Advertisement

Quality of Experience in Convergent Communication Ecosystems

  • Peter ReichlEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Media Business and Innovation book series (MEDIA)

Abstract

While for several decades research in telecommunications has been strongly focusing on engineering aspects, more recently a clear trend towards more interdisciplinary approaches has evolved and is about to result in a significant paradigm change. More specifically, the holistic characterization of systems of private and business customers, which interact with each other using telecommunication services, together with the underlying technological environment (including e.g., networks as well as customer equipment), has led to establishing the notion of ‘Communication Ecosystems’. In this chapter, we focus on recent advances in Quality of Experience (QoE) as a key example for the corresponding interdisciplinary research field at the intersection of cutting-edge technology, microeconomics and user-centered approaches. We start by describing the paradigm change from QoS to QoE and its implications for convergent communication systems, and focus subsequently on the search for the underlying laws of QoE. Based on that, we also address the question of how to charge for QoE and discuss the corresponding fixpoint problem which results from the double role of charging as input and output factor for a subjective quality evaluation. Finally, we summarize the most important directions for future work in this exciting and highly topical area of research.

Keywords

Packet Loss Rate Mean Opinion Score Speech Quality User Trial Impairment Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is mainly based on the inaugural lecture of the RBUCE WEST International Research Chair NICE (Network-based Information and Communication Ecosystems) at Université Européenne de Bretagne, which has been given by the author on January 23, 2013, at Télécom Bretagne Rennes, France. RBUCE WEST is jointly financed by Institut Mines-Télécom Paris and the EU FP7 Marie Curie program. Additional support by the Telecommunications Research Center Vienna (FTW) in the framework of the EU FP7 project ETICS and the CELTIC project QuEEN as well as COST Action IC 1003 (QualiNet) is gratefully acknowledged. The author would like to thank his colleagues Sebastian Möller, Kalevi Kilkki, Markus Fiedler, Bruno Tuffin, Patrick Maillé, Gerardo Rubino, Martin Varela, Andreas Sackl, Patrick Zwickl, Sebastian Egger, Raimund Schatz and Alexander Raake for many valuable discussions.

References

  1. Camarillo, G., & García-Martín, M. (2006). The 3G IP multimedia subsystem (IMS): Merging the internet and the cellular worlds (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Copernicus, N. (1543). De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. Nuremberg: Johann Petreius.Google Scholar
  3. Egger, S., Reichl, P., Hossfeld, T., & Schatz, R. (2012, June). “Time is bandwidth”? narrowing the gap between subjective time perception and quality of experience. In Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’12), Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  4. Fiedler, M., Hossfeld, T., & Tran-Gia, P. (2010, June). A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service. In IEEE Network Special Issue on Improving QoE for Network Services (Vol. 24). NJ, USA: IEEE Press Piscataway.Google Scholar
  5. Fiedler, M., Kilkki, K., & Reichl, P. (Eds.). (2009). From quality of service to quality of experience. In Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 09192, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. Fiedler, M., Möller, S., & Reichl, P. (Eds.) (2012). Quality of experience: From user perception to instrumental metrics. In Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 12181. Doi:  10.4230/DagRep. 2.5.1
  7. Hande, P., Zhang, S., & Chiang, M. (2007). Distributed rate allocation for inelastic flows. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 15(6), 1240–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hands, D. (Ed.). (2002). M3I user experiment results. Deliverable 15/2, FP5 Project M3I, IST1999-11429.Google Scholar
  9. Hossfeld, T., Hock, D., Tran-Gia, P., Tutschku, K., & Fiedler, M. (2008, May). Testing the IQX hypothesis for exponential interdependency between QoS and QoE of voice codecs iLBC and G.711. In Proceeding of 18th ITC Specialist Seminar, Karlskrona, Sweden.Google Scholar
  10. Hossfeld, T., Schatz, R., Seufert, M., Hirth, M., Zinner, T., & Tran-Gia, P. (2011, December). Quantification of YouTube QoE via crowdsourcing. In Proceeding of IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Quality of Experience: Modeling, Evaluation, and Directions, Dana Point, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Hossfeld, T., Schatz, R., & Egger S. (2011, September). SOS: The MOS is not Enough! 3rd International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’11), Mechelen, Belgium.Google Scholar
  12. ITU-T Rec. E.800. (1994). Definitions of terms related to quality of service. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union.Google Scholar
  13. ITU-T Rec. P.10. (2008). Vocabulary for performance and quality of service, Amendment 2: New definitions for inclusion in Recommendation ITU-T P.10/G.100. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union.Google Scholar
  14. ITU-T Rec. P.800. (1996, August). Methods for subjective determination of transmission quality. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union.Google Scholar
  15. ITU-T Rec. P.862. (2001). Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ), an objective method for end-to-end speech quality assessment of narrow-band telephone networks and speech codecs. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union.Google Scholar
  16. ITU-T Rec. P.863. (2011). Perceptual objective listening quality assessment. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union.Google Scholar
  17. ITU-T Rec. X.200. (1994 E). ISO/IEC 7498–1 Information technology—Open systems interconnection—Basic reference model: The basic model. ITU-T Rec. X.200 (1994 E).Google Scholar
  18. Jain, R. (2006, October). Internet 3.0: Ten problems with current internet architecture and solutions for the next generation. In Proceeding of IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM’06), New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Kant, I. (1787). Kritik der Reinen Vernunft (2nd ed.). Königsberg: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.Google Scholar
  20. Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Kelly, F. P., Maulloo, A., & Tan, D. (1998). Rate control for communication networks: Shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49(3), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Khorsandroo, S., Md Noor, R., & Khorsandroo, S. (2013). A generic quantitative relationship to assess interdependency of QoE and QoS. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 7(2), 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kilkki, K. (2008, Spring). Quality of experience in communications ecosystems. Journal of Universal Computer Science, special issue on socio-economic aspects of next generation Internet.Google Scholar
  24. Kilkki, K. (2012). An introduction to communication ecosystems. CreateSpace: Helsinki. ISBN 978–1478253303.Google Scholar
  25. Kreps, D. (1990). A course in microeconomic theory. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  26. Le Callet, P., Möller, S., & Perkis, A. (Eds.). (2012, June). Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience. In European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003), Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  27. Le Sauze, N., Chiosi, A., Douville, R., Pouyllau, H., Lonsethagen, H., Fantini, P., Palas-ciano, C., Cimmino, A., Callejo Rodriguez, M. A., Dugeon, O., Kofman, D., Gadefait, X., Cuer, P., Ciulli, N., Carrozzo, G., Soppera, A., Briscoe, B., von Bornstädt, F., Andreou, M., Stamoulis, G., Courcoubetis, C., Reichl, P., Gojmerac, I., Rougier, J. L., Vaton, S., Barth, D., & Orda, A. (2010, June). ETICS—QoS-enabled interconnection for future internet services. In Proceeding of Future Network & Mobile Summit 2010, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  28. Reichl, P. (2007, September). From ‘Quality-of-Service’ and ‘Quality-of-Design’ to ‘Quality-of-Experience’: A holistic view on future interactive telecommunication services. Invited Paper, IEEE SoftCOM’07, Split, Croatia.Google Scholar
  29. Reichl, P. (2009, December). From QoS to QoE: Buzzword issue or anti-copernican revolution? Keynote abstract. In Proceedings EuroNF Workshop on Traffic Management and Traffic Engineering for the Future Internet (p. 23).Google Scholar
  30. Reichl, P. (2010). From charging for quality-of-service to charging for quality-of-experience. Annals of Telecommunications, 65(3–4), 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reichl, P., Bessler, S., Fabini, J., Pailer, R., Poropatich, A., Jordan, N., et al. (2006). Practical experiences with an IMS-aware location service enabler on top of an experimental open source IMS core implementation. Journal of Mobile Multimedia (JMM), 2(3), 189–224.Google Scholar
  32. Reichl, P., Egger, S., Schatz, R., & D’Alconzo, A. (2010, May). The logarithmic nature of QoE and the role of the Weber–Fechner law in QoE assessment. In Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’10), Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
  33. Reichl, P., Hausheer, D., & Stiller, B. (2003). The cumulus pricing model as an adaptive framework for feasible, efficient and user-friendly tariffing of internet services. Journal of Computer Networks, 43(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reichl, P., Maillé, P., Zwickl, P., & Sackl, A. (2013, August). A fixed-point model for QoE-based charging. In Proceeding of ACM SIGCOMM 2013 Workshop on Future Human-Centric Multimedia Networking (pp. 33–38), Hong Kong, China.Google Scholar
  35. Reichl, P., Tuffin, B., & Schatz, R. (2011). Logarithmic laws in service quality perception: Where microeconomics meets psychophysics and quality of experience. Telecommunication systems. Heidelberg: Springer (to appear 2014, electronically published 18 June 2011).Google Scholar
  36. Rubino, G., Tirilly, P., & Varela, M. (2006). Evaluating users’ satisfaction in packet networks using random neural networks. ICANN, 1, 303–312.Google Scholar
  37. Sackl, A., Egger, S., Zwickl, P., & Reichl, P. (2012, July). QoE alchemy: Turning quality into money. Experiences with a refined methodology for the evaluation of willingness-to-pay. 4th International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’12), Yarra Valley, Australia.Google Scholar
  38. Sackl, A., Zwickl, P., Egger, S., & Reichl, P. (2012). The role of cognitive dissonance for QoE evaluation of multimedia services. In Proceeding on Quality of Experience for Multimedia Communications Workshop (QoEMC), IEEE Globecom 2012, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Shenker, S. (1995). Fundamental design issues for the future internet. IEEE Journal of Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC), 13(7), 1176–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stiller, B., Reichl, P., & Leinen, S. (2001). Pricing and cost recovery for internet services: Practical review, classification and application of relevant models. Netnomics, 3(1), 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tuffin, B. (2003). Charging the internet without bandwidth reservation: An overview and bibliography of mathematical approaches. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 19, 775–786.Google Scholar
  43. Varela, M. (2005, November). Pseudo-subjective quality assessment of multimedia streams and its applications in control. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de Rennes 1.Google Scholar
  44. Watson, A., & Sasse, A. (1996). Evaluating audio and video quality in low-cost multimedia conferencing systems. Interacting with Computers, 8(3), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weber, E. H. (1834). De pulsu, resorptione, auditu et tactu. Annotationes anatomicae et physiologicae. Leipzig: Koehler.Google Scholar
  46. Zwickl, P., Sackl, A., & Reichl, P. (2013, December). Market entrance, user interaction and willingness-to-pay: Exploring fundamentals of QoE-based charging for VoD services. In Proceeding of IEEE GLOBECOM’13, Atlanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaWienAustria
  2. 2.Department RSMUniversité Européenne de Bretagne/Télécom Bretagne RennesCesson-SevignéFrance

Personalised recommendations