cash open free!get for reward!Trading account Online! Forex $5
Marketiva Corporation is under jurisdiction of the Financial Services Commission (FSC) and conforms with its regulations and internationally accepted supervisory and regulatory standardsTrading Forex Online! * Buy and sell major currency pairs and cross rates with one mouse click * You can start trading with as little as $1!* Open your account for free and Get $5 Cash Reward so you can start trading right away!* Spreads between bid and offer prices are the tightest in the forex market Trading on 1% Margin * Trading on margin (1%) allows you to trade $10,000 with only $100 deposit (collateral) in your account * You don't need to start on live market right away - practice with your virtual money first * No commissions or exchange fees on your trades - you can trade as much as you like! * You can even earn interest on your positions News, Chat, Alerts and Support * Read real-time economic news and forecasts about global economy and forex markets * Get alerts narrated aloud prior to major scheduled market events * Chat with other forex traders about market events, exchange trading ideas and learn * Get help from our support professionals available 24/7 on support chat channels Advanced Personalized Charting * The most sophisticated and easy-to-use forex charting tool with built-in advanced technical indicators * You can trade, view and modify open positions - directly on your charts * Modify parameters of technical indicators in real-time and see how they appear immediately * Build your chart collection by adding your saved chart configurations Simple and Powerfull * Easy to use and understand even if you are a beginner * Streamster™ trading software gives you the best forex trading experience available! * Arrange trading windows according to your preference, set charting options, use auto-pilot, and much more... * You only need 5 minutes to open your account - and it's free! If you specify quantity 1, your margin requirement will be 1 cent (1%).How much money do I need to start trading Forex ? *With its industry-leading platform, Marketiva allows you to start trading in Forex market with as little as $1! Due to their strict lot specifications, most of other Forex brokers require at least $500 to start with.May I open a demo account and try the system first? * Because you can have a live and a demo trading desks within one Marketiva account,you can try the system using the same account you can later use for live Forex trading.In any case, you can open your Marketiva account for free!Deposit and withdraw by Wire Transferï¼Œe-gold and E-Bullion.Live Support(24 hours).open account for free!get $5 cash reward! What is Forex Trading ? * Forex (Foreign Exchange) is the name given to the direct access trading of foreign currencies.With an average daily volume of $1.4 trillion,Forex is 46 times larger than all the futures markets combined and,for that reason, is the world's most liquid market.How do I choose between Mini and Standard Forex account ?*Marketiva's trading platform allows you to specify any quantity in your order form,including 10000 (mini) or 100000 (standard). â„– 646819. 291 Reg. http://www.marketva.com Marketiva Corporation is an international business corporation for dealing in over-the-counter foreign exchange contracts, incorporated in British Virgin Islands with registration number IBC CAP.
Be Should In Revenue Assurance NGOSS?
I am not wedded to this argument, but I am not aware of any persuasive counter-arguments. Can anyone help? The argument goes as follows:
The purpose of NGOSS is to get lean, efficient telcos
The business case for Revenue Assurance is that it will correct defects, and in correcting defects will make/save more money than it costs
A lean, efficient telco does not suffer from many defects
NGOSS should deliver telcos that do not suffer from many defects
Hence, there is no business case for Revenue Assurance in a business which fully satisfies NGOSS
Hence, Revenue Assurance should not be part of NGOSS
What do people think? What are the strong counter-arguments?
RA New guidebook GB941
The Revenue Assurance team has released for TMF members review a new Guide book on RA, GB941, http://www.tmforum.org/browse.aspx?catID=2143&linkID=31812. You are welcome to review the document, give your feedbacks, and/or open discussions on its content in the community
Welcome FAQ & RA
Welcome to the revenue assurance and management forum. This FAQ was put together to introduce the forum and our work to new contributors.
Who can contribute to the revenue assurance and management forum?
Anyone. All we ask is that you have a genuine interest in the topic. You do not need to participate in any of the other TMF activities involving revenue assurance but many of the regular contributors are also active in the TMF revenue assurance team.
How can you automatically receive email updates of new posts to the forum?
Members (but not guests) can get email updates of new postings to this forum. To get them, log on to the community site using your username and password. Go to the revenue assurance and management "open discussion" page, which shows the list of all the threads about revenue assurance and management. Scroll to the bottom of the screen and click the options button. A number of options can be set by the user, including one to receive emails - at your registered email address - each time a new posting is made or a new topic is started on the RA&M forum. Remember to press the button to "apply" any changes to options before you exit the screen.
What does the TMF's revenue assurance team do?
For several years the TMF has maintained an RA technical team. This works collaboratively to agree and document best practice in revenue assurance. It has so far issued a technical overview of the topic and a guidebook to revenue assurance.
In parallel, there have been several RA catalyst projects. These culminate in practical demonstrations of how RA tools can interact to identify and correct leakage. Many team members are involved in both the technical work and catalysts.
What are the current objectives of the revenue assurance team?
The team is working on the following topics:
compiling a comprehensive inventory of all types of leakage, for use as a checklist and assessment tool in service providers;
refining the revenue assurance maturity model, extending it for use as both a way of measuring the maturity of revenue assurance in a service provider and determining strategic priorities for change and improvement; and
defining KPIs for use in measuring and benchmarking leakage and integrity.
What is the link between the community forum and the team?
Threaded discussions relating to the work covered by the revenue assurance team often appear in the community forum. The forum allows free exchange of ideas at an early stage, before the team begins its collaborative authoring. It also allows the working groups for each topic to test out some of its ideas by seeking feedback from a wider audience. The readers, in turn, get early exposure to best practice as it emerges and prior to the official release of new material.
Individuals who do not normally participate in the revenue assurance team can post questions or suggestions to the forum, knowing they will get a response from the experts active in the revenue assurance team. I monitor this forum and use the questions and suggestions raised here to influence the direction of the TMF RA team's work.
is the of What percentage acceptable Leakage? Revenue
What is the acceptable percentage of Revenue Leakage?
Of course the textbook response is that it depends, it depends on the services provided by an operator, it depends on the operator having old homegrown solutions that were adapted to handle also new services vs. new standard OSS and BSS solutions, it depends on the geographical region of the operator, and it depends on the changes that the operator had recently experienced (major changes in its systems or network, a recent consolidation with another operator, etc). But lets stop being political-correct, if you would be pushed to the corner, and required to give a single number what it would be?
b) Less than 1%
c) 2 - 3%
d) 4 - 8%
e) Other (please specify)
success to a project want - If choice a you question RA multiple
Gadi A quick multiple-choice question, if you want a RA project to success, the single most important factor in will be
To have full CxO level support
To show quick gains at the beginning of the project
To convince all parties involve that you are a facilitator and not an inquisitor, that you will discover new heroes, and make no condemns
To reveal the causes for the revenue leakages as soon as possible
What is your opinion?
there Interconnect Reconciliation: any Queries' IS Checklist? Billing
Is there any check list of Queries when investigating interconnect CDRs between fixed and mobile networks? Am in charge of regulatory affairs in a full service telecom company; I asked this question to our IS billing staff and they seem to do it randomly!
I also would like if is there any full list of call scenarios for testing between mobile networks and mobile and fixed networks?
Thanks in advance for your Help.
Hi, not sure if anyone can help shed some light on this...
I did analysis on the total erlangs (converted to minutes) for all cell sites for a given month and compared that against the reported duration in CDRs and I note a huge difference between the two.
I was told that the main contributor to such difference could be due to long ring time where B-party does not answer after a long time and thus the voice channel was occupied for longer than the duration of the actual call recorded in the CDR.
As well, I was told that there's no way to reconcile this difference or no way to quantify that the difference is actually due to the long ring time scenario quoted.
Is there really no way to reconcile the difference?
Perhaps we revenue assurance people sometimes go about things back to front.
I have been going over recent debates and I think we have a lot of "system thinkers" working in revenue assurance: the kind of people who take a look at the world and rearrange and organize the information into a system to explain how things fit together. But most people are not system thinkers, so they have little interest in systems until they are proven i.e. backed up with hard evidence. One problem we face is that hard evidence of revenue assurance success is rarely shared, and even more rarely given a $ valuation which is transparent.
The other day a friend asked me what revenue assurance is and I gave an answer based on what it should be. I said it should be an applied science, like economics or computer science. The purpose of the science would be to prevent, identify and correct mistakes that businesses make that are wholly within their control and measurably impact their financial results. Like other applied sciences, this would naturally draw on a variety of areas, like mathematics (e.g. complex systems), psychology (e.g. why people make mistakes and how to reduce their likelihood), etc. Continuing the thought, most sciences start to evolve not by developing a good and complete conceptual system and then fitting real-world observations into it, but rather the other way around: they accumulate observations and steadily apply better and better systems to organizing them. Again, we revenue assurance practitioners are not very good at making observations in revenue assurance, or at least not very good at sharing them. So one starting point would be to try to cross this hurdle in an unchallenging and straightforward way - by sharing anecdotes (or "war stories" as some people like to call them). It would not matter what the anecdote was about, so long as it followed these rules:
it involves a real problem that had already or was going to impact the financial performance of a business;
the author knows the $ value of that impact (even if not willing to share it) and can explain how it was calculated;
somebody undertook an action or solution that actually prevented or reversed the $ impact;
the author thinks the story might be interesting to other people working in revenue assurance.
So far we have 0 anecdotes and we need to end up with lots. Does anyone want to begin?
Secrets Guide: The RA Giving Away
what life was like before they became great. Obviously these people enjoyed quite a few good holidays but rarely said anything that people did not know already.
The problem with any guide published is that many people will be sceptical about whether it will be worth reading something that people are prepared to "give away". They will not understand why people actually shared valuable information with their competitors.
So my question to those of you who contributed to the new revenue assurance guidebook is, why did you do it? I worked for a company once, a really very silly company, full of people who wanted to fly around the world talking about revenue assurance. But when they got to the destination they were always worried about giving away the "secrets" of revenue assurance, so spent all the time talking vaguely about how great they were and the great things they were going to do next, but without explaining how they became great in the first place i.e.
Checklist Guide: RA Loss
Stephen Tebbett has done an awesome job in pulling together the checklist of every imaginable revenue loss cause known to man. But bet you nobody will ever admit to using it. Why?
People working in RA for service providers don't want to know about all the things they have neither time nor skills nor resources to do anything about
People working for RA vendors don't want to know about all the things that go wrong that are not addressed by their products
Consultants will want to pretend their "experience" means they already knew the complete list but they wrote their own years ago and much better (which is why customers should pay for them and not just grab the list and read it themselves)
Here's my challenge: can anyone think of positive scenarios where (1) a service provider RA dept, (2) an RA vendor, and (3) a consultant, would OPENLY admit (better still, promote) that they used the checklist to improve their work.
If we can think of positive scenarios, the next step would be to encourage real people working in all 3 cases to do just that!
to business the ownership take Incentivising
One of the many struggles Revenue Assurance departments within a service provider has is that they struggle to have any influence over areas of the business. This can lead to barriers preventing the resolution of potential leakages under the control of that area, and even prevent any detection activities occuring to assess for leakage.
Hugh and I had a brief discussion that I would like to open to the forum for discussion of a potential tool to break down these barriers:
Is there merit in applying the checklist of leakage points to a matrix for each area of the business showing how their activities can lead to revenue leakage. This could be turned into a 1 page crib sheet that could be used to raise awareness of RA within the business. E.g. a customer service representative entering poor information into the order entry system could lead to unbillable services being provided. Or a weak credit check could lead to customers being signed on who run up large amounts of debt.
Interested to know people's thoughts...
Guide: Audience RA
Writing guidebooks for RA is great, and our new guidebook is great, but one big problem is that nobody seems to know who exactly guidebooks are written for.
If the people reading the guidebooks already know RA through and through, why are they reading the guidebook?
If the people reading the guidebooks know nothing about RA, is the guidebook going to be too complicated?
Is the guidebook for the people who do RA, or for the people who tell them what to do?
If you understand RA, and your boss does not, but he tells you what to do, how do you politely use a guidebook to explain to him what you should be doing?
mean What we "proactive"? by do
I think everyone agrees that being proactive is a good thing. It certainly sounds better than being reactive. But the word gets used so much in revenue assurance circles it is starting to lose its meaning. In the thread I started on what comes next in RA, I noticed that many of the answers came down to whether people thought RA had finished a certain kind of job and could move on, or whether it still had some work to do before moving on. Asking a question about what it takes to be proactive is another way of looking at the same problem. (By the way, TR131 defines what proactive revenue assurance is, but I am assuming that at least some people will respond who have not yet read it!). So, which one of these statements best explains what "proactive revenue assurance" is:
1) Proactive revenue assurance means finding and correcting specific errors in implemented systems and processes before there is any financial impact (for example, late or reduced billing)
2) Proactive revenue assurance means finding and correcting potentially financially-impacting errors and flaws in the design of systems and processes before implementation is complete
3) Proactive revenue assurance means investigating any and every aspect of business performance that can be improved to give better financial returns without waiting to be asked to do so
4) Proactive revenue assurance means having a revenue assurance department that, independently of the rest of the management structure, defines specific objectives and activities that will lead to better financial returns
5) Proactive revenue assurance means that all employees of a telco are aware of the importance of revenue assurance and constantly act to improve financial performance
6) None of the above!
problem Addmitting a there is
It has often been said that "first step towards finding a solution is admitting that there is a problem.â€
For Revenue Assurance this is also the case, as most projects to stop leakage canâ€™t be quantified as those responsible for the leaking systems either donâ€™t know what they are loosing or are afraid to admit it as it will make them look bad.
How can an IT manager admit that their systems are dropping records when they may not even know it?
The problems here are getting the people involved in the systems that are leaking to buy into the idea that this is in their best interests and to work on succeeding in the project.
next? What's Revenue Assurance:
2) RA if applied for a few years to a CSP will have solved most of the leakage problems with the main current sources of revenue but needs to keep having its approach refreshed to handle new technologies and products.
3) When RA solves the problems it in a CSP you can put it in a box as there is nothing left to do.
4) RA never has solved the leakage problems in any CSP I have seen and has a long way to do before it is ready to move on.
What do people think? Here's a quick question in the hope of gauging what people think are the major challenges for Revenue Assurance in future. Answers seem to fall into four categories:
1) RA if applied for a few years to a CSP will have solved most of the leakage problems so the next natural challenge is to broaden its sweep and become more productive at driving new revenues i.e.