Applicability for QoS assessment based on E.MQoS 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

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

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

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.

QoS Assessment E.MQoS defines E.803 defines Measure them ALL ? ~ 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 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

QoS parameters for Regulation should be 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

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

Best Practice Some Advantages (postulated) Some Requirements (obvious) 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“

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 end-to-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 11

Guidelines on Regulatory Aspects of QoS Planned as Supplement to E.800-series Thus no binding regulatory document Does not fall under SG2 mandate Usefull for technical aspects of QoS by stakeholders, incl. regulators

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.

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 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 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 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!" 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

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 to the Internet is being provided There 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 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

... 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

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

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

Any questions ? Joachim Pomy Telecommunications & Int'l Standards Germany Tel.: +49 177 78 71958 Email: consultant@joachimpomy.de