ITU Workshop on
“Benchmarking QoS Evaluation of Multimedia
Networks”
(Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013)
Applicability for QoS assessment
based on E.MQoS
Joachim Pomy, SG 12 Rapporteur
Consultant, Opticom GmbH
Consultant@joachimpomy.de
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
1
KPIs based on Network Counters
Vendor specific = network internal KPIs
different strategies
how to count network events
which events are included in which counter(s)
Requires knowledge of specific system
specialists with detailed system knowledge
testing the counters
documentation may be faulty
approach to counter change with system update
Mobile operators struggling with this
most operator live in a multi vendor environment
counters from different vendors cannot be directly
compared
requires continous attention and a strategy
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
2
KPIs from Users' Perspective = KQIs
Key Quality Indicators (KQIs) =
external indicators
can be assessed in the Field
For Monitoring, Regulation etc.
subset can be defined following E.MQoS
applicable across all vendors & operators
not limited to mobile, but also good for
broadband
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
3
KPIs versus KQIs
Sometimes confused
KPIs = internal indicators
part of network performance
based on network counters
essential for operation, maintenance, business model
could be reported, audited etc.
however, meaningless when out of context
KQIs = external indicators
basis for QoS assessment as perceived by the user
vendor independant
operator independant
ideal to compare different operators on a statistical basis
cannot be reported from the system itself
requires some kind of field testing, drive, walk etc.
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
4
QoS Assessment
E.MQoS defines
~ 250 operational e2e QoS parameters
E.803 defines
~ 90 QoS parameters for supporting
service aspects
Measure them ALL ?
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
5
User Perception influenced by much
more
trends
advertising
tariffs,
costs
customer expectation of QoS
customer satisfaction
QoS
(technical)
Network
Performance
Terminal
Performance
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
QoS
(non-technical)
Point of Sale
Customer
Care
6
6
QoS regulations
Measurement and reporting are
expensive
Do you scratch everywhere? or
scratch where it itches?
Need to focus on the known problem
areas
But the problem areas may change
over time
Issue of cost effectiveness
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
7
Regulatory Aspects (1)
QoS parameters for Regulation
should be
Limited in number
Focus to hot topics
where problems already exist or expected to
occur soon
Taylored to the special situation in the
Region
different topics for each country
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
8
Regulatory Aspects (2)
Network operators but also customers
have experience
with regulation & resulting QoS in other
countries of the region
For National Regulators it is important to
prove
customized regulation regime
but no re-invention of the wheel
no over burdening of operators
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
9
Best Practice
Some Advantages (postulated)
QoS Regulation not needed
Market Powers regulate overall Quality
Some Requirements (obvious)
All Stakeholders Stick to Standards
Appropriate Standards are available in Time
QoS Responsibilities must be clear defined
Some Problems (surprise !)
„connect your fridge to the network – it might
be legal“
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
10
Market Mechanisms
Forces of the Market will bring users into a position where they
can obtain the end-to-end QoS they wish to perceive
Has been postulated for a long time in Europe
Has been proven to be more than questionable
Mostly, contracts between users and network operators
have a longterm binding character
do not contain any QoS provisions
Currently, traditional Telcos have no incentive to provide high endto-end QoS for their NGN customers
Number of customers remains stable
In parallel the commercial company value
In contrast are Internet based communication service providers
Receive their revenue not directly from users
But by other business models which rely on a high (and increasing)
number of users of the service every day
Customers not satisfied with end-to-end QoS will stop using the
service
Consequently the number of customers decreases immediately and so
the company value
Thus the incentive to offer high end-to-end QoS to the user is
extremely high.
11
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
11
Guidelines on Regulatory Aspects of QoS
Planned as Supplement to E.800series
Thus no binding regulatory document
Does not fall under SG2 mandate
Usefull for technical aspects of QoS by
stakeholders, incl. regulators
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
12
Suppl. To E.800-series
Scope
Provides guidelines on regulatory aspects of QoS
Intent is to assist regulators or administrations who
need to achieve desired levels of QoS for one or more
ICT services under their jurisdiction.
Focuses on e2e QoS as perceived by the user
for modern mobile and broadband services
can correspondingly be used for traditional wirebound
and legacy services.
Network performance is out of scope of this
document.
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
13
Global Challenges
Move from traditional networks
based on dedicated service-channels
Towards on a single packet based transport infrastructure
With integrated (transport) services
Pre-defined transmission planning of QoS has become a
major challenge:
Fixed allocation of resources is no longer possible
Packet-based network quality parameter requirements are
pretty undefined
Responsibility for end-to-end QoS has been lost
Services must be considered as applications executed in the
terminal devices
IP networks cannot provide for self standing end-to-end QoS
Only transport classes, which enable QoS differentiation
QoS Challenges depend strongly on role of stakeholders
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
14
14
Challenges for Standards Developing
Organizations (SDOs)
The ITU-T
The European Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ETSI)
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Have collective knowledge and expertise with respect to QoS
related to the change of paradigms in networks and terminals
regarding to planning and possible regulation of end-to-end QoS
Are contribution-driven
If stakeholders
rely on industry standards instead of globally recognized
standards
wish to keep control of their intellectual property
wish to not invest resources in globally recognized standards
SDOs must try to convince industry leaders
For example in dedicated events such as conferences
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
15
15
Challenges for Network Equipment
Manufacturers
Rely on the QoS related performance
requests (of network and system
functions) from network operators and
service providers
Ideally, network equipment manufacturers
would participate in the QoS work of SDOs
To standardize the QoS and performance
requirements between several parties involved
in the network business
Often no visible incentive on the short term
Return of investment cannot easily be seen
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
16
16
Challenges for Terminal Device
Manufacturers
Confronted with a mass market
Move away from minimum attachment
requirements
No harm to the network, not necessarily high QoS
Towards terminal standards which target the
possibility of provision of high-level end-to-end
QoS to the customer
Acceptance in the market based on other factors
Price
Other functions of terminals
Applications available for that terminal
Brand
End-to-end QoS - not in the first place
"kids prefer the pink phone!"
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
17
17
Challenges for Network Operators and
Service Providers
Huge investments in both infrastructure and access technology,
likely to partially
Investing in new capacity, and
Rationing existing capacity
Traffic management tools
Increase efficiency of managing existing network capacity.
Appropriateness of different approaches to traffic management
Important to bear in mind that traffic management has always
beneficial aspects
Commonly used to protect safety-critical traffic
Question is not whether traffic management is acceptable in principle,
but whether particular approaches to traffic management cause
concern
Network operators and service providers may or may not use traffic
management as a welcome method towards suppressing competition
Opening access and core packet networks as pure bit pipes will
probably not provide the envisaged revenues
Therefore network operators and service providers are aiming at
providing services on top of the bit stream itself
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
18
Challenges for Regulators and
Administrations
Responsibility to consumer protection affected by rapid
introduction of vendor-specific new services
Also required to set a right balance between service competition and
infrastructure competition
In the early days of the move towards end-to-end services being no
longer provided on a fixed, well-known platform, it still seemed to be
fairly easy to require that the new technology provide QoS "not less
than in the ISDN era"
Today it is easy to lose the overview of proprietary services "on-net"
and the respectively offered QoS
Services are not standardized
For interconnection scenarios (one of the major responsibilities of the
ITU, and one of the main purposes of the ITRs) one would need
specific service agreements for each network-to-network-interface
(NNI).
In contrast, Regulators and Administrations have seen in the
recent past that the un-managed Internet has led to the creation
of new services offered "over the top"
Important factor contributing to the economical benefits
Regulators and Administrations to have a close look
Conditions under which access to services in comparison to the access
19
to the Internet is being provided
Ouagadougou,
Burkina
July 2013
There
mayFaso,
be a 18
certain
percentage of the bandwidth or of the capacity
Challenges for Consumers
Personal affairs of using telecommunication services
Discrepancy between advertised and actual delivery speeds of
the network
Consumers may not be able to detect the actual
applications of discriminating traffic management
techniques and find it difficult to distinguish between the
effects of traffic management techniques on QoS from the
effects of other quality degrading factors
A consumer observing that traffic is routinely throttled may
not know whether this is done by intention, or is caused by
other factors
Traffic management techniques and policies are difficult to
understand for consumers
Consumers may find it difficult to act upon such information
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
20
... in Technical Terms
Dramatic increase in mobile communication, both in terms of the number
of registered devices and of the volume of requested resources makes it is
quite likely that migration scenarios and hybrid connections with existing
wire-bound and traditional networks and terminals will be neglected and
appropriate QoS standards will not be established or enforced
Main technical parameters to consider will be:
speed (data throughput) of the access network
congestion in the backbone
end-to-end delay (latency)
delay-variation (jitter)
packet loss (loss of information)
Jitter is the variation in delay between different packets
Compensation (by de-jitter buffers) converts jitter into additional delay
Packet loss may be concealed
Essential information may be lost
Bad terminal implementations may destroy reasonable performance
delivered from the network(s)
Users will not be able to judge the difference in end-to-end QoS
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
21
Current Policy Challenges
Need to consider new approaches to anchor national strategies or
regulatory frameworks around the multi-facetted concept of QoS required
To set and keep the right balance between service and infrastructure
competitions
To address the challenges associated with QoS on the telecommunication
network
To continue providing adequate QoS, network operators and service
providers claim to need a certain traffic management over increasingly
congested networks
This might include data restrictions, traffic throttling, filtering and/or the use of
data caps of thresholds
Once the cap is exceeded, customers or end-users may be, knowingly or not,
confronted with the fact that, "Internet access" provided to them is no longer
Internet access, but a service provided by their ISP;
Such possible circumstances have influenced debates over ‘net neutrality’ and
‘differentiated traffic management’
These issues are increasingly likely to come to the fore, if data traffic continues to grow
at its current projected rate
Currently, many regulators are launching public consultations and investigations into
traffic throttling practices
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
22
Schedule for draft new
Supplement to E.800-series
31 August 2013
Final timeline for submitting comments directly to the
editors
7 November 2013
Submission as Contribution to SG 12
20 November 2013
Deadline for Contributions submitted to TSB
12 December 2013
Planned Approval by SG12 Plenary
January (?) 2014
Pre-Publication
??? 2014
Publication
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
23
Any questions ?
Joachim Pomy
Telecommunications & Int'l Standards
Germany
Tel.: +49 177 78 71958
Email: consultant@joachimpomy.de
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013
24