vinylweatherman
1. There is no way for a customer to receive sms on a landline number (most of our security are based on a SMS service).
You can add and verify a landline number as an additional number after cell phone.
2. International calls are expensive, calls to European counties are 0.69 Euro per minute in general (to Asia same and higher), and it is usually takes more than a minute for a customer to login to his/her account and get the phone verification code.
3. We are not obligating customers to pay verification fees, as I have mentioned before there is a free SMS service package bonus and the phone verification is only required for CC operations.
1. WRONG. You CAN send SMS to a landline, and I have received them. They are done through an interface run by BT where the SMS is spoken as a recorded message.
My bank phone my landline for adding a new recipient, and it seems to be the same level of security that you are offering.
When I am logged into my bank and add a recipient, I get an immediate automated phone call to my landline. At the same time, the website displays a 4 digit PIN, and I have to enter this on the phone using the keypad in order to complete the transaction. This means that not only do I need access to my PC, but also to my landline. Mobile phones are easy to steal, but a landline can only be taken by breaking into my house, and even then it is only the handset that can be taken, not access to my number.
A text costs 12p to send at standard rates, which is 10x more expensive than a short phonecall.
Lastly, what's the MASSIVE problem with Moneybookers, which is regulated by the FSA as a "small e-money issuer", yet you have a hitherto unheard of 40 DAY hold on funds transferred using this method.
If you don't charge for verification, why were potential customers lead to believe that you had this "stupid catch-22 situation".
I can only think it is because your agents are really pushing the express verification procedure, and failing to inform customers who point out the problem that they can also have "standard" verification for free.
Stringent security has to be balanced with usabilty. It is no good having near 100% security if this makes the service unusable in practice.
There also seems to be an unhealthily close relationship between OK pay and 3Dice, as this payment method was first heard of in connection with 3Dice, and so far has not been mentioned in connection with any other operator.
It makes me think that OK-pay is not a true processor, but an "in-house" department of 3Dice. If this is so, then players will be tied to one choice of casino with this payment method, and will not be able to use it elsewhere.
Given that it is only US players that have to resort to such methods, I doubt that Moneybookers will be a funding option in any case, and neither will be Neteller.
I also find it VERY odd that funding OK pay with Moneybookers is even possible, since eWallets do NOT, as a rule, allow transfers to and from their competitors. I even wonder whether the 40 day hold for Moneybooksers is because they don't know that the transfer has gone to a competing eWallet, and might recall the amount were they to find out within 40 days.
For those US players thinking of pursuing this option regardless, what exactly is this "free SMS service package bonus", and is it the case that unless customers have a cell phone that can receive texts, they CANNOT use OK-pay.
