|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I added the section on history, hoping that more information is forthcoming. I used the Nottingham Building Society Prestel system and remember it as providing features very similar to the modern internet systems. Strictly speaking the definition needs to be changed, as online banking doesn't necessarily require the internet. I've e-mailed the Nottingham Building Society to see if they have more information and whether they believe they were the world's first on-line banking system. If so it's the 25th anniversary next year. (Wiffy (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC))
Possible Wiki Links
I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:
- Can link the internet: ...orming transactions, payments etc. over the internet through a bank's secure website. This c...
- Can link internet access: ... short) and banking from anywhere where internet access is available. In most cases an internet...
- Can link internet browser: ...t access is available. In most cases an [[internet browser]] such as Internet Explorer or Nets...
- Can link mobile phone: ... to the physical device (e.g. computer, mobile phone etc)....
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 07:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The features list is pretty sparse. I would broadly categorize features of internet banking into transactional (e.g., performing a financial transaction such as an account to account transfer, paying a bill, wire transfer... and applications... apply for a loan, new account, etc.), non-transactional (e.g., online statements, check links, cobrowsing, chat), and administrative. I think it might be useful to edit the article along these lines... I'd be willing to have a go at it. Thoughts?
Eventually I will remember to sign... --Pearrari 03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability is a challenge in this space because...
- A lot of excellent research has been done by analysts... and it is all available for sale, but only teasers are viewable on the internet unless you buy the research results. Celent, Forrester, and a slew of others do this.
- Most of the information is verifiable on vendor sites, but then which vendor should we reference? Can't reference one without making it look like a conflict of interest... so how to beat that without messing up NPOV? I'm not sure it's even possible, much less desirable, to reference every vendor under the www.
I'm willing to contribute to the article, but I'm not up for a tug-of-war on NPOV. So I'd welcome advice and thoughts? Pearrari 15:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
WHY IS THERE ONLINE BANKING ?
(When it is not conducted with OnLine timing ?)
There seems to be nothing said about the advantages to both the banks and their customers of indulging in OnLine Banking.
The major advantage for customers (and the only point of this note) is the POTENTIAL (Far from being generally realized) of having one's banking position (checking) immediately available at any time -- with obvious exception of paper checks not immediately negotiated by the vendor/creditor. The time delay is not uniform across banks or creditors -- where usually the amount shows up first, then later the ID of the vendor. Why this is allowed to occur boggles my imagination !!
Even worse is the practice of some (or all ?) gasoline (and restaurant ??) transactions showing up as anonymous $1.00 transactions, only completed later, sometimes several days later.
Banks seem to think that it is OK, fine to use their past antiquated paper practices and Banker's Hours to implement OnLine Banking -- A weekend plus hoilday may lead to as much as a four days lag on posting -- not exactly "Online Time", in my opinion.
History conflicting info
There seem to be a conflict in the information in the history section about which bank offered the first online banking systems and when, it could do with a rewrite from somebody familiar with the area and some better references.Sargdub (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)