EZ link card with Giro

[godzilla60]

That is quite baseless speculation honestly. Also, manpower costs in counting and depositing money will definitely fall outside this speculation.

The next thing we can speculate that they contract with SMRT to give them commission for each machine based topup since SMRT gives them space to put the machines in the station;' hence they need to dissuade commuters froM GIRO.

baseless? have u seen their operational contracts to know the contents of it? If all these are baseless, every argument is baseless speculation too until somebody in the know comes out and spills the beans on this controversial decision.

 

[godzilla60]

That's because in paying cash at your retail shop, you already need to queue up anyway.

If I tell you that by paying cash, you need to join the 20-people long queue and if you pay credit card, you get instant clearance; then you will re-evaulate whether the 2% is worth it or not.

yes.. and in paying cash at the retail shop, you need to ensure that you have sufficient cash on hand to transact. Else, you need to queue up at the atm to draw the money again.

well... if you think that 2% is worth it in this case, then good news! the 25 cents they are charging is less than 2% of the $30 value. In fact it is approximately 0.83% only. Do you think it is worth it now?:devil:

Before this thread becomes a place for point for point rebuttal, let me make clear my stand:
1. I am not related to this company in any way.
2. My posts have always been to inform viewers of the following:
a) they have an option whether or not they want to subscribe to EZ-Reload or other alternatives
b) the company may be tied in some commercial or contractual agreement/guarantee on their operations that made it not feasible to absorb the transaction fees.
c) EZ-Reload is not an essential service. Without EZ-Reload, they can still continue to travel.
3. I never once agreed they should charge for the fees though I felt there may be justifiable reasons.
4. I am not satisfied with the way they managed the transition to CEPAS card.

That being said, anyone is welcome to differ from my views.

 

[scanner]

I only know that I am not willing to pay for such services.

In the first place, it is the service providers who initially offered such "automated" services to me for free and now they wanted to start charging....:nono:

What is the purpose of implementing something but in the end might incurred more cost either to the company or public. Likelihood is, it might make some parties FAT.

 

[godzilla60]

I only know that I am not willing to pay for such services.

In the first place, it is the service providers who initially offered such "automated" services to me for free and now they wanted to start charging....:nono:

What is the purpose of implementing something but in the end might incurred more cost either to the company or public. Likelihood is, it might make some parties FAT.

i never excluded that possibility :bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

You are the one who brought up the issue of contracts to support your stand, so the burden of proof lies on you to prove your point, not on me to disprove it.

If you are not able to prove it, then your point is baseless as stated earlier.

baseless? have u seen their operational contracts to know the contents of it? If all these are baseless, every argument is baseless speculation too until somebody in the know comes out and spills the beans on this controversial decision.

 

[godzilla60]

You are the one who brought up the issue of contracts to support your stand, so the burden of proof lies on you to prove your point, not on me to disprove it.

If you are not able to prove it, then your point is baseless as stated earlier.

there is no burden of proof on my end. this ain't any court of law. anyone who studies economics knows the possibility of such contractual agreements. Furthermore, you have taken on yourself to dispute my opinions, so there is no need for me to back up any statements.

what i am offering is my opinion which does not require any proof on my end. My speculations are based on experience and education. Since when does opinions offered required proof? Maybe you have not encountered such examples but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

To that end, as I have posted, neither you nor I am able to explain the full workings behind the whole issue because to my knowledge, both of us are not privy to the full operational details. Til then, it is just pure speculation after speculation. :dunno: So let's keep it as that.

 

[vince123123]

Since bare allegations and speculations are sufficient, in that case I speculate that there are indeed no such contracts The mere possibility is so remote as to become improbable. In fact, I can also speculate that there is the possibility that there are even contractual agreements which provide exactly contrary to what you have speculated and hence, your entire basis is unfounded.

Since we have agreed that it is pure speculation, that is good enough for me.

there is no burden of proof on my end. this ain't any court of law. anyone who studies economics knows the possibility of such contractual agreements. Furthermore, you have taken on yourself to dispute my opinions, so there is no need for me to back up any statements.

what i am offering is my opinion which does not require any proof on my end. My speculations are based on experience and education. Since when does opinions offered required proof? Maybe you have not encountered such examples but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

To that end, as I have posted, neither you nor I am able to explain the full workings behind the whole issue because to my knowledge, both of us are not privy to the full operational details. Til then, it is just pure speculation after speculation. :dunno: So let's keep it as that.

 

[godzilla60]

Since bare allegations and speculations are sufficient, in that case I speculate that there are indeed no such contracts The mere possibility is so remote as to become improbable. In fact, I can also speculate that there is the possibility that there are even contractual agreements which provide exactly contrary to what you have speculated and hence, your entire basis is unfounded.

Since we have agreed that it is pure speculation, that is good enough for me.

this is a good turn in our arguments. We have actually come to an agreement on a certain number of items!

we have agreed that it is pure speculation, we are entitled to our speculations and most importantly, we have agreed to disagree. :thumbsup:

Let's just hope that someone with sufficient influence in that company can clear up the inefficiencies and better still, make it really free for EZ-Reload. Yeah?

 

[harrynkl]

http://www.nets.com.sg/consumers/index.php

nets flashpay card look more promising then EZ link

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

yes it certainly does!
Good! Finally some competition!

 

[Limsgp]

No GIRO facility for the flashpay card?

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

I think it should have? Or not yet launched? I've yet to read the website.

 

[sentinel_006]

No GIRO facility for the flashpay card?

I thought there is still a convenience fee for credit card top-ups so I guess it will apply to GIRO when it is available as well.

 

[Virgo]

Nothing is free. Nets should be no difference I think. They'll go by Nets top-up, which will be as per transaction charges.

So far, still nothing heard from Ezlink? It's been quite some time, and they're not going to reply? :dunno:

 

[godzilla60]

Nothing is free. Nets should be no difference I think. They'll go by Nets top-up, which will be as per transaction charges.

So far, still nothing heard from Ezlink? It's been quite some time, and they're not going to reply? :dunno:

haha.... they must be employing the "wait it out" strategy...:bsmilie:

 

[Virgo]

haha.... they must be employing the "wait it out" strategy...:bsmilie:

And think that everyone will forget this issue and continue using the cards? :angry:

 

[harrynkl]

And think that everyone will forget this issue and continue using the cards? :angry:

but still use cash top-up

 

[Virgo]

but still use cash top-up

Yes, that's what I mean. They let those Giro users go use cash top-up, delay the reply and hoping that we'll all get used to it and forget this matter!

 

[Lenscapes]

What a reply in today's ST forum...:thumbsd:

WE THANK Mr Chong Foo Sin for his letter, 'How now?' (Oct 15), which questioned the justification for EZ-Link to charge a convenience fee for auto top-ups. Due to the termination of the TransitLink top-up on Oct 1 for the old ez-link card, banks require cardholders to reapply for the Giro service. We are working to further streamline and improve the process and to reduce the waiting time, and have put in additional resources.

For commuters who do not wish to pay the top-up fee of 25 cents, free top-up channels will continue to be available within the transit areas of MRT stations and bus interchanges, including the general ticketing machines, add-value machines, passenger service centres and ticket offices. Free top-ups elsewhere are at 900 DBS/POSB ATMs and more than 200 AXS D-Pay stations.

The automatic Giro top-up facility is a value-added service, to give commuters an option that provides added convenience. In the past, TransitLink offered automatic Giro top-ups at no charge to commuters. This was not because the top-ups were free, but because the cost was absorbed by TransitLink, which is jointly owned by the two public transport operators - SMRT and SBS Transit.

They were willing to absorb the cost because the old cards were mainly used on buses and trains. However, this is not possible now as the new Cepas-compliant cards issued by EZ-Link can also be used in private vehicles for Electronic Road Pricing, retail shops, libraries and many other places unrelated to public transport.

Gregory Gerald Danker
Vice-President, Marketing & Communications
EZ-Link Pte Ltd

 

[Limsgp]

So the one-card-for-all concept actually caused inconvenience to consumers..