Today, ATM Network founder Phil Rock sent the following letter to key senators regarding a proposed cap on ATM fees.
If you agree, please link to this post. You can also email a copy of the letter to your senator using the links at the bottom of this page. Or sign the ATMIA petition.
May 17, 2010
The Honorable Christopher Dodd
448 Russell Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator,
I am writing to urge you to oppose Amendment #3812 to S. 3217, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, which places caps on ATM surcharges.
I own ATM Network, an independent ATM company based in Minnesota. For the past 14 years, my company has sold and provided transaction processing for nonbank ATMs; we now have more than 5,000 customers nationwide, including grocery stores, bowling alleys, bars, restaurants, amusement parks, nightclubs, stadiums, retail stores and gas stations.
The case for ATM fees is simple: Without them, most nonbank ATMs wouldn’t exist. ATM owners must buy the machine, maintain it, keep it loaded with cash and paper, provide it with power and a communication link and pay other costs such as insurance and installation. None of this is free. The fees are what make such an investment viable.
This amendment would immediately reduce the number of ATMs available, slash the value of existing investments in ATM equipment, hurt the bottom line of hundreds of thousands of small business owners nationwide and put thousands of entrepreneurs out of business.
The Harkin amendment is promoted as “consumer friendly”, but how do consumers benefit from seeing ATMs disappear from stores, restaurants and gas stations? How does the economy benefit by removing machines that dispense billions of dollars in cash annually — money that drives sales and boosts our economy? How does cutting jobs and hurting small businesses help anyone?
Government intervention in market pricing may be justified when the free market is unable to set fair prices. But in this case the free market is working just fine. ATM surcharges are transparent and easily avoidable, and the sheer number of ATMs means customers always have a choice. They can go down the street to a machine with a lower surcharge, or to an ATM owned by their bank. Or they can skip the ATM altogether and pay with credit cards or checks.
With so many alternatives, an ATM surcharge is a purely voluntary payment for convenience. Anyone who doesn’t want to pay the fee can either use an ATM owned by their bank or get cash the old-fashioned way: by standing in line at a teller window. Most consumers don’t want to do that. They have grown up in a world filled with ATMs, and they expect easy access to ATMs. They appreciate the convenience and choice that nonbank ATMs provide. Because of ATM fees, customers can get cash nearly anywhere, at any time. Without the fees, they won’t.
The Harkin amendment would take us 10 steps backward and be disastrous for small businesses across the country. It will hurt the consumers it purports to help and damage our economy just as we’re pulling out of a deep recession. I strongly urge you to oppose this amendment and avoid harm to hundreds of thousands of hardworking American citizens.Sincerely,
Phil Rock
Founder and President
ATM Network
10749 Bren Rd. E.
Minnetonka, MN 55343
.
Write to your senator
You can email your home-state senators, as well as the heads of the Senate Banking Committee, using these links:
Senator Christopher Dodd, Chairman, Senate Banking Committee
Senator Richard Shelby, Ranking member, Senate Banking Commitee
Senator Tom Harkin, amendment sponsor
Tags: ATM, atm fees, ATM machines, Cash machine
Hello Joseph Williams,
Your disrespectful reply does not factually support your position that “The truth of the matter is with out ATM fees there would be thousands of lost jobs and less cash circulating in society which in return would create less business.” Instead of adding one fact or credible data source to support this statement, you only provide a line of personal attacks, which shows how weak your argument is.
First, my name is Cory Marton Grenier, and my profile is publicly available on news, education and social sites – if only you had performed a simple Google search. Instead you’ve misspelled my name as “Corey” in your comment, despite my name being clearly identified.
Second, I did not write at 2:42am in the morning, I am on an international business assignment in China, where there is a 12 – 15 hour time difference with the U.S. Again, if you had thought rationally, you may have considered this possibility.
Third, I have never tried crack – an illegal narcotic. I do not appreciate your insulting personal character attack which is in poor taste.
Fourth, what data, research or knowledge do you have to support that I “know nothing about the cost of providing an off premise ATM”? I hold a Master’s in Business Management, and understand the economics of supply and demand, as well as the historical negative economic effect on the U.S. economy of unregulated private monopolies.
Dear Phil,
its funny how some one who knows nothing about the cost of providing an off premise ATM would be so opinionated and judge mental to an ATM fee cap. The truth of the matter is with out ATM fees there would be thousands of lost jobs and less cash circulating in society which in return would create less business. its people like “Corey M. Grenier” which (sounds like a made up name) posting non sense at 2:42AM who has nothing better to do then rant and rave and draw sense less examples to oil spills,car companies,smoking bans,700 billion dollar bail outs (he’s opposed to the smoking ban just read his comments and anyone would no why, sounds like he might have a crack problem or just another ill informed nut case) THANK YOU PHIL!! FOR DOING YOUR PART AND LETTING YOUR VOICE BE HEARD, ITS COMPANIES LIKE YOURS THAT HELP BUSINESSES FLOURISH AND ALSO PROVIDE A TREMENDOUS CONVENIENCE TO CUSTOMERS…..KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!
Dear Phil,
The oil industry also opposed safety regulation, and BP, TransOcean, and Halliburton’s successful lobbying efforts to defeat costly safety requirements has recently culminated in one of the worst corporate created environmental disasters in U.S. History. The Gulf Oil Spill is ruining people’s livelihoods, and killing countless species.
Today Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, who has received large campaign donations from the banking industry http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009920, successfully opposed the ATM fee cap, and the everyday working American will bear the burden of an unregulated banking industry, just like the residents of Texas, Florida, and Louisiana will bear the cost of the oil spill resulting from poor oversight.
Phil, every time a new regulation is proposed, businesses claim the damage will be worse than reality. Restaurants across the country, backed by the Tobacco lobby, claimed that ‘No-smoking laws’ would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and force small businesses to close. But a decade after the California and other states enacted No Smoking rules, businesses continue and the enormous damage never transpired. Car companies, especially GM and Ford, lobbied against any rise in average mile per gallon standards – saying such regulations would cost the US car industry billions of dollars. Instead, Japanese manufacturers seized the opportunity to produce more efficient vehicles like the Toyota Prius and reap billions in profits. The “Phil Rock statement on ATM fee caps” similarly makes unrealistic claims. If a $0.50 ATM cap were in place, ATM machines would not disappear like you fearfully claim. ATM use may even increase, as a growing number of poorer citizens are able to afford to use ATMs. During a time when tax payers have spent $700 Billion dollars bailing out the banks, it is unconscionable that you are defending taxing everyday people for electronic transactions, which reports state cost only $0.37. Instead of opening up commerce to a wider free market, you are advocating monopolistic control in defense of the ATM Network private profits. That is not only poor customer service, but you are selfishly profiting on the backs of tax payers who are currently bearing the cost of an unregulated banking industry.