If you owned a hotel, for example, and it didn't have a chip-enabled device, and if you were renting from either me or Jeff or the other dozen or so competitors in the marketplace, we would, by October 2010, send out a technician and we would replace the device with a chip-enabled device. Once that chip-enabled device is in, then from the hotel owner's perspective, there is no increased liability because we have a device in there.
In fact, from a hotel perspective, you'll actually be better off because our data, so far at least.... The market hasn't been flooded with chip cards yet, but to the extent that we've had chip card transactions, our data show that the numbers of disputes--if you had disputes before at the hotel such as, “It wasn't me staying there”, etc.--have come way down.
From our perspective, from Moneris' perspective, we actually do support the introduction of the chip in Canada. We think it's a more secure way of paying. We don't support the liability shift happening as quickly as it has. We think it's a bit of a burden on the merchants that is not currently needed.
Let's say you owned your own device, as a hotel. Let's say you purchased your device and you had just invested in it and it wasn't chip-capable. If someone showed up at your hotel and disputed the transaction and said, “That wasn't me”, and you didn't have a chip-capable device, then you'd lose that dispute. So there is increased liability in the case where you do not have a chip-enabled device. But as Jeff pointed out, the vast majority of the devices that'll be deployed will be chip-enabled by October 2010.