1 / 33

”Cost analysis of Mobile Charging and Billing” Arturo Basaure November 2005

”Cost analysis of Mobile Charging and Billing” Arturo Basaure November 2005. Contents. Cost analysis framework C&B architecture Offline and online C&B architecture OCS, BD Vendors’ solutions Cost assumptions Scenarios: Offline postpaid, offline prepaid

parvani
Télécharger la présentation

”Cost analysis of Mobile Charging and Billing” Arturo Basaure November 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ”Cost analysis of Mobile Charging and Billing” Arturo Basaure November 2005

  2. Contents • Cost analysis framework • C&B architecture • Offline and online C&B architecture • OCS, BD • Vendors’ solutions • Cost assumptions • Scenarios: • Offline postpaid, offline prepaid • Online prepaid, online postpaid • Comparison: offline vs. online • Operator cases • Prepaid vs. postpaid markets • Outsourcing vs. investing • Analysis and Conclusions

  3. Cost analysis framework Top-down approach: FDC, ABC Bottom-up approach: ECPR, LRIC+ Our framework: ABC/TCO combination

  4. C&B Architecture source: 3GPP

  5. Offline and online C&B processes offline CTF: charging trigger function CDF: charging data fucntion CGF: charging gateway function OCF: online charging function ABMF: account balance management function RF: rating function BD: billing domain online

  6. Online Charging System (OCS)

  7. Need for online • More flexible content charging • Less financial risk when charging online • Use of Prepaid when introducing new services (e.g. games) • Enable higher transaction value and higher number of transactions But: • Flat rate trend in mobile services (offline) • Need for high availability of online system (high OPEX costs of maintenance and personnel) • ”Convergence” can take a long time However: • Hold two systems is more expensive than one Trends: • Outsourcing • NO or SO?

  8. The Billing Domain Offline • In online: • Rating is ”real-time” (in the OCS) • Fraud management is online (in the OCS) • No invoicing if prepaid •  Less costs in the BD than before

  9. Vendors’ solutions • Conflict between OSS and BSS vendors: • Both OSS (IN-prepaid) vendors and BSS (billing system) vendors are going online. • Different implementations. 3GPP model differs from the reality. Source: Am-beo

  10. Even the same vendor can have different solutions for different operators • High integration costs when deploying online • Easiest: for Greenfield operators. They avoid integration costs. • Example: Convergys IN-prepaid extension BD extension

  11. Assumption for cost estimatesResults from interviews *For CAPEX costs, we assume a payback period of 5 years (equal devaluation)

  12. Main variable cost elements with their drivers In the charging domain, the number of transactions is the main driver. In the billing domain, the number of customers is more important. • Variable costs: • running, monitoring and contacting customers (personnel). • Maintenance, support: related with each element. • *Developement (updates): considered as CAPEX, fixed for each year.

  13. Offline Postpaid • OPEX related with the billing system: invoicing, personnel • In general, we consider the system operation and maintenance as OPEX and the system updates as CAPEX.

  14. Offline PrepaidHot-billing (near real-time) • Fraud management increase personnel costs • Prepaid avoids invoicing costs

  15. Online prepaid • Integration costs are as much as online CAPEX costs • Online prepaid avoids OPEX costs related with the billing

  16. Online postpaid • Most expensive scenario • Greenfield operator avoids integration costs

  17. General comparison:OPEX, CAPEX, Charging and billing *OBS: We consider integration costs as CAPEX (55%) and OPEX (45%) CAPEX costs OPEX costs

  18. Cost per transaction Offline postpaid payment • Online decreases the cost per transaction: • Online enables higher transaction value. In this way, the cost per transaction (in percentage) decreases in relation with the total transaction value, even though online system demands a large investment. • Online enables higher number of transactions, decreasing the cost per transaction • Online has a value system with fewer players than the postpaid-offline model. In this way, the cost per transaction decreases, and the revenue sharing percentage increases. Online prepaid payment source: Toni Saikkonen, adapted.

  19. Case analysis • Cases according to ECOSYS models: • Greenfield vs. incumbent operators • With vs. without 3G license (SO vs. MVNO) • Prepaid market vs. postpaid market A 2G operator with 3G license B 2G operator without 3G license C Greenfield operator with 3G license D Greenfield without 3G license

  20. Postpaid vs. prepaid country Postpaid market (e.g. Finland) Using online prepaid for introducing new services (e.g. content and games). Prepaid market (e.g. UK) Switch to online could be faster because it involves more services.

  21. Outsourcing the OCS Source: Am-beo’s ”nCharge” Example of outsourcing: Paying according to the number of transactions. OBS: the pricing curve is not linear. It represents a volume advantage.

  22. Operator cases 2G operator with 3G license 2G operator without 3G license Greenfield operator with 3G license Greenfield operator without 3G license (2G MVNO) (2G and 3G MVNO)

  23. Service usage forecast (millions of transactions/month) Prepaid market: 70% prepaid penetration Postpaid market: 95% postpaid penetration

  24. Analysis example: 2G operator with 3G license • Offline costsincrease more linearly. Online has biggest volume advantage.

  25. Results in graphs:a) 2G operator with 3G license

  26. b) 2G operator without 3G license(outsourcing the OCS)

  27. c) Greenfield operator with 3G license

  28. d) Greenfield operator without 3G license(outsourcing the OCS)

  29. Comparison between cases • Prepaid operator can avoid OPEX costs related with billing activities. • Greenfield operators can avoid integration costs. • Charging is more important than billing. • The SO plays a major role as compared with the NO.

  30. C&B cost per transaction • Online decreases the C&B cost per transaction. • Prepaid operators have in all cases a cost advantage. • During the first years, Greenfield operators (C&B) have higher cost per transaction. • Operators (incumbent vs. Greenfield) do not differ too much in cost per transaction after the adoption.

  31. Conclusions • C&B is important to operators because it secures the continuous revenue flow. In addition, a proper C&B system enables users to access new services. • The main reason for going online is the user requirements for security and ease of payment. • However, user satisfaction is not the only reason for going online. Online systems also reduce the C&B cost per transaction.

  32. Conclusions d) Operators should not concentrate on decreasing the overall C&B costs, but on decreasing the cost per transaction. e) Despite that prepaid operators have a cost advantage; postpaid operators must also deploy online C&B systems to fulfill user requirements. f) The flat rate trend does not stop the migration into online. Even though flat rate is a possible future trend, not all customers and services will adopt it and operators will need an online system.

  33. Thanks!

More Related