Re: On-line signature standards

You are quite right, Anders, on the motivations of banks

and telco to never get along.  For example, GSM already has a fully

complete, end-end security service fully deployed, with

full security roaming, rekey per network etc. The banks

rejected it, because of the transaction-fee model imposed

by a certain Finnish telecom operator, who

got it all designed and working, universally.

 

I think we have a technology change however. The handset

companies are determined to sell media content, VoIP, and

download applications (beyond ring tones). Content

is now big business, with large dollars already attached.

Handset companies are motivated (as are folk making

handset operating systems....MS)

 

NTT DoCoMo proved the business model for the

telco operators: provide content, people will browse,

using up their packet allocations on browing compelling

content offers (fees..). Wireless Telcos are motivated: with

GPRS finally rolling out in the US, we can get beyond the

WAP debacle.

 

With the opening up of the SIM as a technological platform, I suspect

the former politics will go away. Controlling the SIM;s

content will no longer influence market share wars within the

competitive telco space - the motivation for controlling the

SIM so much, today.

 

The US banks?

 

Yes US banks have an incestuous capability to destroy any

security initiative, on account of the industries own strange competitive

makeup and alliances. This is why you always go around them,

providing you can ensure it costs them nothing to catch up and earn,

once the infrastructure is working. You can be sure that as payment

transaction market saturates, you can always break one bank away to

sell a few payment services for new markets. If there is then

growth, the other banks will come running soon enough, standards

papers left flying in the back draft. US retail banks are driven by

two simple metrics: (a) their share of the payment transaction volume

in new markets, (b) how many of those new markets they have

an early lock on.

I need to get back to work, now. Less Marketing, more Programming.

Peter.

>From: "Anders Rundgren"

>Reply-To: muscle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>To:

>Subject: Re: [Muscle] On-line signature standards

>Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:28:07 +0100

>

>

>Peter Williams home_pw@xxxxxxx wrote:

>

> >With Phillips now shipping the low-power

> >802.11b chips for use in GSM handsets, you will

> >soon see the SIM chip of your phone authenticating

> >to merchant terminals much as we now authenticate by presenting

> >a ICC on a plastic carrier to a swipe/smartcard reader. (IE.

> >finally we will have broken the smartcard US adoption barrrier:

> >removal of the cost of the consumer reader!)

>

>The last line I support 100%, the lines above I am less certain

>about as the SIM has one huge drawback: It is "owned" by an

>operator who do not generally like the idea to share the SIM

>with other issuers of identities like banks. It seems that this

>is point where the mobile phone industry get stuck and fail to get

>their act together.

>

>

>

>Anders

>_______________________________________________

>Muscle mailing list

>Muscle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>http://lists.musclecard.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle

---

 Cheer a special someone with a fun Halloween eCard from American Greetings!