I guess the lower fee works in Monzo’s favour regarding expensive withdrawal charges?
Although as the article states it may have an affect on ATM’s closing, but with cashless transactions going up it’s inevitable for a fair number to close down.
As long as cash exists so will ATM’s to some extent.
I’m cool with less ATMs but I feel the remaining ones should get a bit more functionality. Pay cash in, withdraw cash, pay in cheques, contactless card/phone withdrawals, and a nicer more standardised UI upgrade.
Although I imagine this is what bank branches will eventually become/have become.
This is about lower fees on the Link network, which Monzo isn’t part of. MasterCard network fees are already lower. Perhaps the lower fees might encourage Monzo to join Link. I may have commented elsewhere that I live in the North and there are lots of things I have to use cash for. The ATMs nearest my house are Link only. Luckily I do live in a town, so the nearest Mastercard ATMs aren’t too far away…
Ahh good point I didn’t think of that. Thanks for highlighting 
The problem with reducing cash machine numbers is if you have 2 or 3 nearby streets in say Leeds with a dozen ATM the loss of a few does not matter, contrast that with a sleepy small Essex town with only one ATM where it’s loss will have a major impact. If any reduction is therefore not socially-managed it will become a real issue.
I think going cashless is pretty much inevitable at this point, the question is how long it’ll take to get there.
Pretty much anything is inevitable if you’re prepared to wait long enough. We still have postal orders and cheques in the system, for example.
My main worry about a cashless, or nearly cashless society is what will happen if a few companies gain a near monopoly on the transaction system. Would the cost of transactions go up, or go down, do you think?
Why would this happen?
I didn’t say when, I said if.
Fair enough. Personally I can’t see that happening.
Why do you think that, and do have any sources?
I suspect it would be regulated if that were to be the case, just like most things that have a monopoly.
Example Openreach etc.
I suspect you’re right. But regulations are arrived at after the event and by negotiation.
I suspect it would be regulated
Example Openreach etc
Openreach and telcos in general are a good example of government-sponsored monopolies where the regulator is in bed with the offending companies.
Yeah ok even though it may not work the best it’s an example of “regulation” to some level 
.
anyway, we no longer have a bank in my town. NatWest said they would keep the ATM running. 1 year later it was gone. Luckily for those that need it a new note machine was installed at the petrol station.
I suppose the other option is to take out cash at the post office.
Yep. And it ‘could’ happen with transaction fees in a cashless society.
Visa and MasterCard are already heavily regulated in the EU to the point interchange fees are substantially LOWER than cash handling costs. Too low for consumers I’d argue.
P.S. before anyone asks… Too low since banks can’t run at a loss. Thus it makes offering free products harder. And shops haven’t lowered prices with lower interchange. Heck some still tried to charge card fees as long as they legally could despite interchange being well below cash handling charges!
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of small merchants rely on cash to illegally avoid some taxes, thus making cash cost less than cards despite it being the opposite for a legitimate business.
That is true as some have openly told me that when I queried why they don’t accept cards!