Financial Chronicle 27th Feb 2012, FC KNOW
By Feb 27 2012
Despite 10-12 operators in each licence service area, a lot needs to be done to improve data communication quality
Complete network outages, frequent call drops, busy networks not able to allocate capacity, and poor call receptions have become daily woes for a typical mobile subscriber, although India boasts itself of more than 850 subscribers and the second largest mobile market in the world, with 10-12 operators in each licence service area. While this is the case of voice communications, much work is needed to define and improve quality of data communication when the country is on the verge of broadband revolution and uptake.
Although different approaches have been adopted in various jurisdictions, the regulatory goal according to International Telecommunications Union (ITU) should be to ensure: The delivery of acceptable service for the telecommunications user; and that consumers are aware of the variations in performance from various service providers thereby allowing them to make an educated choice regarding their preferred service provider.
However, ironically, the latest Trai report on Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators (January 2012) shows that the quality of service (QoS) performance of most of the wireless service providers meets the benchmark levels and have even improved in certain areas. The network performance data for Trai’s QoS reports are provided by the operators but audited by an independent agency.
The Trai initiated QoS regulation in 2000 and revisited the measurement and metrics in 2008. It was acknowledged in Trai’s notification in 2009 that operator provided network data alone is not sufficient to measure QoS, and it was mentioned to measure customer perception on network performance, reliability and availability. However, till date the implementation of the above is scarce.
The objective assessment of QoS by auditor(s) based on network data is available for different service areas. However, we could find only one public report of the assessment conducted by an auditor in Karnataka circle in September 2011 that includes both the audited network data as well as subscriber perception. Ironically, while the network data relating to accessibility and retainability of calls of all the operators were above benchmark levels of 95 per cent (not only in this report but in all service areas), the customer perception on network performance was on the average about 73 per cent, much below the threshold level of 95 per cent. Further assessments conducted by Trai in other circles conveniently omitted customer perception data on network performance.
During the Trai consultation process in 2008, it was also mentioned by some stakeholders to specify more stringent and comprehensive set of QoS parametres to check end-to-end quality of calls and “user perceived speech quality” using techniques such as Mean Opinion Score (MOS)/ Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality (PESQ). A live listener test performed by unbiased listeners in a controlled end-to-end network setting as per defined ITU recommendations to arrive at MOS/ PESQ score is an effective way to benchmark the speech quality across different networks.
Looking at the wide disparity between what we as subscribers experience and what is reported by the network operators or even by the auditors, Trai should actively consider collecting customer perception of network performance. In fact, it is now time for the regulator to define “Quality of experience (QoE)” as this is what matters to end subscribers. For transparency, Trai should also mandate the mobile operators to provide dropped calls details to individual subscribers and reasons for the same as part of monthly billing statement or through SMS when a call is dropped. Subscribers should not be charged for dropped calls due to the network faults. Further, in India the QoS of emergency calls are not measured and monitored. In the wake of disasters such as train accidents and natural calamities striking us every day in some part of the country, it is time to think about mandatory implementation of mobile emergency calls and monitoring the performance of the same.
While robust metrics such as the ones mentioned above do exist for the measurement of QoS and QoE, they are weaker in data networks. Though Trai’s quality of service of Broadband Service Regulations 2006 does indicate critical network parameters such as bandwidth utilisation during peak hours, packet loss, latency, downlink and uplink speeds and the methodology of the measurement for the same, some of the parameters such as latency are not reported in the Trai’s performance reports. Further, customer perception of broadband performance is also not measured. The benchmark data is also available only for wireline and not for wireless operators.
As diverse range of services such as internet telephony, email, and video streaming are capable of being provided over broadband networks, it is time to provide a comprehensive framework along the lines suggested by the ITU by specifying QoS/ QoE parametres for different category of services. For example, Finnish Regulatory Authority provided network speed measurement software to subscribers so that they can measure objectively the speed of the data link compared to what is contracted and charged. As unrestricted internet telephony is expected to be implemented soon, challenges abound for measuring the quality of internet telephony calls as well.
Finally, the bigger question is what if the operators are found not meeting the benchmark levels. As of now the Trai just publishes the QoS report and does not levy any financial penalty on the violators. However, in Trai’s recommendations in 2009, it is mentioned that Trai will consider imposing financial penalty on the errants, much similar to what has been implemented for unsolicited commercial communications.
It is time that DoT gives up some of its power as licensor and through amendment of Trai act, gives teeth to the regulator including levying penalties on the operators found violating QoS norms.
(V Sridhar is research fellow, Sasken Communication Technologies & G Krishna Kumar is VP-delivery, Symphony Teleca Corporation, Views are personal)
By Feb 27 2012
Despite 10-12 operators in each licence service area, a lot needs to be done to improve data communication quality
Complete network outages, frequent call drops, busy networks not able to allocate capacity, and poor call receptions have become daily woes for a typical mobile subscriber, although India boasts itself of more than 850 subscribers and the second largest mobile market in the world, with 10-12 operators in each licence service area. While this is the case of voice communications, much work is needed to define and improve quality of data communication when the country is on the verge of broadband revolution and uptake.
Although different approaches have been adopted in various jurisdictions, the regulatory goal according to International Telecommunications Union (ITU) should be to ensure: The delivery of acceptable service for the telecommunications user; and that consumers are aware of the variations in performance from various service providers thereby allowing them to make an educated choice regarding their preferred service provider.
However, ironically, the latest Trai report on Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators (January 2012) shows that the quality of service (QoS) performance of most of the wireless service providers meets the benchmark levels and have even improved in certain areas. The network performance data for Trai’s QoS reports are provided by the operators but audited by an independent agency.
The Trai initiated QoS regulation in 2000 and revisited the measurement and metrics in 2008. It was acknowledged in Trai’s notification in 2009 that operator provided network data alone is not sufficient to measure QoS, and it was mentioned to measure customer perception on network performance, reliability and availability. However, till date the implementation of the above is scarce.
The objective assessment of QoS by auditor(s) based on network data is available for different service areas. However, we could find only one public report of the assessment conducted by an auditor in Karnataka circle in September 2011 that includes both the audited network data as well as subscriber perception. Ironically, while the network data relating to accessibility and retainability of calls of all the operators were above benchmark levels of 95 per cent (not only in this report but in all service areas), the customer perception on network performance was on the average about 73 per cent, much below the threshold level of 95 per cent. Further assessments conducted by Trai in other circles conveniently omitted customer perception data on network performance.
During the Trai consultation process in 2008, it was also mentioned by some stakeholders to specify more stringent and comprehensive set of QoS parametres to check end-to-end quality of calls and “user perceived speech quality” using techniques such as Mean Opinion Score (MOS)/ Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality (PESQ). A live listener test performed by unbiased listeners in a controlled end-to-end network setting as per defined ITU recommendations to arrive at MOS/ PESQ score is an effective way to benchmark the speech quality across different networks.
Looking at the wide disparity between what we as subscribers experience and what is reported by the network operators or even by the auditors, Trai should actively consider collecting customer perception of network performance. In fact, it is now time for the regulator to define “Quality of experience (QoE)” as this is what matters to end subscribers. For transparency, Trai should also mandate the mobile operators to provide dropped calls details to individual subscribers and reasons for the same as part of monthly billing statement or through SMS when a call is dropped. Subscribers should not be charged for dropped calls due to the network faults. Further, in India the QoS of emergency calls are not measured and monitored. In the wake of disasters such as train accidents and natural calamities striking us every day in some part of the country, it is time to think about mandatory implementation of mobile emergency calls and monitoring the performance of the same.
While robust metrics such as the ones mentioned above do exist for the measurement of QoS and QoE, they are weaker in data networks. Though Trai’s quality of service of Broadband Service Regulations 2006 does indicate critical network parameters such as bandwidth utilisation during peak hours, packet loss, latency, downlink and uplink speeds and the methodology of the measurement for the same, some of the parameters such as latency are not reported in the Trai’s performance reports. Further, customer perception of broadband performance is also not measured. The benchmark data is also available only for wireline and not for wireless operators.
As diverse range of services such as internet telephony, email, and video streaming are capable of being provided over broadband networks, it is time to provide a comprehensive framework along the lines suggested by the ITU by specifying QoS/ QoE parametres for different category of services. For example, Finnish Regulatory Authority provided network speed measurement software to subscribers so that they can measure objectively the speed of the data link compared to what is contracted and charged. As unrestricted internet telephony is expected to be implemented soon, challenges abound for measuring the quality of internet telephony calls as well.
Finally, the bigger question is what if the operators are found not meeting the benchmark levels. As of now the Trai just publishes the QoS report and does not levy any financial penalty on the violators. However, in Trai’s recommendations in 2009, it is mentioned that Trai will consider imposing financial penalty on the errants, much similar to what has been implemented for unsolicited commercial communications.
It is time that DoT gives up some of its power as licensor and through amendment of Trai act, gives teeth to the regulator including levying penalties on the operators found violating QoS norms.
(V Sridhar is research fellow, Sasken Communication Technologies & G Krishna Kumar is VP-delivery, Symphony Teleca Corporation, Views are personal)
