Quote:
Originally posted by JR@Jul 2 2003, 01:04 AM
i have seen now, many referreces to Verified By Visa . i keep seeing remarks that its a good thing... followed by remarks like "yeah, but they dont support recurring billing" or "unless you are ready to give up recurring billing...."
Does this work well for any business model that is not dependent on recurring billing?
Can users charge these transactions back? or not?
|
VbV is pretty much dead for our business JR, unless Visa jumps in and changes their mind. I guess they dont want to give us any options to protect ourselves, but hell I don't really know what they are thinking anyway.
Unless... the rationale for this tightening of the belt buckle yet again is somehow related to the fact that since Visa's overall cb ratio has been and continues to drop, they feel that they can bring each segment of their market further towards zero percent chargebacks? If so I certainly applaud their ability to bring the cb ratio down overall but I still don't understand what they are thinking if they are treating every piece of the puzzle as if it were the same shape and size.
Anyway back to topic.
VbV should have meant that the initial transaction was cb proof, even though the recurrings probably wouldn't have been.
I think one of the reasons that Visa has stepped back and refused to allow high risk to make use of VbV is the way that it is being marketed by its member banks. I have looked over the B of A references to it online and you have to really dig to figure out that you are giving up your right to dispute a charge on the grounds of not being the one who made the charge. Took a page out of our book so to speak.
It's pretty amazing what kind of changes could be wrought from this little change in the rules if you think about it. I'd definitely say there are some issues with monopolies, Sherman, Clayton, restraint of trade, and so on.
But who's going to fight Visa? It would be a long and bloody expensive one, that's for sure.
07-02-2003
Threaded Mode
