> This isn't a problem you can solve by changing the banking industry. This is a point-of-sale problem.

It's all part of a larger set of "problems with US financial services". The fact that it is technically different vendors is not relevant...

It is if you want to solve the problem across the board, rather than having a niche system that a small handful of vendors use that just introduces one more surprising variation at payment time.

I disagree entirely. The problem is that the US banking industry permits this state of affairs. They should require updated, at-table point-of-sale devices within a reasonable timeframe to be able to continue to take credit cards.

It always seemed odd to me that the card readers are owned by the retailer. On the one hand, that leads to a lot of old or insecure-by-design equipment in circulation as 'not worth the cost to replace", and on the other hand, it tends to lead to a lot of annoying spam calls of "we'll replace your machine if you switch your payment processing to our company."

If the upstream providers provded the readers as a leased service instead-- maybe for a few dollars a month-- they could push out insecure gear in a timely manner more aggressively. Just reject connections from old devices because everyone renting the old model has been sent a new one already. It would also eliminate the price of equipment upgrades as a leverage for competitors to peel off customers.

From what I can tell, the machines are fairly locked to the service providers, and require fairly intensive setup, so it's not necessarily like an unlocked phone where you'd save money by buying a device independently of the service.

Not that I have practical experience with this, but I believe that equipment leasing is the norm in Australia.

Migration has a cost. Many small vendors have razor-thin margins.

Then have the banks fund it out of the savings from reduced stolen card fraud.