Outsiders to the existing Eftpos club are calling for a broader definition of the debit payments system in Australia if the Payments System Board opts to update (rather than abandon) its "designation", or regulation, of this ubiquitous form of payments.Eleven firms operating within the payments system have so far made submissions to the Reserve Bank of Australia on the topic, in response to a request made last month.Five firms - all of them shareholders in Eftpos Payments Australia Limited - support a definition of Eftpos that draws upon the present rules of EPAL. And EPAL itself also endorses this option.But another five firms - one of them, Tyro Payments, an acquirer of debit and credit card payments - have called for a much wider definition.Westpac's submission, for example, argued that "efficiency and competition will be enhanced" if the PSB uses EPAL's rules to define the system.National Australia Bank, Commonwealth Bank and Australian Settlements also support this rationale.EPAL advised the PSB that any wider definition would lead to free-riding by non-EPAL members and also to regulatory uncertainty.Those firms outside EPA that have taken trouble to make submissions take a different view.Tyro Payments argued that the Eftpos system should be defined "by a broader definition that recognises the interests and roles of participants and users of Eftpos that are not members of ePAL."A long-standing critic of bank practices in the payment sector, Tyro wrote that "self-regulation is ineffective in an oligopolistic industry… It is only the RBA that has such powers and the legal obligation and perspective to act solely in the public interest. "An entity such as EPAL which is owned and controlled by companies, who are otherwise legally obliged to act in the interests of their own shareholders, cannot satisfy these fundamental thresholds."Transaction Network Services, a payments processor, wrote that an "Eftpos definition based on EPAL membership and rules would be too restrictive, inflexible and therefore not in the national or in the industry's best interest."Under this definition, there is potential for key participants in the payments system (including TNS) to be excluded from consultation and involvement in the industry. There would be no incentive for innovation in this closed environment."National Billing Group, operator of the Cabfare taxi payment systems and the Australian Newsagents Federation, a merchant lobby, also supports a wider definition.There is some acknowledgment that there is a need for movement among EPAL members.Westpac noted that "consideration could be given to regulatory action to remove bilateral interchange fees."Indue called for all participants in Eftpos to become members of EPAL.Only one submission, from the Commonwealth Bank, called for an end to the regulation of Eftpos altogether.