The billing model has no standard answer. It depends on the school itself.
Before the WiFi system is online, one question will have to be answered sooner or later: how do you get paid?
The problem is big or small. It's reasonable, students are willing to use it and operate. It's not fair, either because they have a lot of money to pay or because schools run at a loss.
There are four common costing models: a month for packages, a period for bags, and a month for extra charges.
Moon: most common, but with a few questions to be bypassed
The simplest model is a monthly fixed payment, free of traffic. The advantage of this model is to understand that the cost is zero and that students know how much they pay each month without having to worry about the bill.
Some schools have suspended their holidays, but the procedures are cumbersome and the operators and students are involved.
Some students go online a few times a month, check and send an email, and they pay for the whole month.
The monthly model also has a problem: under the operator cooperation model, it is difficult to find a balance that both sides can accept.
Packaging mode: Equity is equity, but students have a poor perception
The benefits of the package flow model are that students pay as much as they pay, are friendly to light users and cost-controllable for schools.
But the actual landing of the package flow often falls short of expectations."What does a 1 GB flow do?"No idea. How much traffic it takes to see an online video, how much flow it takes to download a software, most students don't know. When they get the bill, they come in.
The solution to this problem is to match the flow alert in real time.——The student uses 80% of the time to send a notice, and 100% of the time to do so, so that the student can feel his or her own use. This function is easy to achieve, but many systems default to not, or remind the interface to be too rough and students to look at it at all.
There are other school packages, but higher traffic thresholds, such as 50 GB per month. This turns the package into a different month, and the advantage of fairness disappears.
Long-time costing: flexible, but high cost of transport
The advantage of long-time fees is flexibility and a suitable temporary use of the scene.
The disadvantage of this model is that the billing system needs to be accurately timed, recorded on and offline times, and the rules for cross-time counting supported (for example, by different unit prices during day and night), with end-of-month closings being accurate to seconds. The system is complicated, so the load of the carrier goes up.
The stress of a student's time when he or she is online has affected his or her normal use experience. This is actually a user's problem, but the students prefer to choose a month for long periods of time, although it may seem unvisitable.
Monthly coverage plus excess traffic bill: current mainstream mix
The most used option is the hybrid scheme: base month has a flow cap, such as 30GB per month; it has an extra unit cost after 30GB or continues to be used directly at MB. This option takes into account the certainty of the month and retains the fairness of excess.
The key point to such a program is how to set the flow ceiling. It is too high, so that monthly prices don’t come down; it is too low, and normal use is frequently interrupted, and students experience bad experiences.
It is also important to have the timing and manner of over-alerting. It would be better to do this: 80% notice once, 100% notification once again, confirmation before use.
In the end,
But one idea can be drawn: to map the real needs and consumption of their student population, then to look at the pricing areas of nearby universities, and finally to determine a slot that covers costs and makes them reasonable and has an appropriate profit margin. The numbers are not fixed; they are kept on line, complaints rates, and default rates, which is the norm for operations.