Thanks Ivanovich,I appreciate your take on it. Because my typing...

Thanks Ivanovich,
I appreciate your take on it. Because my typing speed is so slow, I won't respond in full as I'd like but would like to make a couple of observations. As occurred after the introduction of surcharging in the US, I believe the convenience fee level has anything but found it's final level yet. CUS, and for that matter, probably all deployers tend to slow up on service levels after the signing. The simple point I make here is most sites can become vulnerable in the 3 - 5 years they are left alone. Any entity with sufficient cash to hold will take advantage of that. This is pretty much what cus did prior to con., fees intro.
Some 12 mths or so ago I had reason to go out and sell a few sites in country NSW. It was amazing the number of times I came across mailed paperwork in the hands of would-be clients offering silly deals that even the site-owner knew to be unviable.I believe CUS anos have a
lot of cleaning up to be done. If you like, 20% of their sites are doing 80% of their tx. I still believe many of those reasonably good sites will have a long memory re the un-negotiated raising of the con fee to $2.50. At least that's the message I got whilst out there.
The above roughly sums up why I'm not holding at present.
TSI is an Australian entity who are building a network in India. Dyor but 2 exciting points that may not become clear immediately are 1. Their worst performing site (out of I think about 500 sites) is doing 4000 tx/mth. and 2., the banks, not the cardholder are paying the con fee. The banks want to keep their customers out of the banks. All that on the fact solid foundations have been laid over a long period of time.
Btw, my background saw me as the founder of a network that put 680 atms out and was then swallowed up. (I think you will derive the rest!) as always all imho
Always good to read your posts Ivanovich.

I think this will be