Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 Monitoring QoS/QoE of mobile networks-novel approach Tahitii Obioha Network Planning and Optimisation Engineer Planet Network.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 Monitoring QoS/QoE of mobile networks-novel approach Tahitii Obioha Network Planning and Optimisation Engineer Planet Network."— Presentation transcript:

1 Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 Monitoring QoS/QoE of mobile networks-novel approach Tahitii Obioha Network Planning and Optimisation Engineer Planet Network International, France. ITU Regional Standardization Forum for Africa (Kampala, Uganda, 23-25 June 2014)

2 Why Monitor QoS/ QoE of mobile networks Monitoring = observing, checking and keeping a continuous record of the progress or quality of something. It is the use of any available technical tool to assess permanently or for a given period of time a particular QoS parameter, e.g. call set up time. (ETSI EG 202 009-2) For end-users : Satisfaction, get the best value for their money amidst others For operators : end-user Satisfaction, Increase revenue, achieve customer loyalty, maintain competitive edge amidst others. Surveys have shown that about 90% of customers will not complain before defecting. For Regulators: protect consumers, ensure end-user satisfaction, create a level playing field for operators to compete amidst others. They all share a common Objective CUSTOMER SATISFACTION Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 2 Reasons

3 QoE Measurement Quality of Experience(QoE) has become an important concept since the growth of mobile services. QoE is very SUBJECTIVE in nature as it involves human dimensions. Measuring and improving QoE though challenging, should be undertaken in order to assess the most accurate and complete vision of the value offered by the provider to end-users. If the QoE is high, the user is happy, satisfied and loyal while poor QoE will result in dissatisfied customers. Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 3

4 QoE Measurement USER EXPECTATIONS CAN BE GROUPED UNDER TWO MAIN CATEGORIES 1. RELIABILITY (Service quality of Accessibility and Retainability KPIs) 2. COMFORT (Service quality of Integrity KPIs) Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 4 QoE KPIs QoE KPIMost important measures Service availability(anywhere) Local and global coverage included How seamless it is for the user? Service accessibility(anytime) The success rate of user connections for any service Service access timeThe delays in setting up any service connection Continuity of service connection-interruption ratio The retainability of the service connection and its performance overtime Reliability QoE KPIs

5 QoE Measurement Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 5 QoE KPIMost important measures Quality of SessionJitter (delay variation %) Average throughput(kbits/s) towards mobile Bearer stability Application layer packet loss ratio Average end-to-end delay (ms) Ease of useHow easy is it to use service offered by the network Level of supportHow quick and easy is it to get customer support Comfort QoE KPIs

6 QoE Measurement Service level approach using Statistical Samples Approach relies on a statistical sample of the overall network users to measure the QoE for all the users in the network. (Mean Opinion Score (MOS)) Network Management system approach using QoS parameters Approach relies on using NMS to collect QoS KPIs from network elements and comparing them with predefined target Knowing full well that the holy grail of subjective measurements is to predict it from the objective measurements i.e. predict QoE from a given set of QoS parameters. NMS approach provides high accuracy than Service level because of its deterministic and objective nature. Using both methods nevertheless provides a better and more accurate picture of the users’ experience Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 6 Two pratical approaches to measuring QoE

7 Relationship between QoS and QoE QoE = f(AQoS, NQoS) + other subjective factors (expectations, mood, etc.) Strong Correlation between QoS and QoE Relationship Between QoE and QoS may be near-linear for a voice call but non-linear for a video call Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 7

8 Relationship between QoS and QoE There is an exponential relationship between QoS and QoE End-to-end QoS is an important enabler for QoE in otherwords a better network QoS in many cases will result in better QoE QoE can be predicted from a given set of QoS parameters and vice versa (ETSI TS 102 250-1) QoE may be improved with the right QoS mechanisms. Relationship Between QoE and QoS may be near-linear for a voice call but non-linear for a video call Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 8

9 QoS Measurement Quality of Service(QoS) arrived with 2 nd Generation Networks Ability of a Network to provide a service with an assured service level. It is intrisincally a technical concept, measured and understood in terms of networks and network elements. An objective metric that refers to the ability of the network to achieve a more deterministic behaviour. Service Qualification is based on six 6 primary components as defined in ITU-T Rec E-800: Operability Accessibilty Retainability Integrity Security Support QoS can be measured using KPIs and KQIs Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 9 Performance Assurance 85% 15% Key Performance Indicators(KPIs) Key Quality (Assurance) Indicators(KQIs)

10 Relationship between NP and QoS Strong Correlation between NP and QoS In otherwords Poor Network Performance ultimately results to Poor QoS Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 10 QoS aspects of service usage(ETSI TS 102 250-1) Network related QoS

11 Relationship between NP and QoS Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 11 Non network related QoS criteria Network related QoS criteria 85% Mapping Network Performance Indicators/Parameters Target - range or limit CALL DROP RATE CALL SETUP SUCCESS RATE …… PARAMETER N < 2% < 90% …… <= x% Qos Criteria 15%

12 QoS Objectiv e NP Non-NP Intrusive Non- Intrusive Walk/Drive Test Around test OMC-R Counters using NMS ActivePassive Surveys, churn- rate, etc… Ex. DT Tools: Nemo, XCAL, TEMS … Ex.NMS: RPM System, Net Act, imanager M2000 … Subjective QoS Measurement

13 Relationship between NP,QoS and QoE NP QoS & QoS QoE NP is a subset of QoS which in turn, is a subset of the overall QoE scope NP parameters ultimately determine the QoS QoE can be predicted from a given set of QoS parameters and vice versa (ETSI TS 102 250-1) Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 13

14 QoS/QoE Assesement TWO DIFFERENT AND COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES TO MOBILE QoS (ETSI EG 202 057-3) Walk/Drive- round tests Measurements based on network element counters using NMS Monitoring :use of any available technical tool to assess permanently or for a given period of time a particular QoS parameter. (ETSI EG 202 009-2) Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 14 QoS Assesment TargetBest Suitable QoS Approach(es) One-time snap shotDT Acceptance ProcedureDT/ NMS Continuous MonitoringNMS Optimisation CycleDT + NMS

15 Difference Between NMS and DT Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 15 Network Management SystemDrive Test (DT) QoS experienced by users are taken into account as the calls are made with the real terminals by the real users. The QoS experienced is not taken into account by users depends to some extent on the design of their terminals which may differ somewhat from those used for formal tests. Representativity is assured as real traffic provides measurements from the entire network 24h/7 Drive test does not provide a representative of the performance of the whole network because of variation in user density and the complexity of providing service in different areas. (60% of calls made in a network are made indoor). Track performance down to the cell levelPerformance stops at Base station level Provides comparabilty of Congestion and network failures Misses out on planned Site outages and network failures. Follow up on Operators’ network expansion, type of equipment deployed and mobile evolution Impossible to track Network Expansion using DT NMS reports are actionable as it tracks the availability of network elements (Ex. BSC/RNC) DT reports are simply informative Indepedent of enviromental factorsDepedent on environmental factors such as weather conditions, seasons, location, timing etc Traffic carried over the network and associated grade of service (GoS) are obtained using this approach DT has no information on Traffic carried over a given network. KPI Build flexibility from numerous counters of NEsLimited KPI observation as it measures the network from an external point. Relatively no OPEX involvedHigh OPEX as well as time and Labor intensive Passive and non- intrusive, best approach in continious QoS monitoring. Active and intrusive, best approach for QoS (coverage) benchmarking purposes.

16 Draw backs of DT illustrated Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 16

17 Draw backs of DT illustrated Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 17

18 Draw backs of DT illustrated Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 18

19 Quest for a Monitoring Tool Monitor simultaneously 24H/7 the state of all network elements/acess technologies in an operator network passively without compromising their daily operations Put a check on service degradation and sometimes outages to the benefit of the government and the masses. Quest for a system that can monitor the performance of mobile operators independent of the vendor and technology Flexible Benchmark Audit; weekly, monthly or quarterly. Track the evolution and expansion of the mobile operators network. Reduce churn rate of end-users directly or indirectly A robust system that is easily upgraded to meet the rapid evolution of mobile technology. A platform that will facilitate actionable decision making to the benefits of all parties involved with little or no OPEX. Create a level playing field for all operators and protect the interest of all consumers not just those in the urban areas. Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 19

20 Network Management Systems EXAMPLES OF NMS solutions in the market today For REGULATORS (Vendor-Independent) Regulators (QoS)Performance Management (RPM)system- compatible with all major network vendors (Huawei, ZTE, Ericcsson, Alcatel and NSN) FOR OPERATORS (Vendor –dependent) imanager M2000 for Huawei vendor NetNumen U31 for ZTE vendor NEtAct for Nokia Siemens Vendor NetOp EMS for Ericsson and Omnivista 2500 for Alcatel vendor Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 20

21 RPM SYSTEM OVERVIEW QoS monitoring and reporting 24/7 all year round Automatic Reporting and 3D GIS display(compatible with google earth Unlimited number of Users/ Single License Multi vendor Multi access technology Friendly and intuitive web user interface Regulators’ (QoS) Performance Management System is the novel NMS solution that handles the task of interfacing all the operators’/service providers’ network monitoring systems, collect perfomance data records and create KPI reports that renders a given network performance against published benchmarks. No running costs and upgrades easily as mobile access technology evolves Main Features Built in compliance with ETSI TS 102 250-4&7/ ETSI EG 202 057-3 and ETSI EG 202 009-2 Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 21

22 Conclusion The assessment of the QoS/QoE is expected to be evaluated in checking criteria against reference values. These criteria are measured either objectively via technical means or subjectively via surveys amongst the users. Experts agree that a mix of objective(intrusive and non-intrusive) and subjective measurements remains the best means to get the whole QoS picture. Today, four out of five Regulators only employ Drive Test(intrusive) both for one-time snap shot, benchmarking and continuous QoS monitoring(reactive sense). Given DTs drawbacks and inaccuracy with respect to continuous QoS monitoring, its high-time Regulators, gaining from operators’ perspective, adopted the novel, practical and more efficient approach – the use of Network Management Systems (NMS) for proactive continuous QoS monitoring. Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 22

23 Recommendations Regulators, as recommended in ETSI EG 202 009-1 clause 7, in the quest for effective continuous QoS monitoring and assessment should perform the measurements themselves and make the results available publicly rather than entrust in mobile operators to provide the QoS information Thus Regulators should procure RPM system or any other NMS that facilitates the complex task of enforcing mobile operators to adhere to agreed KPIs, put a check on service degradations /outright outages and even penalities for repeated failure to achieve minimum QoS/ QoE targets. Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 23

24 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION For more information on RPM system or any other NMS Feel free to contact me or email cblanchard@planetworkint.com cblanchard@planetworkint.com Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 24


Download ppt "Kampala, Uganda, 25 June 2014 Monitoring QoS/QoE of mobile networks-novel approach Tahitii Obioha Network Planning and Optimisation Engineer Planet Network."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google