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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray > *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:42 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *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.
