”cost analysis of mobile charging and billing” arturo basaure november 2005
TRANSCRIPT
”Cost analysis of Mobile Charging and Billing”
Arturo BasaureNovember 2005
ContentsContents• 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
Cost analysis frameworkCost analysis frameworkTop-down approach:
FDC, ABC
Bottom-up approach:
ECPR, LRIC+
Our framework:
ABC/TCO combination
C&B ArchitectureC&B Architecture
ONLINE CHARGINGONLINE CHARGINGOFFLINE CHARGINGOFFLINE CHARGING
WLAN PDG
BGCF
MGCF
MRFC
SIP AS
AS
CRF AF
CDF
TPF
MSC
SGSN
GGSN
CGF
IMS GW
P/S/I-CSCF
S-CSCF
Billing Domain & Operator Backend Systems
B*
B*
Gx
Rx
OCSOCS
CDF
CDF
CGF CDF CAP
CGF CDF
CTF
CTF
CTF
CTF
CTF
CDF
CTF
CTF
CTF
CTF
Ro
Ro
ISC Ro
Wo
Gy
Ro
CAP
Wf
Rf
Ga
Ga
GaB*
Bc CTF
CTF
NOTE: Please note that the WLAN architecture is not final and is still under discussion within 3GPP SA5 SWG-B
source: 3GPP
Offline and online C&B processesOffline and online C&B processes
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
offline
Online Charging System (OCS)Online Charging System (OCS)
Need for onlineNeed 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?
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
Offline
The Billing DomainThe Billing Domain
Vendors’ solutionsVendors’ solutionsConflict 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
• 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
Assumption for cost estimatesResults from interviews
Assumption for cost estimatesResults from interviews
Offline Online
Billing system: 5x, CGF (Mediation): x
Billing system: 3xOCS: 3x
Integration costs :6x
Personnel and maintenance costs increase 20%
*For CAPEX costs, we assume a payback period of 5 years (equal devaluation)
Main variable cost elements with their driversMain 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.
Offline PostpaidOffline 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.
Offline PrepaidHot-billing (near real-time)
Offline PrepaidHot-billing (near real-time)
• Fraud management increase personnel costs
• Prepaid avoids invoicing costs
Online prepaidOnline prepaid
• Integration costs are as much as online CAPEX costs
• Online prepaid avoids OPEX costs related with the billing
Online postpaidOnline postpaid
• Most expensive scenario
• Greenfield operator avoids integration costs
General comparison:OPEX, CAPEX, Charging and billing
*OBS: We consider integration costs as CAPEX (55%) and OPEX (45%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Offlinepostpaid
Offline prepaid Online prepaid Onlinepostpaid
Billing
Charging
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Offline postpaid Offline prepaid Online prepaid Online postpaid
OPEX
CAPEX
CAPEX costs
OPEX costs
Cost per transactionCost per transaction
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.
source: Toni Saikkonen, adapted.
Offline postpaid payment
Online prepaid payment
Case analysisCase analysis
A2G operator
with 3G license
B2G operator
without3G license
CGreenfield
operator with3G license
DGreenfield
without3G license
Cases according to ECOSYS models:
• Greenfield vs. incumbent operators
• With vs. without 3G license (SO vs. MVNO)
• Prepaid market vs. postpaid market
Postpaid vs. prepaid countryPostpaid 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.
Outsourcing the OCSOutsourcing the OCS
Example of outsourcing:
Paying according to the number of transactions.
Source: Am-beo’s ”nCharge”
OBS: the pricing curve is not linear. It represents a volume advantage.
Operator casesOperator cases2G operator with 3G license 2G operator without 3G license
Greenfield operator with 3G licenseGreenfield operator without 3G license(2G MVNO)
(2G and 3G MVNO)
Service usage forecast (millions of transactions/month)
Service usage forecast (millions of transactions/month)
transactions of prepaid m arket
0200400
600800
1000
tim e (years)
m t
x/m
on
th
onlinetransactions
of f linetransactions
transactions postpaid market
0200400600800
1000
tim e (years)
M t
x/m
on
th
of f line txs
online txs
transactions, Greenfield, prepaid market
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
tim e (years)
M t
x/m
on
th
online transactions
of f line transactions
N of transactions, Greenfie ld, postpaid m arket
0
200
400
600
800
1000
tim e (years)
M t
x/m
on
th online transactions
of f linetransactions
Prepaid market: 70% prepaid penetration Postpaid market: 95% postpaid penetration
Analysis example: 2G operator with 3G license
Analysis example: 2G operator with 3G license
• Offline costs increase more linearly. Online has biggest volume advantage.
Results in graphs:a) 2G operator with 3G license
Results in graphs:a) 2G operator with 3G license
020406080
100120140160180
cost variation
(%)
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
time (years)
2G with 3G license, postpaidFinancial & accounting
billing personnel
invoicing
billing integration costs
billing system
charging personnel
charging integration costs
rating function
ABMF
online charging funtions
online mediation
mediation
CTF/CDF
2G with 3G license, postpaid
020406080
100120140160180
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
tim e (years)
cost
var
iati
on
(%
)
Charging
Billing
Total
020406080
100
120140160
cost variation
(%)
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
time (years)
2G with 3G license, prepaid
financial & accounting f.
billing personnel
top up
invoicing
billing integration costs
billing system
balance magt& top up
charging personnel
charging integration costs
rating function
ABMF
online charging function
online mediation
Mediation
CTF/CDF
2G with 3G license prepaid
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
tim e (years)
cost
var
iati
on
(%
)
Charging
Billing
Total
b) 2G operator without 3G license (outsourcing the OCS)
b) 2G operator without 3G license (outsourcing the OCS)
020406080
100120
140160
cost variation
(%)
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
time (years)
2G without 3G license postpaid
Financial & accounting f.
billing personnel
invoicing
billing integration costs
billing system
personnel
integration costs
mediation
OCS outsourced
CTF/CGF
2G without 3G license , postpaid
020406080
100120140160180
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
tim e (years)
cost
var
iati
on
(%
)
Charging
Billing
Total
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
cost variation
(%)
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
time (years)
2G without 3G license, prepaid
financial and accounting f.
billing personnel
invoicing
billing integration costs
billing system
top up
charging personnel
mediation
charging integration costs
OCS outsourced
CTF/CDF
2G without 3G license, prepaid
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
tim e (years)
cost
var
iati
on
(%
)
Charging
Billing
Total
c) Greenfield operator with 3G licensec) Greenfield operator with 3G license
020406080
100120140
cost variation
(%)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
time (years)
Greenfield with license, postpaid financial &accounting f.billing personnel
invoicing
billing system
chargingpersonnelRF
ABMF
online chargingfunctionsmediation online
mediation offline
CTF/CDF
Greenfie ld w ith license, postpaid
0
50
100
150
tim e (years)
cost
var
iati
on
(%
)
Charging
Billing
Total
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
cost variation
(%)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
time (years)
Greenfield with license, prepaid financial andaccounting f.billing personnel
invoicing
billing system
charging personnel
RF
ABMF
online chargingfunctionmediation online
mediation offline
CTF/CDF
Greenfield with license, prepaid
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
tim e (years)
co
st
va
ria
tio
n (
%)
Charging
Billing
Total
d) Greenfield operator without 3G license(outsourcing the OCS)
d) Greenfield operator without 3G license(outsourcing the OCS)
020406080
100120140
cost variation
(%)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
time (years)
Greenfield without license, postpaid
financial and accounting
billing personnel
invoicing
billing system
charging personnel
mediation offline
OCS outsourcing
CTF/CDF
Greenfie ld w ithout license, postpaid
020406080
100120140
tim e (years)
cost
var
iati
on
(%
)
Charging
Billing
Total
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
cost variation
(%)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
time (years)
Greenfield without license, prepaid financial andaccounting f.billing personnel
invoicing
billing system
charging personnel
CGF outsourced
OCS outsourced
CTF/CDF
Greenfield without license, prepaid
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
tim e (years)
cost
var
iati
on
(%
)
Charging
Billing
Total
Comparison between casesComparison between casesTotal C&B costs for 2G operators
020406080
100120140160180
tim e (years)
cost
(%
)
2G w ith licensepostpaid
2G w ith licenseprepaid
2G w ithout licensepostpaid
2G w ithout licenseprepaid
reference of f line cost(100%)
Total C&B costs for Greenfield operators
020406080
100120140160
tim e (years)
cost
(%
)
Green. w ith licensepostpaid
Green. w ith licenseprepaid
Green w ithoutlicense postpaid
Green w ithoutlicense prepaid
reference of f linecost (100%)
• 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.
C&B cost per transactionC&B cost per transactionC&B cost per transaction
0
0,001
0,002
0,003
0,004
0,005
0,006
0,007
0,008
time (years)
co
st
(€)
2G with license,pos tpaid
2G with license,prepaid
2G without license,pos tpaid
2G without license,prepaid
C&B cost per transaction
0
0,002
0,004
0,006
0,008
0,01
0,012
0,014
0,016
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
time (years)
cost
(€)
Green. with license,postpaid
Green. with license,prepaid
Green. without license,postpaid
Green. without license,prepaid
• 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.
ConclusionsConclusions
a) 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.
b) The main reason for going online is the user requirements for security and ease of payment.
c) However, user satisfaction is not the only reason for going online. Online systems also reduce the C&B cost per transaction.
ConclusionsConclusions
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.
Thanks!Thanks!