The dormitory area is the core application of the school WiFi network billing system and the most conflicting. Students use the network with the highest frequency, expect the speed and stability of the network, and the number of complaints will be significant if the costing strategy is not properly designed."Push it backwards."The reason is not that there are systemic problems, but rather that the strategy design has been out of step from the outset.
The selection of the unit directly affects the student acceptance.
The unit of charge in the dormitory is usually three: length, flow, and package months.——Sometimes computers are not used, time runs and it feels bad; pure flow-based control is more precise, but students have little visual sense of traffic consumption, and bills are much controversial. The monthly package is the most dominant model: a student buys a month’s bag with no limit on speed, beyond later deceleration or cost by measure.
The key parameter is the appropriate monthly package size. The scale is too low, with most students over-represented each month; the scale is too high, charges are moot and there is no financial gain. It is reasonable to analyse the current flow data in the dormitory area, find a traffic usage of about 80% of the splits as a reference, and place the package close to the area so that most normal users do not exceed the amount and only those who use it will have extra fees.
The choice is whether to pay for the room or for the person.
This is a very controversial issue in many schools. The amount of money per room (a shared account number and amount) is simple to manage, but it is difficult to distribute the amounts between students fairly.——Some use less, others use more than one another. It is fair to count personal fees, but each student needs separate certification, individual accounts, high operational complexity and systemic stress.
In practical terms, the system of fees for the WiFi network of schools is more valuable at personal rates, provided that the certification system is properly implemented——The standard practice is to remember the equipment after first authentication, then automatically go online and the account numbers and devices are tied. This logic is to confirm when systems are selected that some billing systems limit the number of units, and one dormitory has four or six sets (one cell phone, one computer) and sufficient.
The co-mutual performance of peak times is an undetermining test.
The simultaneous features of the dormitory network are very clear: from 22:00 p.m. to 1 a.m., the maximum period is at one o'clock and the entire building is online simultaneously.
Pressure tests are to simulate the real scene as much as possible: how many users are online, how many authentication requests per second, and how often traffic data are reported. The results of the tests are compared with the performance specifications that the system labels, see if they meet the standards."- How much?"/ Whether this figure is supported by empirical data needs to be clearly identified in the procurement contract, preferably with a pressure test report at the time of acceptance.
The debt strategy needs a transitional mechanism
The default network in the dormitory is the most likely scene to trigger group complaints. Some people in one dormitory forget the full value, causing the network to break down and other roommates are affected, and this happens in many schools.
The self-help recovery process is also critical. Student charging should automatically be back online within a few minutes without manual intervention. This process will not be appropriate if the network centre is to be manually disabled after the charge.
The bandwidth strategy and equitable use must be combined.
One common problem in the dormitory is that a few students take up a lot of bandwidth, which causes others to slow down. The billing alone does not solve this problem and needs to be combined with bandwidth strategies.——A ceiling on the up-and-down speed of the bill number, a limit on P2P traffic and a lower priority for high occupancy users at peak times.
These strategies combine the school WiFi network billing system and flow control capabilities, some of which are built into them, and others that require a specific bandwidth management module. In selecting the models, it is important to confirm the coverage of this capability: do you support account-based Qos? Do you support P2P identification? Can the strategy be set up by dormitories, floors or time frames? The more detailed the capacity, the better the operation will be.
Seasonal operations need to be planned.
During the summer break, there was a significant reduction in the number of students in dormitories and a corresponding decrease in Internet usage.
A well-developed school WiFi network billing system should support multiple sets of meals in parallel, with different pricing options for different groups at different times. This is not a high end function, but a basic need for campus network operations.
The better the housing strategy, the more students complain and the satisfaction they are. The closer they are designed to use it, the less operational pressure they put on the line.