skip to main content
research-article

QoE-Aware OTT-ISP Collaboration in Service Management: Architecture and Approaches

Published:25 April 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

It is a matter of fact that quality of experience (QoE) has become one of the key factors determining whether a new multimedia service will be successfully accepted by the final users. Accordingly, several QoE models have been developed with the aim of capturing the perception of the user by considering as many influencing factors as possible. However, when it comes to adopting these models in the management of the services and networks, it frequently happens that no single provider has access to all of the tools to either measure all influencing factors parameters or control over the delivered quality. In particular, it often happens to the over-the-top (OTT) and Internet service providers (ISPs), which act with complementary roles in the service delivery over the Internet. On the basis of this consideration, in this article we first highlight the importance of a possible OTT-ISP collaboration for a joint service management in terms of technical and economic aspects. Then we propose a general reference architecture for a possible collaboration and information exchange among them. Finally, we define three different approaches, namely joint venture, customer lifetime value based, and QoE fairness based. The first aims to maximize the revenue by providing better QoE to customers paying more. The second aims to maximize the profit by providing better QoE to the most profitable customers (MPCs). The third aims to maximize QoE fairness among all customers. Finally, we conduct simulations to compare the three approaches in terms of QoE provided to the users, profit generated for the providers, and QoE fairness.

References

  1. Y. Bernet, P. Ford, R. Yavatkar, F. Baker, L. Zhang, M. Speer, R. Braden, B. Davie, J. Wroclawski, and E. Felstaine. 2000. A Framework for Integrated Services Operation over DiffServ Networks. Technical Report NWG RFC 2998. RFC Editor. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Envision. 2012. Co-optimisation of overlay applications and underlying networks. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from http://www.envisio-project.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. R. Alimi, R. Penno, Y. Yang, S. Kiesel, S. Previdi, W. Roome, S. Shalunov, and R. Woundy. 2014. Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol. Technical Report IETF RFC 7285. Internet Engineering Task Force.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Imad Abdeljaouad and Ahmed Karmouch. 2015. Monitoring IPTV quality of experience in overlay networks using utility functions. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 54, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Accenture. 2017. Customer Service, Not Price, Remains Top Cause of Customer Churn, Accenture Study Finds. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from https://newsroom.accenture.com/subjects/customer-relationship-management/customer-service-not-price-remains-top-cause-customer-churn-accenture-study-finds.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Arslan Ahmad, Alessandro Floris, and Luigi Atzori. 2016. QoE-centric service delivery: A collaborative approach among OTTs and ISPs. Computer Networks 110, 168--179. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Arslan Ahmad, Alessandro Floris, and Luigi Atzori. 2017. Towards QoE monitoring at user terminal: A monitoring approach based on quality degradation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB’17). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Sabina Baraković and Lea Skorin-Kapov. 2013. Survey and challenges of QoE management issues in wireless networks. Journal of Computer Networks and Communications 2013, Article 165146, 28 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. David Bernstein, Erik Ludvigson, Krishna Sankar, Steve Diamond, and Monique Morrow. 2009. Blueprint for the InterCloud—protocols and formats for cloud computing interoperability. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 328--336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cisco. 2017. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2016--2021 White Paper. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from from https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/mobile-white-paper-c11-520862.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Robert G. Cole and Joshua H. Rosenbluth. 2001. Voice over IP performance monitoring. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 31, 2, 9--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. FierceWireless. 2017. iPhone users cite video buffering as biggest annoyance. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/iphone-users-cite-video-buffering-as-biggest-annoyance.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO/IEC 23009-5. 2017. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH)--Part 5: Server and network assisted DASH (SAND), 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Nicolas Glady, Bart Baesens, and Christophe Croux. 2009. Modeling churn using customer lifetime value. European Journal of Operational Research 197, 1, 402--411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Gerardo Gómez, Javier Lorca, Raquel García, and Quiliano Pérez. 2013. Towards a QoE-driven resource control in LTE and LTE-A networks. Journal of Computer Networks and Communications 2013, 505910:1--505910:15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Janny C. Hoekstra and Eelko K. R. E. Huizingh. 1999. The lifetime value concept in customer-based marketing. Journal of Market-Focused Management 3, 3, 257--274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. T. Hoßfeld, P. E. Heegaard, L. Skorin-Kapov, and M. Varela. 2017. No silver bullet: QoE metrics, QoE fairness, and user diversity in the context of QoE management. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’17). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Tobias Hoßfeld, Christian Moldovan, and Christian Schwartz. 2015. To each according to his needs: Dimensioning video buffer for specific user profiles and behavior. In Proceedings of the IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1249--1254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Tobias Hoßfeld, Raimund Schatz, Ernst Biersack, and Louis Plissonneau. 2013. Internet video delivery in YouTube: From traffic measurements to quality of experience. In Data Traffic Monitoring and Analysis, E. Biersack, C. Callegari, and M. Matijasevic (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 264--301.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tobias Hoßfeld, Lea Skorin-Kapov, Yoram Haddad, Peter Pocta, Vasilios A. Siris, Andrej Zgank, and Hugh Melvin. 2015. Can context monitoring improve QoE? A case study of video flash crowds in the Internet of services. In Proceedings of the IFIP/IEEE Internet Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1274--1277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Tobias Hoßfeld, Lea Skorin-Kapov, Poul E. Heegaard, and Martin Varela. 2017. Definition of QoE fairness in shared systems. IEEE Communications Letters 21, 1, 184--187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. ITU. 2015. The E-Model: A Computational Model for Use in Transmission Planning. Recommendation ITU-T G.107. ITU.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Patrick Le Callet, Sebastian Möller, and Andrew Perkis. 2012. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience. Version 1.2. European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003), Lausanne, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Eirini Liotou, Dimitris Tsolkas, Nikos Passas, and Lazaros Merakos. 2015. Quality of experience management in mobile cellular networks: Key issues and design challenges. IEEE Communications Magazine 53, 7, 145--153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Nokia. 2017. Nokia White Paper, Quality of Experience (QoE) of mobile services: Can it be measured and improved? Retrieved March 11, 2018, from http://afutt.org/Qostic/qostic1/MOB-GD-MGQ-NOKIA-040129-Nokia-whitepaper_qoe_net-final.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Pablo Oliver-Balsalobre, Matías Toril, Salvador Luna-Ramírez, and José María Ruiz Avilés. 2016. Self-tuning of scheduling parameters for balancing the quality of experience among services in LTE. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 2016, 1, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Andrea Passarella. 2012. A survey on content-centric technologies for the current Internet: CDN and P2P solutions. Computer Communications 35, 1, 1--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ramneek, P. Hosein, W. Choi, and W. Seok. 2015. Disruptive network applications and their impact on network neutrality. In Proceedings of the 2015 17th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 663--668.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Peter Reichl, Sebastian Egger, Sebastian Möller, Kalevi Kilkki, Markus Fiedler, Tobias Hoßfeld, Christos Tsiaras, and Alemnew Asrese. 2015. Towards a comprehensive framework for QoE and user behavior modelling. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Susanna Schwarzmann, Thomas Zinner, and Ognjen Dobrijevic. 2016. Towards a framework for comparing application-network interaction mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 28th International Teletraffic Congress (ITC-28). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 13--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Janne Seppänen, Martín Varela, and Aggeliki Sgora. 2014. An autonomous QoE-driven network management framework. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 25, 3, 565--577. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Michael Seufert, Sebastian Egger, Martin Slanina, Thomas Zinner, Tobias Hoßfeld, and Phuoc Tran-Gia. 2015. A survey on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Communications Surveys 8 Tutorials 17, 1, 469--492.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Alexander Stanik and Odej Kao. 2016. A proposal for REST with XMPP as base protocol for InterCloud communication. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems, 8 Applications (IISA’16). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. StreamingMediaBlog.com. 2017. Chart Shows Which Content Owners Have Direct Interconnect Deals With ISPs. (2017). Available at http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/05/chart-shows-which-content-owners-have-direct-interconnect-deals-with-isps.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Lingfen Sun and Emmanuel Ifeachor. 2004. New models for perceived voice quality prediction and their applications in playout buffer optimization for VoIP networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications, Vol. 3. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1478--1483.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Maria Torres Vega, Decebal Constantin Mocanu, Jeroen Famaey, Stavros Stavrou, and Antonio Liotta. 2017. Deep learning for quality assessment in live video streaming. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 24, 6, 736--740.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Maria Torres Vega, Decebal Constantin Mocanu, and Antonio Liotta. 2017. Unsupervised deep learning for real-time assessment of video streaming services. Multimedia Tools and Applications 76, 21, 22303--22327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Maria Torres Vega, Decebal Constantin Mocanu, Stavros Stavrou, and Antonio Liotta. 2017. Predictive no-reference assessment of video quality. Signal Processing: Image Communication 52, 20--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Dimitris Tsolkas, Eirini Liotou, Nikos Passas, and Lazaros Merakos. 2017. A survey on parametric QoE estimation for popular services. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 77, 1, 1--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Martín Varela, Patrick Zwickl, Peter Reichl, Min Xie, and Henning Schulzrinne. 2015. From service level agreements (SLA) to experience level agreements (ELA): The challenges of selling QoE to the user. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1741--1746.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. QoE-Aware OTT-ISP Collaboration in Service Management: Architecture and Approaches

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!