Yesterday on the radio going into town there was a bit of news on ATMs in the Seattle area. Apparently, Trans Alliance is a major processor of ATM transactions for the banks in the area. Banks must have been worried about Y2K compliance because the gist of the story that I caught was that some bank sued TA and won the right to break their contracts with TA without penalty because TA was not expected and was not currently Y2K compliant. (KOMO AM1000)

The other was on the TV news last night. They were reassuring all that the banks would be compliant, but recommended that if you are worried and felt you needed extra cash for the New Year DON'T WAIT until December. They recommended withdrawing cash starting now in small increments of $100 or so at a time. (KING 5 - 5:00pm report)

Maybe - just maybe this is progress in awareness???

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.net), May 22, 1999

Answers

the whole story

I can just imagine the kind of fees you'll be paying at the ATM machines if they actually do spend enough money to prove compliant by June 30! The banks may get off on making the threat of contract cancellations, but what is their alternative? Do you think they have another company as big as TransAlliance ready to just jump in and take over? I seriously doubt that.

-- @ (@@@.@), May 22, 1999.

@ (@@@.@),

>but what is their alternative? Do you think they have another company as big as TransAlliance ready to just jump in and take over? I seriously doubt that.

Actually, it's quite possible. I used to work for an EFT software and processing company that had the sort of capacity required to run a network like TransAlliance's. Quite a few of them, in fact.

It's true that it couldn't "just jump in and take over". But it's also true that it would already be well aware of the TransAlliance situation by now, and could arrange for having the capacity on hand to handle their customers in time for a changeover, once the contracts were signed.

Also, one has to consider the possibility that TransAlliance's customers could be split up among multiple other processors.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 22, 1999.

No Spam,

Glad to hear it. Maybe this thing will help weed out some of the incompetent businesses, and make way for those who are willing to do a better job.

-- @ (@@@.@), May 23, 1999.

This brings up another interesting thought. What about the machines themselves? It looks like TransAlliance takes care of the software part of the service, but are they also sub-contracting the service of the actual machines, and if so, are they responsible for that? The reason I wonder is that I have doubts about the capability of the machines and the embedded chips within to be able to process 2000. I recently witnessed something at my local Safeway grocery store which had me wondering. Only less than a year after having switched to new card-processing mechanisms, a few days ago they completely tore out the entire check-out counters and replaced the whole thing. They replaced the entire revolving counters with the enclosed laser scanners, which made me wonder if the old ones were not able to read barcode dates after 2000. Maybe just speculation, but I'm sure this was quite expensive to replace, and I wonder if other businesses that use those barcode readers (who doesn't these days?) are prepared to be compliant as well. Hmmm...

-- @ (@@@.@), May 23, 1999.

@ (@@@.@),

>Maybe this thing will help weed out some of the incompetent businesses, and make way for those who are willing to do a better job.

Yes, I think Y2K will certainly do that. Businesses run by people who chose not to heed Y2K warnings in time to take adequate action will suffer accordingly. Sic transit gloria Y2k-ignorami, or something like that.

>What about the machines themselves? It looks like TransAlliance takes care of the software part of the service, but are they also sub-contracting the service of the actual machines, and if so, are they responsible for that?

ATMs are usually owned by individual banks, or sometimes by the grocery or convenience stores in which some are installed. POS (point-of-sale) devices through which one slides ones card (rather than inserting it) are usually owned by the stores in which they reside.

The responsibility for upgrading terminals to Y2k-compliant status could be shared between the network and the terminal owners -- the network might set standards and deadlines, but the owners would be responsible for arranging for the actual work. E.g., the network might have in its contract with the owners a clause that the owner must upgrade all its terminals to Y2K-compliant by a certain date, and offer the owners technical assistance in arranging to have the upgrades performed by the terminal manufacturers.

>The reason I wonder is that I have doubts about the capability of the machines and the embedded chips within to be able to process 2000. I recently witnessed something at my local Safeway grocery store which had me wondering. Only less than a year after having switched to new card-processing mechanisms, a few days ago they completely tore out the entire check-out counters and replaced the whole thing.

Please keep in mind that there are lots of reasons for these things other than Y2K. POS terminal vendors are constantly adding new features in competition for their customers (stores), and stores are adding new gadgetry to their checkout counters in competition for their customers (shoppers).

>They replaced the entire revolving counters with the enclosed laser scanners, which made me wonder if the old ones were not able to read barcode dates after 2000.

Probably had nothing to do with Y2K, if it was that extensive a change. I doubt the barcode readers themselves would have any Y2K problems. And it doesn't seem likely to me that their checkout systems were such tightly integrated packages as to require wholesale replacement just because of a Y2K problem in some part of them.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 23, 1999.

I have to laugh when I see all the fuss being made over ATM machines.

Would you believe I can actually remember when we had no ATM's. As I recall, we survived just fine.

This is just another way for the bank to get your money with service charges.

-- GeeGee (GeeGee@madtown.com), May 23, 1999.

"...just another way for a bank to get your money with a service charge."

I know many of you dislike (a nice word) banks and bankers. But I have a small problem with some of the bashing. For instance, how many brokerages offer to do your trading and financial planning with no transaction fees? After all, it's your money you are investing, why would they charge you a fee? And how many cab drivers allow you to ride for free? After all, you could walk or take the bus. My point is this, you could simply go to your closest bank branch and withdraw any amount of your money you choose without a withdrawal fee. Instead, you prefer to use a method that is more convenient for you. But convenience does have a price. Those ATMs aren't cheap. Nor is the software and maintenance it takes to drive them. I agree that even I hate to pay fees. But when it's for an optional service you choose, one that costs money to provide to you, I'm having a little trouble understanding why you think that service should be provided to you for free. If you don't like paying fees, choose a different method of business transaction - perhaps visit your bank in person. You might find that you actually like some of us bankers. (OK, maybe not) Just my two cents - I'm sure few agree. Thanks for letting me vent.

-- Diana (dstubblefield@ldd.net), May 24, 1999.

GeeGee said, "I can actually remember when we had no ATM's. As I recall, we survived just fine." Sure, I remember those days, but I "survived" by going to the bank during regular business hours. I would have taken cash out of the bank prior to the start of the weekend. Easy enough, but I have to know that is my only option. Plus, I can imagine the lines at the bank if ATMs were not available.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 24, 1999.

Gee, who is going to be using banks? From the indications so far, that is one of the major institutions teetering on the edge of the cliff. Just wait till all the non-compliant "other country" banks start calling in loans after their banks fail. crash

It has happened before. karen

-- karen (karen@karen.karen), May 24, 1999.

Sorry, didn't mean for you to take my comment personally, Diane. Banks HAVE found many ways to screw customers, though. As far as stock brokers are concerned, who needs a broker??? You have to be a moron not to be able to handle your own finances. Why pay someone else to do it?

I've seen longer lines at ATM's than I have at bank counters. Most banks now have longer hours. The drive-in here is open till 7pm every evening and open almost all day Saturday. It's not like the days of 9am till 3pm.

-- GeeGee (GeeGee@madtown.com), May 24, 1999.

GeeGee -
Banks HAVE found many ways to screw customers, though. As far as stock brokers are concerned, who needs a broker???
so true, so true.

But, after reading the thread about the Bank Stocks Plunging today (posted a few minutes ago - linked to CBS MarketWatch), we may not have to worry with either the brokers or the bankers for much longer.

-- karen (karen@karen.karen), May 24, 1999.