The first question that schools do wireless billing is how much they are supposed to be collected. The two most common are flow and time count, and a mix of them. Many schools start by intuition, and then find out that they don’t match the actual use of the students, and they change their bones.
What school is the flow bill for?
The flow bill is based on how much data students use, and the benefit is that it is friendly to light users, looking at a web page, and returning information with little money. It naturally punishes heavy traffic such as brushing videos, dropping large files, just as it is in line with schools’ desire to limit bandwidth.
What's the scene for long-term counting?
The long-term billing is collected as a connection to the Internet, regardless of whether you brush video or hang up. It's simple and understandable for students, and financial statements are easy to do. But the problem is also obvious: an account that is not closed, actually not used, and is easily controversial. We have a situation where students are never in trouble to quit, they pile up at the end of the month, feel like they can't charge. So if we spend time, it must be matched by automatic disconnection and idle disconnection, otherwise disputes will be less than enough.
Why is the mix going on?
Many schools are now not choosing one by another, but using a combination of fees: a basic fee for free time beyond the subsequent flow count or vice versa. The advantage is to balance fairness and control, with light users almost unconscious, and heavy users bound by flexibility. We recommend this because a single dimension always leaves a person behind. The mix is a slightly complicated configuration, but complaints after being online are significantly less than pure traffic or duration, and are less prudent in the long run.
The real cost of choosing the wrong dimension.
Schools that would have used traffic to charge their bills, but they did pay long hours, and the dormitory was left with a bunch of accounts that were still running, and students felt wrong, low-valued, and financial records were still in disarray. In turn, pure flow billings were put on a set of tracks that were mostly hung up, so that students could not use much traffic for a month, speed thresholds were empty, bandwidth was occupied. The error was not functional but management targets were missed.
How does the free amount fit into the wiring?
The free amount is a buffer zone. Under flow billing, the free amount is a traffic; under long time bill, the free amount is a period of time. Its effect is to keep most students unconscious on a daily basis and only for those who exceed it. We usually set the free amount at the middle of the real distribution so that 80% of people do not even touch the bill line.
Student perception is more important than technical parameters.
The time-consuming rate is understood by students; the flow bill is matched with a clear warning, or the student does not know what he or she spends. We have seen the school dot but we have failed to warn that the month's end is more than ever before, and students are being displeased with the speed limit. So it is not just whether technology works, but whether the student can sense it or not.
The financial process determines how far you can go.
If schools do not allow direct fees to be charged to students, the billing is limited to a short time without receiving any payments, and the dimensions are not different and the strategy is focused. If charges can be collected, the full set of chargings, refunds, invoices, long-term reconciliations are relatively simple, and the flow bill is much more detailed. We suggest that borders be confirmed financially, then technical dimensions are determined, and that we wait until technology is completed before financial transactions are detected.
To inspire us to do the project.
Instead of choosing which kind of boarding for schools, we usually define the boundaries between the two types of application and let schools combine their student structures. The answers are often different in vocational schools, general high schools, and higher education dormitories. If you listen to a manufacturer, it is easy to be sidelined at an election. Spread out real data, tell management objectives, and then the dimensions come up.
Don't let the manufacturer show you the rhythm.
The manufacturers love to impress people with a demonstration, run one hand-on and show a report, and the school feels stable. We remind many schools that the presentation is too far away from the environment and real campuses, where hundreds of people send them together and thousands of people in dormitory areas reach their late peaks. The real question is how you run this under our real school data, not how beautiful you are running on your own machine.
A comparison of what we've been through.
We had a school that we charged, and three months later the students returned to see the class flow, complaints fell, and accounts were clear. Then another school of similar size took out long hours, with an empty account number and a problem at the end of the month. The difference between the two schools was close in structure and the right one in their dimensions. This led us to be more certain that the dimension is not standard enough to go around using custom.