Poor, good enough or even better? Bridging the gap between acceptability and QoE of mobile broadband data services

IEEE International Conference on Communications

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Schatz, Raimund ^a   Egger, Sebastian ^a   Platzer, Alexander ^a  

^a TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH CENTER VIENNA FTW   (Austria)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Lab and Field Trials; Quality of Experience; Quality of Service; Web QoE

Indexed keywords

ACCEPTABILITY; APPLICATION SCENARIO; CONTEXT DEPENDENT; CRITICAL REVIEW; DATA SERVICES; END USERS; FIELD TRIAL; IN-SITU; MEAN OPINION SCORES; MOBILE BROADBAND; QUALITY LEVELS; QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE; QUALITY OF EXPERIENCES; SUBJECTIVE QUALITY; WEB BROWSING; WEB QOE;

BROADBAND NETWORKS; QUALITY CONTROL; RATING; USER INTERFACES; WEB BROWSERS;

QUALITY OF SERVICE;

EID: 80052155115     PISSN: 05361486     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/icc.2011.5963220     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Coda Research Consultancy, "Mobile broadband and portable computers: Revenue, user and traffic forecasts 2009-2017," July 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/report-laptops-netbooks- drive-exponential-mobile-broadband-growth/2009-07-19
2. Cisco, "Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast update," February 2010.
3. G. M. Rose, R. Evaristo, and D. Straub, "Culture and consumer responses to web download time: a four-continent study of mono and polychronism," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 50, pp. 31-44, February 2003.
4. Zona Research, "The economic impacts of unacceptable web-site download speeds," Zona Research, Tech. Rep., April 1999.
5. International Telecommunication Union, "Vocabulary and effects of transmission parameters on customer opinion of transmission quality, amendment 2," ITU-T Recommendation P.10/G.100, 2006.
6. -, "Methods for subjective determination of transmission quality," ITU-T Recommendation P.800, Aug. 1996.
7. -, "Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications," ITU-T Recommendation P.910, April 2008.
8. S. Jumisko-Pyykk, V. K. Malamal Vadakital, and M. M. Hannuksela, "Acceptance threshold: A bidimensional research method for user-oriented quality evaluation studies," International Journal of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting, 2008.
9. P. Reichl, "From charging for quality of service to charging for quality of experience," Annales des Télécommunications, vol. 65, no. 3-4, pp. 189-199, 2010.
10. K. Kilkki, "Quality of experience in communications ecosystem," Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 615-624, 2008, http://www.jucs.org/jucs 14 5/quality of experience in.
11. J. K. MacKie-Mason and H. R. Varian, "Pricing the internet," Public access to the Internet, pp. 269-314, 1995.
12. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view," MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, 2003.
13. R. T. Apteker, J. A. Fisher, V. S. Kisimov, and H. Neishlos, "Video acceptability and frame rate," IEEE Multimedia, vol. 2, pp. 32-40, 1995.
14. J. D. McCarthy, M. A. Sasse, and D. Miras, "Sharp or smooth?: comparing the effects of quantization vs. frame rate for streamed video," in CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2004, pp. 535-542.
15. H. Knoche, J. D. McCarthy, and M. A. Sasse, "Can small be beautiful?: assessing image resolution requirements for mobile tv," in MULTIMEDIA '05: Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2005, pp. 829-838.
16. H. Knoche and J. D. McCarthy, "Good news for mobile tv," in Proceedings of the 14th Wireless World Research Forum Meeting, San Diego, California, USA, July 2005.
17. T. C. M. de Koning, P. Veldhoven, H. Knoche, and R. E. Kooij, "Of mos and men: bridging the gap between objective and subjective quality measurements in mobile tv," in Multimedia on Mobile Devices 2007, R. Creutzburg, J. Takala, and J. Cai, Eds., vol. 6507. San Jose, CA, USA: SPIE, January 2007. [Online]. Available: http://link.aip.org/link/?PSI/6507/65070P/1
18. International Telecommunication Union, "Bs.1534 : Method for the subjective assessment of intermediate quality levels of coding systems," ITU-T Recommendation NS.1534, January 2003.
19. -, "The E-model, a computational model for use in transmission planning," ITU-T Recommendation G.107, April 2009.
20. European Telecommunications Standard Institute, "Transmission and multiplexing (tm); speech communication quality from mouth to ear for 3,1 khz handset telephony across networks," ETSI ETR 250, July 1996.
21. International Telecommunication Union, "Estimating end-to-end performance in ip networks for data applications," ITU-T Recommendation G.1030, November 2005.
22. E. Ibarrola, F. liberal, I. Taboada, and R. Ortega, "Web qoe evaluation in multi-agent networks: Validation of itu-t g.1030," in ICAS '09: Proceedings of the 2009 Fifth International Conference on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 289-294.
23. J. Shaikh, M. Fiedler, and D. Collange, "Quality of experience from user and network perspectives," Annals of Telecommunications, vol. 65, pp. 47-57, 2010, 10.1007/s12243-009-0142-x. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12243-009-0142-x
24. P. Reichl, S. Egger, R. Schatz, and A. D'Alconzo, "The logarithmic nature of qoe and the role of the weber-fechner law in qoe assessment," in Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Communications, may. 2010, pp. 1-5.