In this section we describe the revenue sharing settlement model and charging pro-tocols that we build upon in Chapter 4.
2.4.1 Revenue Sharing Settlement Model
Settlement is the process where one entity makes a payment to another entity for the charges resulting from the provision of a service. In the traditional settlement model, users had completely separate settlement arrangements with network operators and service providers, as shown in Figure 2.3.
However, there are several disadvantages with this approach. The user must establish a new settlement arrangement with every new service provider whose
ser-Figure 2.4: Revenue Sharing Settlement Model
vices he/she wishes to use, and this normally involves a significant amount of effort.
A consequence of these settlement arrangements is that it is impossible for the user to remain anonymous to the service provider. Finally, as more users start using ser-vices, and more service providers become available, the total number of settlement arrangements between users and service providers grows rapidly.
An alternative settlement model, which overcomes these disadvantages, is the revenue sharing settlement model. This settlement model involves one party col-lecting revenue from the user, and sharing it with the other parties with which the user interacts, as shown in Figure 2.4. Normally, the parties that share revenue are offering services at different levels in the value chain. The result of only one party collecting revenue from the user is that he/she receives a single bill covering all the charges that have been incurred, regardless of how many parties were involved in providing the service. This is often referred to as one stop billing.
The relationship between the network operators and the service providers makes them very good candidates for using the revenue sharing settlement model. There are several reasons for this:
• The network operators already have established charging processes. Therefore,
they can extend these existing charging processes to support the new charging requirements of the service providers.
• The network operators already have established settlement arrangements with their customers. Therefore, no additional settlement arrangements need to be established in order to collect extra revenues from these users.
• Making payments is effortless from the users’ points of view. This greatly increases the likelihood of users paying for using services.
This settlement model is already widely used within the telecommunications in-dustry. A popular example of its use occurs between network operators and service providers that provide premium rate services such as technical support, competi-tions, and adult services.
2.4.2 Charging Protocols
There are several different Internet based protocols that enable third parties to ex-change charging information, which relates to users, with network operators. There-fore, these protocols are suitable for implementing a revenue sharing settlement model. Third parties can use these protocols to exchange charging information in a consistent manner regardless of the types of commercial relationships that the users have with the network operators.
Parlay
The most relevant charging protocol to the work described in this thesis is the charging protocol developed by the Parlay Group. The Parlay API enables third parties to use many different charging services [61]. However, the Parlay X Web Services for charging are more relevant to the work described in this thesis [63].
The Amount Charging service is used to immediately apply charging details, which are expressed in monetary terms, to a user’s account. The most relevant meth-ods in this service are the chargeAmount method and the refundAmount method.
Both of these methods require the user’s identity, the amount to charge or refund, and a description of the charge or refund.
The Volume Charging service is used to immediately apply charging details, which are expressed in terms of a volume of some non-monetary unit, to a user’s account. The most relevant methods are the chargeVolume method and the refund-Volume method. Both of these methods require the user’s identity, the volume to charge or refund, and a description of the charge or refund. There is also a getA-mount method that is used to get the monetary value of a particular volume of some non-monetary unit for a particular user.
The Reserve Amount Charging service is used to do reservation charging in mon-etary terms. The reserveAmount method is used to reserve an amount of money in the user’s account for use with this service. This method requires the user’s identity, the amount to reserve, and a description of the reservation. The reserveAddition-alAmount method is used to either increase or decrease an existing reservation.
The chargeReservation method is used to apply the charge to the user’s account.
Finally, the releaseReservation method is used when the user will not incur any further charges for this service.
The Reserve Volume Charging service is used to do reservation charging in terms of a volume of some non-monetary unit. The reserveVolume method is used to re-serve a charge, which is expressed as a volume of some non-monetary unit, in the user’s account for use with this service. This method requires the user’s identity, the amount to reserve, and a description of the reservation. The reserveAddition-alVolume method is used to either increase or decrease an existing reservation. The chargeReservation method is used to apply the charge to the user’s account. Fi-nally, the releaseReservation method is used when the user will not incur any further charges for this service. There is also a getAmount method that is used to get the monetary value of a particular volume of some non-monetary unit for a particular user.