3 ms·
PayPal does a number of things (stored value system, aggregation, virtual terminal, etc). I'm not sure how Noca is a competitor at all. Also, this page has a nu
by pitdesi 15y ago
PayPal does a number of things (stored value system, aggregation, virtual terminal, etc). I'm not sure how Noca is a competitor at all. Also, this page has a number of inaccuracies. For example, chargebacks don't exist for checks, Authorize.net as a standalone doesn't enable payments at all (it is a gateway, you also need a merchant account, which you could get cheaper than at Noca), etc. It does NOT take months to sign up with Authorize.net, you can get setup in an hour.
Noca is relevant if it is somehow 3.49% for all transactions though... It would make it a cheap option for transactions <$10 or so.
- pjg 15y ago@pitdesi I do need to compliment you on deciphering Noca's service - it is more an Alternative to Authorize.net than Paypal (Thank you for pointing it out ). You are correct, Authorize.net is not a gateway but an aggregator (most people confuse them for a gateway) and yes Noca will will provide a similar service much better About Chargebacks: They do exist for Checks. They're just not called "Chargebacks" instead they are called ACH returns, specifically return code R10 (google "ACH return code R10" ) Its just that ACH i.e. Check payments are not pervasive online hence knowledge about Chargebacks or the ability of the individual Payor i.e. Consumer to initiate a chargeback is generally not known. Unlike Credit Cards, Checks do not have an "800" number printed on the back that the Consumer can call to dispute a payment. However the rules set by the Federal government i.e. the Fed are similar/identical (google "Reg E" or FED regulation 12 CFR 205 specifically 205.6 if you really want to read the rule ). So the issue is more of Consumer interface/UX/UI and Consumer education - something that can and needs to be solved.