I didn't like any of that but the last line, which I thought was very interesting. Keep posting updates about how this goes, I'm curious to see what the end result is. On Jan 15, 2016 10:13 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We just implemented this exact thing. We are no longer selling speed > outside of the DIA customers, solely consumption tiers. It eliminates the > need for proration on plan changes as a side benefit. We have a minimum > speed that is guaranteed (*up to) and that is the tier1. We went through > and set every customer to their tier based on a defined set of criteria > (site capability, AP capability, environment capability, backhaul capacity > with the final criteria being the actual performance of the CPE) within the > billing system the speeds are controlled by the rate plan, the rate plans > are named by the capacity (ie 50gb 150 gb, 300gb.... with the top tier > requiring overage) based on what customer group the customer is in, only > the applicable back end speeds are available. so if the customer link is > capable of say for example a marginal 2.4 fsk link, 5-7mb dl we locked them > to the 3mb tier, this way bandwidth is controlled with throttling > mechanisms rather than retransmits on the AP, preserving the AP, 450 with > 8x8 is limited by the license key > > Needless to say, we are going to see a huge revenue hit, other than a few > outliers nobody will hit the overages, so thats alot of revenue (we based > our capacities on a high percentage above current trends) and we will have > a bunch of customers moving to the lowest transition threshold. We did make > the threshold hurt, it slows you down to crummy DSL speed (we based this on > rural DSL speeds in the area, and all the pedestals around here are opened, > busted, or housing animals. This is an incentive to go up to the next rate > to get higher capacities. > > what makes up for the lost revenue is the customer satisfaction, faster > speed for most, and more reliable slower speeds for the lowest tier > customers. Customer tiers are solely a technical decision and the sales > side has no option to alter that, basically the customer gets what they get. > > we are pulling an AT&T on this, we raised everybodies "cap" but left them > on the same plan, however if they make any alteration, there is no choice > but to go to the new rates. For most this is a benefit, some will see a 4x > speed increase and a lower cost. A few will get hit with slower speeds, > BUT, they will be more reliable slower speeds. > > We were initially concerned with the 477 impact because of changes to the > marketing, but remembered, we have no protection anyway. > > > A big benefit to this is that it gives us a very accurate load view of our > network, so we can appropriately judge where the investment needs to go. > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> > wrote: > >> The biggest issue is maximizing revenue. We do that in 1 area and we >> aren’t achieving maximum revenue. However, we do have a significant >> percentage of users so as prices go up, that will balance out. >> >> >> >> Rory >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:42 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Metered Plans / Full Speed To Customer? >> >> >> >> I had a conversation with a network professional who was very interested >> in the idea of a "metered" plan. His thought was to open up the customer >> connections to full speed and run fair queues instead of throttling >> bandwidth. Pricing would be based on usage, but with very low rates >> compared to cellular or satellite (e.g., 100 GB for $60). The three main >> thoughts were: >> >> >> >> 1) Knowing that speeds would be better in off hours (somehow promoted or >> advertised) could get users to operate outside of peak times thus reducing >> peak load on the network. >> >> >> >> 2) Customer prices would more accurately represent their load on a system. >> >> >> >> 3) Plan sharing would not be a significant concern, as usage would rise >> and cost would rise. >> >> >> >> Now, I can see those benefits, but I have these specific concerns.: >> >> >> >> 1) If everything is opened fully today, network performance can only get >> worse over time as subscribers are added. >> >> >> >> 2) Variability in speed over the course of the day may cause customer >> concern. >> >> >> >> 3) Many video streaming services seem to suffer with variable bandwidth >> availability. >> >> >> >> Any thoughts on this method of providing service? It seems very close to >> the cellular plans where speed is almost never mentioned, only data use. >> >> >> >> I have some ideas to make such a service work, but I'd like to know >> others' thoughts and experiences. >> >> >> >> Thanks - Chris >> > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
