Bank charge for Quicken direct connect

Not at all. But I DO believe that an informed consumer is a better consumer and that by having a grasp of ALL the economics of e-banking, the consumers can make better choices. The FI's bemoan the fees to Intuit to provide Direct & Web connections ... but forget to mention that they benefit greatly from having the service available.

There are plenty of FI's that don't charge for Direct Connect ... and I see very little reason to pay an FI so that they can save money.

FI's that charge the consumer for Direct Connect are just being piggish.

Yes and your point is?

Does anyone remember when "Touch Tone" (DTMF) phone service cost extra? After a while, most CO's had DTMF capable equipment. Some customers found that they had DTMF even though they hadn't paid for it; in other places they blocked it, but soon found out it cost more to block DTMF than the lost revenue from giving it to everyone. So they did. At least that's my understanding of how it went.

Now, the IRS is begging us to file electronically because it's cheaper for them. But it COSTS ME MONEY (or at least the hassle of a mail-in rebate if I actually receive it). So I send them paper.

Now banks are weird. Some make in-person transactions more expensive than ATM's; some make ATM transactions more expensive (to the consumer). Clearly the ATM transactions are cheaper for the banks, yet many charge extra for them. I just asked my daughter for the real economics language that explains why this works, and she said "because customers will pay it." :-)

On Wed 08 Jun 2005 06:50:44p, Jim Nugent wrote in news:ovLpe.2798$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:

Bank One found the Teller fee did not work and discontinued it after acquiring First Chicago; it did not work because the other banks did not fall in line and do the same.

It is only when they all conspire to universally identical type customer penalties that they really work as well as ATM fees... sort of like price fixing.

It is surprising the CC companies can get you with both a late fee AND a big minimum payment penalty if you are late. I have scheduled early repeating payments for my 2 most active cards to make sure that they cannot ever hit me with both if I should accidently miss and then I pay the balance on the due date.

"Jim Nugent" wrote in news:ovLpe.2798$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:

My local TelCo, Sprint, still charges $.75/month for Touch-tone. Until about two years ago the local office had a bank of the old "Click-Bang" rotary switches just for the diehards who refused to pay for Touch-tone. But eventually they replaced them with digital equipment which lets them easily enable or disable the feature.

They charge the extra fee because mnost people, including me, are willing to pay it and we really can't switch to a different carrier.

On Wed 08 Jun 2005 09:20:35p, Porter Smith wrote in news:Xns966FE34CB5EAEmyport2000yahoocom@207.217.125.201:

I didn't pay for many services like this back when they were charging for this as our phone or answering machine was able to perform many functions including paging, tone, voice messaging, conference calling, redial until answered.

I guess caller id and call waiting you have to pay for right now though, but I still skip them for long distance.

Your daughter got it ALMOST right. I believe a more complete statement is "because SOME customers will pay it".

The rest of us, who don't want to be ripped off, find an FI that doesn't need gouge it's customers.