Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013 1 Applicability for QoS assessment based on E.MQoS Joachim...

Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 20131

Applicability for QoS assessment based on E.MQoS

Joachim Pomy, SG 12 RapporteurConsultant, Opticom GmbH

[email protected]

ITU Workshop on “Benchmarking QoS Evaluation of Multimedia

Networks”

(Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013)



KPIs based on Network Counters

Vendor specific = network internal KPIsdifferent strategies

how to count network eventswhich events are included in which counter(s)

Requires knowledge of specific systemspecialists with detailed system knowledgetesting the counters

documentation may be faultyapproach to counter change with system update

Mobile operators struggling with thismost operator live in a multi vendor environmentcounters from different vendors cannot be directly comparedrequires continous attention and a strategy


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 & operatorsnot limited to mobile, but also good for broadband


KPIs versus KQIs

Sometimes confusedKPIs = internal indicators

part of network performancebased on network countersessential for operation, maintenance, business modelcould be reported, audited etc.however, meaningless when out of context

KQIs = external indicatorsbasis for QoS assessment as perceived by the uservendor independantoperator independantideal to compare different operators on a statistical basiscannot be reported from the system itselfrequires some kind of field testing, drive, walk etc.


QoS Assessment

E.MQoS defines~ 250 operational e2e QoS parameters

E.803 defines~ 90 QoS parameters for supporting service aspects

Measure them ALL ?


User Perception influenced by much more

6

customer satisfaction

trends advertising

QoS(technical)

QoS(non-technical)

NetworkPerformance

TerminalPerformance

Point of SaleCustomer

Care

tariffs,costs

customer expectation of QoS


QoS regulations

Measurement and reporting are expensiveDo you scratch everywhere? or scratch where it itches?Need to focus on the known problem areasBut the problem areas may change over timeIssue of cost effectiveness


Regulatory Aspects (1)

QoS parameters for Regulation should be

Limited in numberFocus 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


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 regimebut no re-invention of the wheelno over burdening of operators


Best Practice

Some Advantages (postulated)

QoS Regulation not neededMarket Powers regulate overall Quality

Some Requirements (obvious)

All Stakeholders Stick to StandardsAppropriate Standards are available in TimeQoS Responsibilities must be clear defined

Some Problems (surprise !)

„connect your fridge to the network – it might be legal“


11

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 EuropeHas been proven to be more than questionableMostly, contracts between users and network operators

have a longterm binding characterdo not contain any QoS provisions

Currently, traditional Telcos have no incentive to provide high end-to-end QoS for their NGN customers

Number of customers remains stableIn parallel the commercial company value

In contrast are Internet based communication service providersReceive their revenue not directly from usersBut by other business models which rely on a high (and increasing) number of users of the service every dayCustomers not satisfied with end-to-end QoS will stop using the serviceConsequently 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.


Guidelines on Regulatory Aspects of QoS

Planned as Supplement to E.800-series

Thus no binding regulatory documentDoes not fall under SG2 mandateUsefull for technical aspects of QoS by stakeholders, incl. regulators


Suppl. To E.800-seriesScope

Provides guidelines on regulatory aspects of QoSIntent 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 userfor modern mobile and broadband servicescan correspondingly be used for traditional wirebound and legacy services.

Network performance is out of scope of this document.


Global Challenges

14

Move from traditional networksbased on dedicated service-channels

Towards on a single packet based transport infrastructureWith 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 undefinedResponsibility for end-to-end QoS has been lostServices must be considered as applications executed in the terminal devicesIP 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


Challenges for Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs)

15

The ITU-TThe European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

Have collective knowledge and expertise with respect to QoSrelated to the change of paradigms in networks and terminalsregarding to planning and possible regulation of end-to-end QoS

Are contribution-drivenIf stakeholders

rely on industry standards instead of globally recognized standardswish to keep control of their intellectual propertywish to not invest resources in globally recognized standards

SDOs must try to convince industry leadersFor example in dedicated events such as conferences


Challenges for Network Equipment Manufacturers

16

Rely on the QoS related performance requests (of network and system functions) from network operators and service providersIdeally, 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 businessOften no visible incentive on the short term Return of investment cannot easily be seen


Challenges for Terminal Device Manufacturers

17

Confronted with a mass marketMove away from minimum attachment requirements

No harm to the network, not necessarily high QoSTowards terminal standards which target the possibility of provision of high-level end-to-end QoS to the customerAcceptance in the market based on other factors

PriceOther functions of terminals Applications available for that terminalBrandEnd-to-end QoS - not in the first place"kids prefer the pink phone!"


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 toolsIncrease efficiency of managing existing network capacity.

Appropriateness of different approaches to traffic managementImportant to bear in mind that traffic management has always beneficial aspectsCommonly used to protect safety-critical trafficQuestion is not whether traffic management is acceptable in principle, but whether particular approaches to traffic management cause concernNetwork operators and service providers may or may not use traffic management as a welcome method towards suppressing competitionOpening access and core packet networks as pure bit pipes will probably not provide the envisaged revenuesTherefore network operators and service providers are aiming at providing services on top of the bit stream itself


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 competitionIn 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 QoSServices are not standardizedFor 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 benefitsRegulators and Administrations to have a close look

Conditions under which access to services in comparison to the access to the Internet is being providedThere may be a certain percentage of the bandwidth or of the capacity reserved for the on-net services which then are not available for the access to the Internet


Challenges for Consumers

Personal affairs of using telecommunication servicesDiscrepancy 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 factorsTraffic management techniques and policies are difficult to understand for consumers

Consumers may find it difficult to act upon such information


... 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 networkcongestion in the backboneend-to-end delay (latency)delay-variation (jitter)packet loss (loss of information)

Jitter is the variation in delay between different packetsCompensation (by de-jitter buffers) converts jitter into additional delay

Packet loss may be concealedEssential 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


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 competitionsTo 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 thresholdsOnce 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 rateCurrently, many regulators are launching public consultations and investigations into traffic throttling practices


Schedule for draft new Supplement to E.800-series

31 August 2013 Final timeline for submitting comments directly to the editors

7 November 2013Submission as Contribution to SG 12

20 November 2013Deadline for Contributions submitted to TSB

12 December 2013Planned Approval by SG12 Plenary

January (?) 2014Pre-Publication

??? 2014Publication


Any questions ?

Joachim PomyTelecommunications & Int'l StandardsGermanyTel.: +49 177 78 71958Email: [email protected]

Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013 1 Applicability for QoS assessment based on E.MQoS Joachim...

Documents

Transcript of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18 July 2013 1 Applicability for QoS assessment based on E.MQoS Joachim...