Citizen Observation 69 of 777 | Google Cloud Outage | Can Banking Stay Up When the Cloud Goes Down?

 Published 21st October 2026

Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru

DC777  CO777 DTD777

 

The Intro

The customer sees a banking outage.
Behind it may be a cloud outage.

The Trigger

The recent Google Cloud outage affecting services in parts of the world made me pause.

Several financial services were among those affected, bringing an invisible dependency into the customer's view.

But what caught my attention was something bigger than the outage itself:

In July 2026, the UK designated Google Cloud, AWS, Microsoft and Oracle as Critical Third Parties to the financial sector.

The reason is significant: disruption at these technology providers could potentially affect multiple financial firms or markets at the same time.

That made me wonder:

As banking becomes increasingly dependent on cloud infrastructure, should the customer also have some visibility into that dependency?

The Act I — The Bank We See, The Infrastructure We Don't

When we open a banking app, we see the bank.

We see the logo.
We see our balance.
We make a payment.
We transfer money.
We pay a bill.

But behind that familiar interface sits a much larger technology ecosystem.

Cloud infrastructure.
Data centres.
Networks.
Technology service providers.

The customer may never see these layers.

Until something goes wrong.

The recent Google Cloud outage was a reminder that a disruption deep inside the technology stack can eventually become a very visible customer experience.

The customer sees a banking outage.
Behind it may be a cloud outage.

 

The Act II — Should the Customer Know?

This made me think about a slightly different question.

If a bank's digital banking services depend materially on a particular cloud or technology provider, should the customer have some visibility of that dependency?

Not the architecture.

Not server locations.

Not security-sensitive technical details.

Just perhaps a simple disclosure:

Digital Banking Technology Provider
[Provider / Providers]

For illustration:

Bank X → Google Cloud
Bank Y → AWS

If such information could be disclosed safely, could it help customers understand that different banks may also have different technology dependencies?

And perhaps that knowledge could help a customer think about continuity and backup relationships.

Not because every customer needs to become a technology expert.

But because digital resilience can also become part of customer resilience.

 

The Act III — From Transparency to Resilience

Of course, there are legitimate reasons why a bank may not be able to disclose every technology dependency.

Security.
Privacy.
Confidentiality.
Third-party contractual arrangements.

So this is not a suggestion to publish a bank's technology blueprint.

The question is whether there could be a safe and meaningful level of disclosure.

Perhaps:

What customers need to know
rather than
Everything the bank knows.

If two banks have different critical technology dependencies, a customer who maintains relationships with both may potentially have an additional layer of continuity.

It doesn't eliminate disruption.

It doesn't guarantee that one bank will always remain available.

But it may give the customer another dimension of awareness.

 

The Citizen Observation

The recent cloud outage made me think beyond the outage itself.

We normally think about banking diversification in terms of:

Two banks.
Different products.
Different service needs.

Could there also be a digital-resilience dimension?

If material technology dependencies can be disclosed without compromising security, perhaps customers could understand whether their banking relationships have different underlying technology dependencies.

The question I am left with is simple:

Should a bank customer know enough about critical technology dependencies to make an informed continuity choice?

Not the entire technology stack.

Just enough to understand the risk.

One observation at a time.

 

The Closing Thought

We know the bank we choose.

We may not know the infrastructure that helps keep that bank's digital services running.

Perhaps the next evolution of digital banking transparency is not about revealing more technology.

Perhaps it is about revealing just enough to help the customer understand resilience.

The cloud may be invisible.
The customer's banking journey is not.

---

April 11 — Proposed Digital Transactions Day

Digital Transactions Day can also remind us that a digital transaction is supported by a much larger digital infrastructure.

The transaction may take seconds.
The infrastructure behind it must remain available.

April 11 — Proposed Digital Transactions Day.

A brief philosophy around the Digital Transactions Day concept can be read at https://movethebarrier.blogspot.com/

Digital Payments are only a sub-set of Digital Transactions

---

Disclaimer

This is an independent citizen observation based on publicly reported information and my personal perspective on digital banking resilience.

The suggestion regarding disclosure of technology/cloud dependencies is a citizen proposal for discussion, not a recommendation that banks disclose sensitive infrastructure information.

Security, privacy, confidentiality, regulatory requirements and contractual obligations would need to be considered before any such disclosure.

This post does not suggest that customers should open or maintain accounts with particular banks or technology providers, nor does it imply that having accounts with different providers guarantees continuity during an outage.

---

The Joy of Digital Transactions

Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru
Advocating Digital Transactions Day (April 11)

https://in.linkedin.com/in/prashantnayakanti

 

Author’s Blogs

https://prashantnepayments.blogspot.com
https://innovationinbanking.blogspot.com

 

Citizen Observation 68 of 777 | Account Aggregators | Different Apps, Same Journey — Why Not Common Core T&C?

Published 20^th October 2026

Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru

https://in.linkedin.com/in/prashantnayakanti

 | Account Aggregators | 

 

The Intro

Different Account Aggregator apps.
Same customer journey. Why not a common core of Terms & Conditions?

The Trigger

A recent Sahamati development on standardised pricing for the Account Aggregator ecosystem made me pause.

If the ecosystem can move towards common standards for how participants are compensated, could we also explore a common core of customer-facing Terms & Conditions?

Not identical in every detail. Just a common core, with AA-specific details simply filled in the blanks.

The Prospective Audience

• Existing AA User — someone already using an Account Aggregator.
• First-Time AA User — someone encountering the registration T&C for the first time.
• Future AA User — someone who may enter consent-based financial data sharing as adoption grows.
• Financial Consumer — the person ultimately expected to understand and exercise control over their data.
• Account Aggregators — the entities presenting the customer-facing registration journey.
• Financial Information Providers (FIPs) — institutions holding the customer's financial information.
• Financial Information Users (FIUs) — institutions requesting and using information with customer consent.
• Sahamati — coordinating the ecosystem and playing a formal ecosystem governance role.
• Regulators & Policy Makers — responsible for the framework within which this consent-led ecosystem operates.
• Fintech & Open Finance Community — building the applications and journeys around AA.
• Digital Public Infrastructure Community — looking at how common standards can improve citizen experience.
• Everyday Financial Consumer — because standardisation ultimately matters when the person using the system finds it easier to understand.

And at the centre of it all:
The customer who ultimately clicks “I Agree”.

Absolutely. Keeping the architecture simple, constructive and citizen-centric, and making the “common core + fill in the blanks” idea the thread running through the three Acts:

The Act I — Different Apps, Same Journey

When a customer enters the Account Aggregator ecosystem, the first step is usually familiar:

Register → Discover → Select → Consent → Share → Manage

The app may be different.
The organisation may be different.
The screen may look different.

But the fundamental customer journey remains broadly the same.

And somewhere at the beginning of that journey, the customer is asked to read and accept the Terms & Conditions.

That made me wonder:

Does the customer really need to encounter a different core set of terms simply because the AA app is different?

 

The Act II — What If the Core Was Common?

I am not suggesting that every Account Aggregator should have identical Terms & Conditions.

There will always be details specific to the individual AA:

Company identity
Contact details
Service-specific provisions
Applicable charges
Technical / platform matters

Why not treat these as the fill-in-the-blanks?

The core could remain common:

Customer rights → Consent → Data sharing → Privacy → Revocation → Grievance → Customer responsibilities

So the proposition becomes simple:

One common customer-facing core.
AA-specific details filled in separately.

 

The Act III — From Legal Consistency to Customer Simplicity

For the ecosystem, standardisation can make processes easier to understand and implement.

For the customer, the benefit could be even simpler.

If I move from one AA app to another, I should not have to relearn the fundamental principles of the relationship.

The brand can change.
The interface can change.
The company details can change.

But the core customer promise could remain familiar.

That is where I see the value of a common-core approach.

Not to remove choice.

To make choice easier to understand.

 

The Citizen Observation

Perhaps the Account Aggregator ecosystem has an opportunity to make its customer journey even more citizen-friendly.

Different apps.
Same journey.
Common core.

And then simply:

Fill in the blanks.

Could a common core of customer-facing Terms & Conditions make the AA experience simpler, more consistent and easier for an ordinary financial consumer to understand?

One observation at a time.

Nothing More – Nothing Less

 

The Closing Thought

Standardisation is often discussed from the perspective of institutions.

Perhaps we should also look at it from the perspective of the person who clicks:

“I Agree.”

If the journey is common,
could the core promise be common too?

 

April 11 — Proposed Digital Transactions Day

The Account Aggregator journey is another reminder that digital transactions are increasingly about more than simply moving money.

Identity. Consent. Data. Choice. Control.

All can form part of a digital financial journey.

That is why I continue to propose:

April 11 — Digital Transactions Day.

A day to recognise not just digital payments, but the wider digital journeys shaping how citizens interact with financial services.

Move the Barrier — Proposed Digital Transactions Day

Digital Payments are a sub – set of Digital Transactions.

---

Disclaimer

This is an independent citizen observation, based on publicly available information and my personal perspective on customer experience in the Account Aggregator ecosystem.

The suggestion of a common-core T&C with AA-specific fill-in-the-blanks is a citizen proposal, not a statement of regulatory policy or an assertion that existing AA Terms & Conditions are deficient.

It is not intended to comment on or criticise any particular Account Aggregator, Sahamati, FIP, FIU or regulator.

 

The Joy of Digital Transactions

Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru
Advocating Digital Transactions Day (April 11)

Author’s Blogs

https://prashantrandomthoughts.blogspot.com
https://prashantnepayments.blogspot.com
https://innovationinbanking.blogspot.com

 

Citizen Observation 67 of 777 | UPI 54 Pages Circular – P9 | Nine Posts. One Customer Journey.

 Published 17^th October 2026

Nayakanti Prashant | 3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru

Advocating Digital Transactions Day (April 11)

The Introduction

A 54-page circular. Eight observations. And one question that connects them all.

When we look at UPI through a citizen’s eyes, the journey is not limited to initiating or completing a payment.

It also includes what we see, what we understand, what we know, what we can control, and what we can trace.

What we can trace, becomes important sometimes after the transaction is over.

Across this mini-series, we have explored individual parts of that journey.

Now, it is time to step back and look at the customer experience as a whole.

Trigger

The UPI Consolidated Circular, Version 1.0, dated 18 September 2026, brings together provisions covering multiple parts of the UPI ecosystem.

Across this mini-series, we have approached selected parts of that 54-page document through a simple lens: what might they mean to the person making or receiving a payment?

Now, as we reach the final post, the focus shifts from individual observations to the journey connecting them.

The question is no longer about one feature or one transaction. It is about the experience of the customer across the journey.

Prospective Audience

This observation is for every citizen who uses UPI in everyday life—and for those across the banking and payments ecosystem who help shape that experience.

For the customer who makes a quick payment, the family member who asks what a transaction meant, the merchant who accepts digital payments, and the professionals who design and deliver these services, the journey is experienced in different ways.

The common thread is the customer.

Can the journey be seen, understood, known, controlled and traced—not merely completed?

Act I — The Everyday Journey

A UPI payment can take only a few moments.

We open an application, choose a recipient or scan a QR code, authenticate and wait for the outcome.

But the customer’s experience does not necessarily begin and end with that moment.

What did I see? What did I understand? What did I authorise? And if I need to revisit the transaction later, what will help me make sense of it?

These are ordinary questions from an ordinary customer’s point of view.

Act II — Eight Observations, Different Windows

Across this mini-series, we looked at selected parts of the UPI Consolidated Circular through different customer-facing windows.

Communications. UPI Number. Merchant visibility. AutoPay. UPI Lite. Biometric authentication. Credit Line on UPI.

Each observation began with a different subject, but the underlying curiosity remained the same: how does the customer experience the feature, the information and the choices around a digital transaction?

The observations were not intended to explain every provision in the circular or cover every possible customer concern. They were a way of looking beyond the document and towards the person experiencing the payment journey.

Act III — The Journey Connects

A payment is one moment. The customer journey is the larger picture.

A message may help me understand what happened. A visible identifier may help me recognise whom I am paying. A choice may help me decide whether to proceed. Information may help me revisit a transaction and explain it later.

And sometimes, as CO65 asked, the question may arise in an ordinary conversation at home:

“I paid using credit through UPI. Can I explain what I used?”

The spouse or partner is not the subject of a separate technical issue here. That everyday conversation simply reminds us that digital transactions are part of life beyond the screen.

The customer journey connects the payment, the understanding and the conversation that may follow.

Citizen Observation

Eight observations. One customer journey.

The value of looking at a digital payment does not lie only in whether the transaction was completed. It also lies in what the customer could see, understand, know, control and trace along the way.

This mini-series offers eight selected observations—not a verdict on the UPI ecosystem, and not a claim that every customer faces the same experience.

It is an invitation to keep the customer’s perspective in view.

Closing Thought

The circular may be written for the ecosystem.

The journey is experienced by the customer.

And that journey deserves to be seen as a whole.

A Small Link to April 11 — Proposed Digital Transactions Day

April 11 is proposed as Digital Transactions Day.

Beyond celebrating the growth of digital payments, it could also offer an opportunity to reflect on the citizen’s experience: not only how many transactions take place, but how clearly people can understand and navigate their digital transaction journeys.

Please note, Digital Payments are also a sub-set of Digital Transactions.

And that is one more reason I continue to advocate:

April 11 — Digital Transactions Day.

April 11, 2016 is UPI Beta Launch.

 

Disclaimer

This is an independent citizen observation based on selected customer-facing themes in the UPI Consolidated Circular, Version 1.0, dated 18 September 2026. It is not a comprehensive summary or technical interpretation of the circular, a regulatory opinion, or an assessment of any particular bank, UPI application or product.

The observations are intended to encourage constructive reflection on customer experience. April 11 as Digital Transactions Day is a proposal, not an officially declared observance.

A start has to be made somewhere.

---

Three series. One purpose. Countless conversations.

CO 777 — Citizen observations
DTD 777 — Digital transactions day
DC 777 — Donation coins

 

The Joy of Digital Transactions

Nayakanti Prashant

https://in.linkedin.com/in/prashantnayakanti

3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru
Advocating Digital Transactions Day (April 11)

Author’s Blogs

https://prashantrandomthoughts.blogspot.com
https://prashantnepayments.blogspot.com
https://innovationinbanking.blogspot.com

 

Citizen Observation 66 of 777 | NHAI & IHMCL | FASTag @ Delhi Airport | Thank You for the Quick Response

 Published 16^th October 2026

Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru

https://in.linkedin.com/in/prashantnayakanti

 

The Intro

A FASTag experience at Delhi Airport caught my attention—not only because of the concern raised, but because of what happened next.
A citizen question reached the system, NHAI & IHMCL responded quickly, and the course was corrected.

The  Trigger

The trigger for this Citizen Observation was user feedback about FASTag at Delhi Airport's Terminal 3.

Reports indicated that vehicles were being diverted when they did not meet certain FASTag-related entry conditions, raising concerns about the limited free waiting period. The issue was raised publicly, including on social media, and reached the authorities.

What caught my attention was not only the concern.

It was the response.

NHAI took cognisance.
IHMCL stepped in.
Directions were issued to discontinue FASTag-based entry restrictions.
And the restrictions were subsequently lifted.

That made me pause.

We often talk about convenience, automation and seamless digital journeys.

But perhaps another dimension deserves equal attention:

How quickly does the system listen when a citizen says, “Something doesn't feel right”?

For me, CO66 is therefore not about criticising FASTag.

It is about appreciating responsive regulation when a citizen-facing digital experience needs correction.

 

The  Prospective Audience

The Immediate User

The person driving into Delhi Airport T3 to pick up or drop off a passenger—experiencing the payment system not as policy, but as a real-world journey.

The FASTag User

Motorists who expect FASTag to make payments automatic, contactless and predictable.

The Occasional Airport Visitor

Someone unfamiliar with the latest parking or FASTag arrangements. For such users, clarity is part of convenience.

The Citizen Who Raises a Question

The person who notices something unusual, speaks up, posts about it or brings it to the appropriate institution.

Sometimes the first signal that a digital process needs examination comes from the person actually using it.

The Regulator

NHAI, IHMCL and similar institutions that sit between technology, operators and citizens.

CO66 is also a small appreciation of an important regulatory function:

Listening → Examining → Responding → Correcting

The Payment Ecosystem

Banks, FASTag issuers, parking operators and technology partners implementing digital payments on the ground.

A payment technology may be technically seamless, but the citizen experience around it matters too.

The Airport & Mobility Ecosystem

Airports, parking operators, transport authorities and mobility platforms integrating digital payments into physical movement.

When payment technology becomes part of a journey, the boundaries between payment, access and convenience need to remain clear.

The Digital Public Infrastructure Community

Those building India's next generation of digital infrastructure.

The broader design principle is simple:

Digital infrastructure should not only work. It should remain understandable, predictable and responsive to the citizen.

And Finally — Every Citizen

Because this observation is bigger than FASTag.

It is about something we all want from the systems we use:

When we raise a genuine concern, will someone listen?

And when the answer is yes, perhaps we should say that too.

Thank you, NHAI & IHMCL, for the quick response.

 

Act I — When a Payment Journey Meets a Physical Journey

A FASTag is designed to make a payment journey simple.

At Delhi Airport's Terminal 3, that digital journey meets a very physical one.

A vehicle arrives.
The FASTag is read.
The vehicle moves forward.
A passenger is picked up.
And, where applicable, the parking fee can be collected digitally.

That sounds simple.

But recent user feedback around T3 raised another question:

What happens when the payment mechanism itself starts influencing where a vehicle can enter or how the journey proceeds?

For a citizen, the distinction may be small on a screen—but very real on the road.

That is where this observation began.

 

Act II — Payment Should Facilitate the Journey

The issue was not whether FASTag should be used at an airport.

Using FASTag for parking payments can make the experience contactless, convenient and cashless.

The question was about its purpose.

If FASTag is being used to collect a parking fee, the relationship seems simple:

Vehicle enters → Parking happens → Applicable fee → Digital payment

But if FASTag status or balance becomes a condition for entering a particular area, its role appears to move beyond payment.

That is where the regulatory response caught my attention.

NHAI took cognisance and clarified that FASTag should not be used to enforce entry restrictions. IHMCL directed the concerned bank to discontinue such restrictions.

For me, the principle is simple:

Payment should facilitate the journey—not silently redefine the journey.

Act III — Thank You, NHAI & IHMCL

This is the part of the story I want to acknowledge.

A citizen-facing issue emerged.
Users spoke about their experience.
The concern reached the authorities.

NHAI took cognisance.
IHMCL responded.
Directions were issued.
The FASTag-based entry restrictions at T3 were subsequently lifted.

That deserves recognition.

We often describe digital transformation through:

RFID.
FASTag.
Automation.
Cashless payments.
Real-time processing.

But another dimension matters just as much:

Responsiveness.

When something doesn't work as intended, can the citizen's experience reach the institution?

And when it does, can the institution respond quickly?

For this episode, my answer is simply:

Thank you, NHAI & IHMCL, for the quick response.

 

Citizen Observation 66 of 777

Perhaps the most encouraging part of this episode is not that a digital system encountered a question.

Digital systems will always evolve.

The more important observation is what happened after the question was raised.

A citizen experience became visible.
The regulator examined the issue.
The intended role of FASTag was clarified.
Corrective action followed.

That makes me think:

A good digital ecosystem is not one where nothing ever goes wrong. It is one where genuine concerns can be heard—and corrected.

FASTag can make a journey smoother.

Regulation can help keep the technology within its intended purpose.

And citizens can contribute by observing, questioning and sharing their experiences.

One observation at a time.

Closing Thought

There is something reassuring about seeing a digital system corrected without losing sight of the citizen using it.

The technology can be sophisticated.
The infrastructure can be complex.

But the principle can remain simple:

**Make the payment easy.

Keep the journey clear.
Listen when the citizen speaks.**

And sometimes, a Citizen Observation does not end with a demand.

Sometimes it ends with two words:

Thank you.

Thank you, NHAI & IHMCL, for the quick response.

 

April 11 — Digital Transactions Day

This FASTag episode gives me another reason to think about April 11 — Digital Transactions Day.

The FASTag journey at the airport is completely digital:

FASTag → RFID reading → Vehicle identification → Parking process → Digital system

But there is an interesting distinction:

A digital journey does not necessarily mean a financial transaction has happened.

A vehicle may enter.
FASTag may be read.
The system may recognise the vehicle.
The journey may continue.

And if the vehicle remains within the permitted free period, there may be no parking fee to pay at all.

So:

The journey is digital.
The identification is digital.
The process is digital.
But the financial transaction may be NIL.

For me, that expands the meaning of digital transactions.

Perhaps Digital Transactions Day should not be understood only as celebrating money moving digitally.

It can also recognise the increasingly digital journeys through which citizens interact, authenticate, access, move and transact.

Please note, Digital Payments are also a sub-set of Digital Transactions.

And that is one more reason I continue to advocate:

April 11 — Digital Transactions Day.

April 11, 2016 is UPI Beta Launch.

---

Additional Reading

• Indian Express — NHAI tells banks not to allow FASTag to restrict entry at Delhi Airport
• Indian Express — FASTag at Delhi Airport: Can payment systems be used to restrict entry?
• Times of India — T3 parking operator used FASTag to restrict entry; payment facility suspended
• Times of India — NHAI warning prompts IGI T3 parking operator to lift FASTag curbs
• IHMCL — Official website and FASTag resources

---

Disclaimer

This Citizen Observation is an independent citizen perspective based on publicly reported information and user feedback. It is not a complaint against NHAI, IHMCL, Delhi Airport, any bank, parking operator or FASTag participant.

The appreciation expressed here is specifically for the reported regulatory response to the entry-restriction issue.

This post does not represent any official position of the organisations mentioned.

FASTag arrangements, airport parking rules and regulatory directions may change. Readers should refer to official sources for the latest applicable position.

 

The Joy of Digital Transactions

Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru
Advocating Digital Transactions Day (April 11)

Author’s Blogs

https://prashantrandomthoughts.blogspot.com
https://prashantnepayments.blogspot.com
https://innovationinbanking.blogspot.com