With 840 million phones potentially competing against less than 85,000 bank branches, there is no doubt over mobile banking’s potential to accelerate financial inclusion. With more than 70 banks now offering m-banking services, in tie-ups with telcos, there are signs of a spurt in mobile banking transactions in 2013.
Yet, the penetration is abysmal compared against the base of 840 million mobile subscribers and a $100 billion dollar payments market composed of equal parts of Direct Benefits Transfers and migrant remittances. The slow uptake has been partly due to an impasse between banks and telcos on mutual accountability to customers, sharing of costs and liabilities, and the pricing of m-banking transactions.
Trai’s recent consultation paper on Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) based mobile banking for financial inclusion, signals an intent to settle two contentious issues; namely, whose service is it and who pays whom. Referring particularly to the inter-ministerial group for ‘Delivering Basic Financial Services on Mobile Phones’, the note argues that USSD is the most feasible and cost effective mode for financial service transactions on mobile phones. It also indicates that USSD access should be a telco’s service to phone users, and should come with appropriate Quality of Service standards and a regulated tariff.
What does the development mean for different stakeholders? For banks, m-banking is an add-on service, an incentive to initiate transactions in the largely dormant basic accounts opened under the recent financial inclusion drive. While conceding the advantage of distant access over mobile phones, banks see the telco’s role as providing the pipes to transmit data to and from users and banks, and hold these to be value-agnostic. Thus, banks would like telcos to charge customers only for access and data transfer costs, in line with other VAS such as SMS.
For telcos, the principal issue has been the absence of clarity on the dividing lines between banks and telcos toward liabilities for failed transactions and fraud; absence of a solid business case for USSD caused by: lack of clarity over the eventual investment implications of building additional capacity and billing infrastructure; lack of assurance