Mobile Network QoE-QoS Decision Making Tool for Performance Optimization in Critical Web Service
Keywords:Decision making tool, Pseudo subjective quality assessment, Quality of experience, Quality of service, Web services
Regardless of the type of service that a company offers the customer satisfaction is a factor for success, if these services are in a highly competitive environment. This situation encourages companies to develop strategies to improve the Quality of the Experience (QoE) of their users. Strategies include improving their processes, or infrastructure for provisioning the services. Take these kind of decisions is very difficult because they ignore how the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) services are correlated with the information about user experience. This problem is approached from the perspective of mobile telecom operators, who have addressed this challenge through the Quality of Service (QoS) concept. Unfortunately, the QoS is only characterized by technical aspects, the user’s criteria are not included. Into a highly competitive environment, the user’s loyalty is a key component to be considered in the operator’s development plan. Nowadays, the mobile telecom operators focus their efforts to ensure not only the QoS but also the QoE. The aim of this paper was the develop a decision making tool that allows the mobile telco operators support their determinations about the maintenance of network infrastructure, as well as the expansion of the same, specifically for their critical web services; based in a correlated information between QoS and QoE. This tool was developed on the basis of the Pseudo Subjective Quality Assessment (PSQA) methodology.
ITU - T., Terms and Definitions Related to Quality of Service and Network Performance including Dependability, International Telecommunication Union., Recommendation E.800, 1995.
W. C. Hardy, QoS: Measurement and Evaluation of Telecommunications Quality of Service: Baffins Lane, Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2001.
R. Stankiewicz, P. Cholda, and A. Jajszczyk, QoX: What is It Really?, IEEE Communications Magazine, 49(4):148 - 158, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2011.5741159
G. Rubino. The PSQA project. [Online]. http://www.irisa.fr/armor/lesmembres/Rubino/myPages/psqa.html
B. Hestnes, P. Brooks, and S. Heiestad, QoE (Quality of Experience) - measuring QoE for improving the usage of telecommunication services, Telenor, Research Report 2009.
A. van Moorsel, Metrics for the Internet Age: Quality of Experience and Quality of Business, Hewlett - Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, California, USA, HPL-2001-179, 2001.
K. Bharrathsingh, Quality of experience as an integral part of network engineering, Focus in Convergence, vol. 1, February 2005.
J. Kim, T.W. Um, Ryu W., and B. Sun Lee, Heterogeneous Networks and Terminal-Aware QoS/QoE- Guaranteed Mobile IPTV Service, IEEE Communications Magazine, 46(5):110 - 117, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2008.4557052
H.J. Kim and S.G. Choi, A Study on a QoS/QoE Correlation Model for QoE Evaluation on IPTV Service, in The 12th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT 2010), Gangwon-Do, Korea, 2:11077 - 1382, 2010.
M. Siller and J.C. Woods, QoS Arbitration for Improving the QoE in Multimedia Transmission, Int. Conf. on Visual Information Engineering (VIE 2003), 238 - 241, 2003.
S. Khirman and P. Henriksen, Relationship between Quality-of-Service and Quality-of- Experience for Public Internet Service, Passive and Active Measurement Conference, Palo Alto, California, USA, 1 - 6, 2002.
M. Fiedler, T. Hossfeld, and Phuoc Tran-Gia, A Generic Quantitative Relationship between Quality of Experience and Quality of Service, IEEE Network, 24(2):36 -41, March - April 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2010.5430142
H.J. Kim et al., The QoE Evaluation Method through the QoS-QoE Correlation Model, Fourth Int. Conf. on Networked Computing and Advanced Information Management (NCM '08), 2:719-725, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/NCM.2008.202
C. Guo, Y. Liu, and Y. Liu H. Du, Research on relationship between QoE and QoS based on BP Neural Network, IEEE Int. Conf. on Network Infrastructure and Digital Content (IC-NIDC 2009), 312 - 315, 2009.
P. Brooks and B. Hestnes, User Measures of Quality of Experience: Why Being Objective and Quantitative Is Important, IEEE Networks, 24(2): 8 - 13, March - April, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2010.5430138
A. SÃ¡nchez-MaciÃ¡n, D. LÃ³pez, J. E. LÃ³pez de Vergara, and E. Pastor, A Framework for the Automatic Calculation of Quality of Experience in Telematic Services, Proc. of the 13th HP-OVUA Workshop, CÃ´te d'Azur, 1-6, 2006.
R. Kooij, D. De Vleeschauwer, K. BrunnstrÃ¶m, and F. Kuipers, Techniques for Measuring Quality of Experience, WWIC 2010, 216 - 217, 2010.
G. Rubino, P Tirilly, and M.Varela, Evaluating Users' Satisfaction in Packet Networks Using Random Neural Networks, Proceedings of ICANN'06, Athens, Greece, 303-312, 2006.
E. Ibarrola, F. Liberal, I. Taboada, and R. Ortega, Web QoE Evaluation in Multi-agent Networks: Validation of ITU-T G.1030, Fifth Int. Conf. on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems (ICAS '09), 289 - 294, 2009.
European Telecommunications Standards Institute, "Speech Processing, Transmission and Quality Aspects (STQ); User related QoS parameter definitions and measurements., European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Sophia Antipolis Cedex - FRANCE, Standard ETSI EG 202 057-2 V1.3.1, 2009.
ONLINE OPEN ACCES: Acces to full text of each article and each issue are allowed for free in respect of Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0.
You are free to:
-Share: copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format;
-Adapt: remix, transform, and build upon the material.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
DISCLAIMER: The author(s) of each article appearing in International Journal of Computers Communications & Control is/are solely responsible for the content thereof; the publication of an article shall not constitute or be deemed to constitute any representation by the Editors or Agora University Press that the data presented therein are original, correct or sufficient to support the conclusions reached or that the experiment design or methodology is adequate.