issue at the end of 2002." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Fees and popularity in New Zealand
I heard unverified information a few years ago that one of the biggest reasons EFTPOS became so popular in New Zealand was because it was set up in such a way that the transaction cost for retailers was very low, which is why so many retailers leapt on the chance to install EFTPOS terminals and why nobody cares about customers using EFTPOS for 50 cent transactions. Charges went on consumers, but many consumers have deals with banks for no fees or for flat monthly rate fees.
Can anyone verify if this is true, and (even better) if it's something that didn't happen the same way in other countries? If it is true, I think it'd be a useful insight for the article. Izogi (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
NZ EFTPOS Historian?
The BNZ website doesn't mention this, can you find a source? Also, they clearly offer EFTPOS now, and saying it was discontinued makes it sound like it was cancelled forever (if it ever was). Maybe some specific program was cancelled? Mprovost 06:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- at http://www.westpac.co.nz/olcontent/olcontent.nsf/Content/Our+history it says EFTPOS was introduced in 1984. I can't recall the details but I do know there was some sort of fiasco with the early systems, a collapse then a comeback a year or two later. See  for another clue.
New Zealand history and usage sources
Here are some current statistics
Debit and credit use is higher than any other country with New Zealanders averaging 200 transactions per year; more than twice than the next highest, the Canadians, with an average of 80. "Plastic is fantastic for Kiwis" - The Press, 17 September 2008 http://www.paymark.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=134
Data from Norway's central bank shows that Norway had more than 200 transactions per capita in 2008, and in the PDF report you can see that Iceland had even more, so I'll remove the claims that New Zealand had or have the highest usage. 220.127.116.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC).
Also "Eftpos systems have come a long way" - The Dominion Post, 17 September 2008 http://www.paymark.co.nz/cms_display.php?st=1&sn=129&pg=1571 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Scheme Debit and the long term outlook for regular Debit
What about Scheme debit - would this drive out the traditional EFTPOS/Debit model. Scheme debit as you may know is a Scheme product driven by VISA and MasterCard and uses their credit routing links to route debit transactions. The downside being that whilst EFTPOS/Debit (traditional model) in NZ is free for merchants (and mostly free for cardholders) the Schemes will look to apply interchange on these transactions therefore making what is a free/low cost service, one that will eventually be subsidised by cardholders/consumers. Benefit for the consumer is that they can buy stuff onhline 9e-commerce) and use their debit accoutn to pay for the goods instead of credit.
All views are welcome.
I agree with the worldwide tag as this page seems to be written from an Australian perspective about a specific eftpos implementation in Australia yet eftpos is a generic term about this type of payment system which is commonly know as debit card system in most other countries apart from Australia and New Zealand. This page also does not explain that the New Zealand system is separate and different from the Australian system, and the long history and high per capita usage. This is despite all the information about New Zealand on this talk page, none of which seems to appears in the actual page. The debit card page has a much better description of this subject globally and specifically for Australia and New Zealand. I suggest we change this page to start with the generic description of EFTPOS with stronger links to debit cards page and have a separate section for New Zealand and Australia with the particular eftpos implementations and history in those countries. Sargdub (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have made changes to the page and added a more generic description and created sub sections for NZ and Australia and removed the worldwide tag. Have also made the links to the debit card much stronger. Have tried to get a generic description of eftpos but still not completely happy with the description for a couple of reason;
- Not sure if it the generic description explains eftpos enough detail for a person not already familiar with this.
- From a worldwide perspective the new zealand and australia brands might still have to much prominence
- I tried a few different versions to make it less so, but changes did not stick mostly from an australian based user where, like in NZ, eftpos as the brand is very entrenched. But happier with the article overall, so leave it for now as probably need a third party to get some perspective.Sargdub (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- EFTPOS is the alternate name for a type of payment system adequately covered in full on other pages - notably debit card. It is, however, the sole/primary name for the specific subsets of the system as used in Australia and New Zealand, and therefore it is to be expected that this page discusses those two countries predominantly, whilst linking to more complete coverage of the alternate definition in the lead. I should note that this is not the reason I reverted your edits - I reverted because your edits introduced needlessly redundant sentences (it is obvious that the system is alternative to cash payments, this need not be stated), and because you removed the sentence in the lead which explains the crucial distinction between EFTPOS as used in Aus/NZ and worldwide. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
eftpos is awsome. you get to use it in the shop to buy things. i use it all the time!! not really, he he he. have fun reading this articale about the things that i know about eftpos and the things that i think that i know about eftpos!! ttfn (ta ta for now)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality of PayPass/payWave's "unilateral" introduction in Australia
The last paragraph of the Australia section is about the contactless systems PayPass and payWave. I'm a little concerned that the sentence "The banks have unilaterally incorporated the ... technology into new cards, and it cannot be deactivated by the cardholder" is not neutral, with negative connotations about the bank's forcing unwanted technology onto the cardholders. I've already toned the wording down once, but then Ewawer added the word "unilaterally".
Does anyone else have an opinion on the neutrality of the sentence? (Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive.) Is there a better way to word it? And/or do we need / can we get a reference for "unilaterally" and "cannot be deactivated"? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
PayPass and PayWave are not functions of eftpos
PayPass and PayWave are not functions of eftpos but are rival products owned by Visa and Mastercard. I have amended this entry to reflect this. However, I question the relevance of including an explanation of these on the EFTPOS page at all. DerryckTatum (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved this into a new section, because it's a separate issue (from the neutrality of the wording). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- PayPass and PayWave do still appear to be a form of "electronic funds transfer at point of sale", ie they are a subset of the general term - and the article covers both the generic term and the specific brand name. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to have re-added the sentence "Some merchants do not offer a cardholder the option of signing or entering a PIN when the transaction is below their threshold amount." which I removed here. The issue here is whether it is the merchant or the bank who sets the rules about whether to prompt for PIN or signature. My understanding is the bank sets the rules (albeit sometimes on a per-merchant basis), not the merchant. Do you have a ref for the merchants setting the rules? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)