NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/dc/general/3551

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!digex.com!adric
From: [e-mail] (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: dc.general
Subject: Re: Banks in Northern Va.
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:15:13 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 53
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William Johnson) writes:
>> But the point is, this does NOT significantly run up the bank's overhead
>> if you are using their own ATM.
>
>Whether or not you like bank X, using the ATM more often DOES incur
>significant overhead.  The main reason is that every transaction is verified
>by a human teller when the machine is serviced (who also has to do the
>totals and account for discrepancies).  Deposits at ATMs are handled
>entirely by the human tellers, the computer in this case is only providing
>a temporary receipt.

Yes, but the point is, you get the same if you were to go INTO their bank
once a day (or more) to withdraw $20.  A human would still have to verify
everything, etc.  And the only real time-consuming part of all of this is
the deposits.  Everything else is just a "total it all up and make sure the
money dispensed = the money the machine THINKS it dispensed".

>Even without the human teller, frequent ATM use incurs more overhead.
>There is per-use overhead (the mechanical portions of the machines
>wear, require cleaning and service, etc.)  The electronic per use overhead
>is related to transaction frequency at the central computer - it can only
>handle a certain maximum transactions/unit time, and if transactions
>exceed that, everyone has to wait.  This is undesirable for many bank
>transactions, so the bank will be forced to add transaction capacity at
>its central site.  There may also be communications costs associated with
>all these transactions.  If enough people practice frequent ATM transactions,
>then the branch will require more ATM's - a very costly consideration indeed.

But see, banks these days all have central computers, which are generally
hooked up 24hrs/day anyway via leased line.  Because let's face it, if the
bank doesn't have immediate access to it's main computer, then you could go
to three different branches, withdraw all of your money, and end up with
three times as much.  Now, I'm sure they'd catch you, but they don't even
take that chance.

And so there is no added communication charge.  The hardware for the machines
is a one-time charge, and I doubt the upkeep on the machines is that high.
And I certainly don't understand how the cost is the same to the bank whether
you use THEIR ATM or ANOTHER bank's.  Because if you use another banks, you
have to pay a network fee to Cirrus or NYCE or MAC or one of them.

Oh well, it's not of major importance.  I've worked in the computer business
long enough to know that with proper handling, the ATM's should only cost
what a teller does, if that, and therefore I'm not going to patronize a
bank which wants to charge me money for access to my own money.

Will.
--
Copyright (C) 1993 by William Johnson  All rights wronged, all lefts made
[e-mail]                     without benefit of turn signal.
Will Johnson, 307 S. Reynolds St Box P-216, Alexandria, VA  22304
"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have included a quote in your .sig file."