ITU Centres of Excellence for Europe

Mobile Broadband: LTE/LTE-Advanced,

WiMAX and WLAN
Module 4:
Mobile broadband services: technology, regulation and
business aspects

MODULE 4:
Mobile broadband services: technology, regulation and
business aspects
Contents
Mobile broadband services: technology, regulation and business aspects...........1
4 Introduction ........................................................................................................3
4.1 IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) in mobile broadband networks .....................3
4.2 VoIP over LTE/LTE-Advanced and mobile WiMAX.......................................12
4.3 Mobile IPTV, multimedia streaming ..............................................................16
4.4 Mobile data services .....................................................................................22
4.5 Mobile social networking ...............................................................................24
4.6 Location based services ...............................................................................32
4.7 Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of Experience (QoE)...........................37
4.8 Future network sharing for mobile operators ................................................39
4.9 Business and regulatory aspects of future mobile broadband ......................47
4.10 Reference list ..............................................................................................50

4 Introduction
The proliferation of mobile broadband technologies resulted in irreversible impact
on our lives through a plethora of communications services which number
increases daily. For example, we can not go more than a couple of hours without
checking our e-mail. When we have a question or need some information, we
open a web and start browsing. When abroad, we use multimedia-rich orientation
and location maps (e.g. Googles Street View), as well as free VoIP calls to hear
from home. YouTube and Facebook provide means of unprecedented
information exchange not just in form of text, but also in form of images and HD
videos. We are witnessing social and cultural events which spread worldwide in
just a matter of days or months (last example is the K-pop single "Gangnam
Style": as of December 4, 2012, the music video has been viewed over 881
million times on YouTube becoming the most watched video ever).
Module 4 targets mobile broadband services regarding their technology enablers,
regulation constraints and business opportunities. We will start with the IP
multimedia subsystem, as IP proved to be the common technological umbrella
and compatibility precondition of modern communications. Then the module
analyzes the latest trends in VoIP, IPTV and data services delivered by mobile
systems, as well as social networking and location-based services. At the end,
Module 4 tackles the necessary Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of
Experience (QoE) offered by mobile broadband services and the mechanisms for
optimal operation of mobile service providers regarding its business success, i.e.
future network sharing.

4.1 IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) in mobile broadband networks

This section evaluates the methods mobile operators use for voice to compete
with alternative providers. The result is clear IMS best enables operators to
create voice services that include partnering with application and content
providers, realize the benefits of mobile broadband all-IP network, and preserve
global roaming and interoperability that we have achieved in todays 2G/3G
networks.
LTE will solve todays pressing needs for increased mobile data bandwidth. The
popularity of devices such as the iPhone, Android and BlackBerry, and services
such as video and social networking are rapidly outpacing 3Gs ability to
effectively deliver services, causing some operators to reconsider pricing plans
for mobile data. Instead of reducing service usage, most operators prefer to
increase subscribers usage of mobile data by deploying LTE.
LTE will provide an experience that was previously available only in fixed
broadband, owing to LTEs high bandwidth and Quality of Service (QoS) which
surpasses that available in 3G. Unlike fixed broadband, it will be an untethered
experience that people can take with them anywhere, and it will be personal

instead of being shared with other household members. Clearly, the improved
data service is extremely beneficial to consumers and enterprise users.
LTE is designed to be a flat, all-IP network, from the handset, through the radio
access, across the packet core and into the services layer. The all-IP network
provides operators with economic benefits from both the simplified networks
operations (lower costs) and the new services created with IPs inherent flexibility
and utility (improved revenues). In such an all-IP network, voice is provided as
Voice over IP (VoIP). However, some operators and vendors are considering
interim methods so they can focus on LTEs initial service as a data-only overlay.
There are several methods for LTE to deliver voice and short message service
(SMS), such as the two leading methods, IMS VoIP and Circuit Switched
Fallback (CSFB), as well as other custom, non-standard methods characterized
by a 2G/3G circuit MSC linked to VoIP over the LTE packet access. Except for
IMS VoIP, all methods rely heavily on reusing the existing 2G/3G MSC. Reusing
the existing 2G/3G MSC provides benefits such as complete feature
transparency plus leveraging the MSCs already established integration into the
Operational Support Systems and Business Support Systems (OSS/BSS).
However, it limits the introduction of new IP services (such as video telephony)
and prevents operational savings based on an all-IP LTE network. Reusing the
2G/3G network for CSFB causes the LTE data session, during voice calls, to fall
back to 3Gs lower data rates, or is even suspended in 2G due to a lack of
simultaneous voice and data capability. The remaining methods either limit the
ability to retain LTE service while roaming or, due to a smaller ecosystem, reduce
the selection and variety of LTE handsets available to support that custom
method.
For most people, the mobile phone is used for talking and texting with their
friends, families and colleagues. People are eager to connect with each other
and are willing to pay for it. Figure 1 shows that voice currently provides the
majority of operators revenues. Although voice revenues as a portion of total
revenues are steadily declining, voice remains the primary revenue contributor
for the next several years. Add into this that approximately half of data revenues
come from texting (SMS) and it is clear that the contributions of voice and texting
are fundamental to operators continued commercial success.
Does this mean the future remains the same as the past, that voice and texting
are the predominant sources of mobile operators revenues? No, because data
services are increasingly popular. The number of data subscribers and their data
usage continues to grow rapidly. This behavior is fueled by the proliferation of 3G
data networks, the widespread availability of multimedia and smartphones, the
availability of content and social networking sites using mobile devices, and
affordable mobile data services. However, voice and SMS are fundamental
services in the operators portfolio because of their significant revenues plus
voices role as the base application on which to build further services, such as
GSMA RCS, high-definition voice and blending with social networking sites. The
realization of enhanced voice relies upon VoIP, not circuit switched voice. It is
with IMS and VoIP that the operators can compete and partner with the ACPs.

Figure 1 Voice revenues

Data services rapid growth places stress on 3G networks, thereby driving the
emergence of LTE as the means to deliver greater quantities of mobile data
affordably. LTE enhances the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
(UMTS) architecture, providing both improved bandwidth and an improved
Quality of Service (QoS) for these data-intensive services. LTE is based on an
Evolved UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network (eUTRAN) and an Evolved
Packet Core (EPC), which incorporate new modulation techniques and a flat, allIP architecture for the efficient delivery of mobile data services. The LTE network
is shown in Figure 2.
In contrast to 3G networks usage of circuit-switched voice and SMS, plus
packet-switched data, an LTE network is all-IP. All traffic in an LTE system is
carried as IP, providing seamless, high-speed connections between a handset or
user equipment (UE), and various packet data networks, such as the Internet,
IMS, and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). The various IP bearers in the LTE
system are assigned specific QoS Class Identifiers (QCIs) that correspond to
specific treatment levels for connection types, priority, delay budgets and packet
error loss rates. A single handset or UE may have multiple IP bearers serving it,
where individual bearers serve conversational voice, gaming sessions, streaming
video, e-mail or messaging, for example.

Figure 2 LTE network architecture including IMS

The primary methods for LTE voice are recognized as 3GPP IMS and 3GPP
Circuit Switched Fallback (CSFB). Other methods that are non-standard and
sometimes focused on a particular operators business and technical challenges
are characterized by reusing a 2G/3G circuit core served by LTE packet access.
An operators preferred method will be determined by network capabilities and
competitive challenges. In this section, we briefly explore these various methods.
Table 1 presents how these methods perform in terms of delivering the
subscribers expectations for mobile voice.
Table 1 Comparing the methods and expectations

IMS
IMS provides VoIP and SMS service in LTE using a fully packet switched
network, and is a 3GPP standard for LTE voice. Unique among the methods, it is
the only method that is all-IP. It is the ultimate destination for LTE voice for nearly
all operators, as reported by several analyst firms, such as Current Analysis,
Stratecast, Yankee Group and Infonetics, and embraced by the One Voice
initiatives operators: AT&T, Orange, Telefnica, TeliaSonera, Verizon and
Vodafone. Furthermore, the One Voice initiative transferred to the GSMA in
January 2010, showing the global breadth of support for IMS VoIP in LTE.
Notably, non-voice IMS services such as GSMA RCS (Rich Communication
Suite) are available in all three methods. Regardless of how voice service is
provided, the RCS services such as presence, content sharing and unified
network address book are available for deployment by the operator with all three
methods. It is with IMS VoIP that the subscribers RCS experience is enhanced
in LTE. Unlike CSFB, with IMS VoIP the subscriber retains LTEs higher
bandwidth during RCS sessions involving voice, such as video sharing, instead
of falling back to 3G data rates. A wider selection of handsets plus global
roaming is assured with IMS VoIP, unlike VoLGA (Voice over LTE Generic
Access). Recognizing that GSMA RCS services are becoming table stakes and
are likely to be deployed anyway, the same IMS used for GSMA RCS services
can also be used for IMS VoIP services in LTE.
The primary advantages of IMS voice for LTE are that it
o Preserves LTEs bandwidth during voice calls while minimizing call setup
delay
o Assures global interoperability and roaming
o Provides the largest possible ecosystem which affects such matters as
handset supply and multivendor interworking

o Provides an all-IP network for operational savings and HD voice

o Enables full blending of voice with advanced services beyond GSMA RCS
Because voice and other communications services are under IMS control,
operators can construct competitive services, including partnering with ACPs for
services such as blending voice with social networking sites.
Figure 3 depicts an IMS VoIP deployment for LTE.

Figure 3 IMS deployment for LTE

This implementation is the only all-IP method. It enables the full spectrum of IMS
services, including GSMA RCS, blending voice with other services including
social networking, rich multimedia communications such as video telephony and
wideband audio (HD voice). Because the LTE device remains in LTE coverage,
the LTEs high bandwidth and QoS are retained, even during voice calls (unlike
CSFB).

As for the network deployment, all three solutions have some effects that are
similar. All require a voice client on the LTE device. All affect the EPCs Mobility
Management Entity (MME). Of course the significant difference with IMS is that
the IMS infrastructure must be deployed and integrated into the operators
network and operations. If the operator already has an IMS (such as for fixed
VoIP, Class 5 or GSMA RCS) this is readily extended to LTE. If not, the operator
must undertake the planning and business justification needed to support the
deployment, justified by the additional revenues from new services and offset by
the operational expense savings of a flat, all-IP network.
As for roaming and handoff between LTE and legacy mobiles 2G/3G circuit
switched voice, Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC) is needed if the
operator does not have complete LTE coverage or is not able to plug the gaps in
coverage with adequate 3G packet switched (3G PS) coverage, or when roaming
globally. The eUTRAN must include the enhancements to serve VoIP, such as
robust header compression and semi-persistent scheduling.
CSFB
Circuit Switched Fallback (CSFB) provides voice service for LTE by reusing the
existing 2G/3G network and is a 3GPP standard for providing voice for LTE (see
Figure 4). It is an interim method preferred by most operators who do not yet
have an IMS infrastructure for their initial LTE launch. The 2G/3G network is
reused so that the initial LTE deployment focuses solely on providing an
improved mobile data service, such as LTE as a data-overlay. The mobile
devices are normally served by LTE for the data services. During voice calls, the
mobile device reverts or falls back to 2G/3G service, suspending LTE data
service; and due to the limitation of only one active radio at a time in the handset,
falls back to either 3G data rates or, in the case of of fallback to 2G, suspends
the data service altogether due to 2Gs lack of simultaneous voice and data.
Hence voice service is readily provided for LTE, though with service limitations;
CSFB provides complete and transparent service to current 2G/3G services,
though without supporting much further IP communication services beyond
GSMA RCS.
The primary advantages of CSFB voice for LTE are that it is readily deployable
for those operators who have not already deployed IMS, and that it provides
complete feature transparency to current 2G/3G services, including global
roaming and interoperability.
By relying on the existing 2G/3G circuit core, the CSFB method assures the
ready availability of legacy mobile voice services. If IMS is deployed for nonvoice services, services such as GSMA RCS will be available also. However, this
method suffers from two notable service drawbacks: during a voice call, the
mobile devices data service is de-rated from LTE back to 2G/3G data rates and
QoS because there are two radios in the device, but only one (LTE or 2G/3G)
may be active. The second drawback is the increased call setup time that is
required for the device to switch from LTE to 2G/3G service, which ranges from
approximately 1.5 seconds for 3G to 2.5 seconds for 2G, with perhaps a further

3-second delay for some calls if the LTE and 2G/3G coverage areas are not
precisely aligned.
As for the network deployment, CSFB does avoid IMS VoIPs deployment and
integration. However, CSFB also requires clients on the devices and upgrades to
the mobility management entity (MME), plus the eUTRAN (though not as
extensive because it need not serve VoIPs QoS requirements). A key
consideration is that all Mobile Switching Centers (MSCs) in the serving area
must be upgraded with a software release in order to accommodate interworking
of the CSFB calls between LTE and 2G/3G. Those operators who deploy and
integrate IMS for GSMA RCS service are well positioned to extend that same
IMS to provide VoIP in LTE, allowing them to bypass CSFB.

Figure 4 CSFB voice

Custom methods (circuit core, LTE packet access)
These methods provide voice service in LTE by reusing the existing circuit
2G/3G MSC, with voice provided as VoIP over the LTE radio link and packet
core; however, it is interworked to the circuit MSC either using an interworking
function or by adding a VoIP telephony server to the MSC. These methods are
not 3GPP standards. One such example is VoLGA (Voice over LTE Generic
Access), whose specification is provided by the VoLGA Forum, and is an interim
method selected by very few operators because of the needs of their networks
and business environments. It is particularly useful to operators who have a

predominantly 2G network, because it enables simultaneous voice and data

services they cannot offer without LTE.
Similar to CSFB, these custom methods, illustrated in Figure 5, reuse the existing
2G/3G network, but the difference is that voice is carried as VoIP over the radio
links; and so the LTE device can use only one radio for both voice and data
services, remaining entirely on LTE radio access instead of falling back to 2G/3G
radios. This means LTEs high data rates are always available, even during voice
calls. Hence, these methods provide voice service for LTE, but with limitations on
global roaming and interoperability, and a limited selection of handsets because
of the lack of a significant subscriber base when compared to IMS VoIP and
CSFB.
Although VoIP is used over the radio link, voice is converted to circuit in the
middle. Hence the benefits that subscribers of IMS VoIP and ACP-based voice
obtain with all-IP are not available. For example, wideband audio and services
such as video telephony that rely on an end-to-end IP path will not work.

Figure 5 - Custom methods: Circuit core, packet access (VoLGA used as an

example)
As for the network deployment, these custom methods defer IMS deployment
and integration, but like CSFB, require the deployment of new network elements
or significant upgrades to existing network elements that are done only to provide

legacy voice service. Similar to IMS VoIP and CSFB, the custom methods also
require a voice client for the device, but are further challenged by the relatively
small subscriber base that these methods will attract, which limits the ability of
handset manufacturers to provide a wide selection of handsets. Also similar with
the other two solutions, they may require additional capabilities in the MME and
eUTRAN. Similar to IMS VoIP, the eUTRAN must support VoIP. Those operators
who deploy and integrate IMS for GSMA RCS service are well positioned to
extend that same IMS to provide VoIP in LTE, allowing them to bypass these
methods.
Summarizing the three methods and recommendations
IMS provides the superior method for LTE voice and SMS because of what it
enables:
o The widest ecosystem, based on One Voice, assuring the subscribers
global roaming and interoperability and the widest selection of LTE
devices
o Competitive services, such as full blending of voice with other services
and wideband audio
o Partnering with the ACPs for the mid- and long-tail of applications
o All-IP network operational savings
Individual operators network environments and competitive business situations
may cause them to consider other methods. Table 2 summarizes the pros and
cons of the methods.
Table 2 - Comparison of impacts on the network

4.2 VoIP over LTE/LTE-Advanced and mobile WiMAX

VoIP over LTE/LTE-Advanced
The mobile communication standard Long-Term Evolution (LTE) is optimized for
data transfer and designed as a packet switched all-IP system only; it does not
include any circuit switched domain currently used for regular voice and SMS
services. Demand for mobile broadband services is proven in the increase of
data traffic. Recently, operators have been launching high-speed data networks
with LTE technology. However, voice and SMS business still generates around
70% of total operator revenues globally and it has become clear that voice
functionality needs to be provided on LTE networks.
With voice over LTE (GSMA VoLTE IR.92 specification, based on global 3GPP
standards) as a basis, consumers will be able to use telecom grade voice, video
calling and other new richer communication services on LTE smartphones.
In order for voice to run over an LTE network, an IMS (IP Multimedia System)
core network needs to provide the telephony service over IP. MMTel (Multi Media
Telephony, deployed on the IMS core) is the solution that provides the telephony
service (and presence, video calling, chat, etc.) in both LTE and fixed networks.
The LTE radio access network and the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) also need to
support VoLTE, which can be achieved by software upgrades.
Operators can use the same core network infrastructure (IMS) for VoLTE as for
evolved enterprise and consumer services (mobile and fixed convergence over
any access).
Consumers will be able to use operator-provided HD voice, video calling and
other communication services (chat, presence, and more) on LTE smartphones
and other devices.
These services use a regular mobile phone number (MSISDN, Mobile Subscriber
Integrated Services Digital Network-Number), and VoLTE brings the operator
telephony values into an all-IP mobile broadband network: global interoperability,
Quality of Service, roaming and seamless mobility, between any mobile devices,
over any access. With VoLTE, both voice and LTE data services can be used
simultaneously on LTE smartphones.
Figure 6 presents basic network overview of VoLTE solution (IMS, EPC, LTE) in
initial network deployment, including legacy network support when the user is
outside of LTE coverage.
A number of telecom industry leaders jointly developed a technical profile (the
GSMA VoLTE IR.92 specification) during 2009, using the existing 3GPPstandards, for providing voice and SMS over an all-IP LTE network. In February
2010, GSMA adopted this initiative and is now driving it further within the telecom
industry. In January 2012, GSMA published another new specification, profiling
video calling over LTE (GSMA IR.94).

Figure 6 - Basic network overview of VoLTE solution

By definition, the VoLTE profile specifies IMS-based voice services over LTE.
However the architecture used for VoLTE can be used to deliver high-quality
communication services over any packet switched access capable of securing
the necessary quality of service (QoS). VoLTE specifications are modular and
the upper layers of IMS control and applications are fully reusable for other
packet-switched access types and the same service definition can be used. The
NNI (network to network interface) for a VoLTE and a voice over HSPA service
will be the same.
Recent profiling for using the same services and service control for HSPA has
been done in GSMA (IR.58), and the architecture is also applicable for packet
accesses like EVDO, EDGE, WiFi, xDSL, cable etc. In addition, handover
mechanisms for service continuity to circuit switched access are specified with
SRVCC (handover of ongoing voice call from LTE to GSM/WCDMA/CDMA) and
ICS (IMS centralized services).
VoIP over mobile WiMAX
IMS is an open standardized multi-media architecture for mobile and fixed IP
services originally defined by 3GPP. This subsection explains on how VoIP
service is supported by IMS Release 7 over a WiMAX network. Figure 7 shows
non-roaming reference architecture of WiMAX network with IMS and PCC.

Figure 7 - IMS-based WiMAX VoIP Service Network Reference Model

The Proxy-CSCF (P-CSCF) is the first entry point within an IMS subsystem. It
forwards the VoIP SIP request/response messages including registration
messages and call set up/release messages to an I-CSCF or S-CSCF or forward
them on towards the destination network. It is responsible to detect and handle
an emergency session establishment request. The P-CSCF is responsible to
generate the CDR, and maintain a security association between itself and the
MS.
The Interrogating-CSCF (I-CSCF) is the first entry point within an operator's
network for all connections destined to a user of that network operator. During
IMS registration, it assigns an S-CSCF for a MS and forwards the SIP message
to the S-CSCF. It performs the HSS location Query.
The Serving-CSCF (S-CSCF) performs the session control services for the MS. It
controls and maintains a VoIP session state as needed by the network operator
for support of the service. When a caller initiates a call, the MS sends a SIP call
request message to the P-CSCF. The S-CSCF checks and ensures that the
caller is subscribed to the IMS service. If the caller does have a subscription, and
if the caller is at a different network, the S-CSCF is responsible to find the entry
point of the destination network and forward the message to that entry point. It is
responsible to forward the SIP request or response to a BGCF for call routing to
the PSTN or CS Domain.
The S-CSCF checks and ensures that the caller is subscribed to the IMS service.
If the caller does have a subscription, it forwards the message to the P-CSCF in
the callers network. It Forwards the SIP message to a BGCF for call routing to
the PSTN or to the CS domain.
The Emergency-CSCF (E-CSCF) is responsible for routing emergency call
requests to the nearest PSAP based on the callers location information.
The PCRF encompasses policy control decision and flow based charging control
functionalities. The PCRF performs session binding (i.e., the association of the
VoIP session information and applicable PCC rules to an IP-CAN session) and
PCC rule authorization.
The PDF hides the distributed nature and mobility of WiMAX enforcement points
from the PCRF. The PDF is connected to the Anchor SFA in the ASN via PCC-

R3-P interface and supports SFA relocation by decoupling PCC-R3-P sessions

from Gx/Ty. The PDF is the distribution point for the PCC rules between the ASN
and the CSN; it proxies the Gx (Ty) messages from the PCRF over the PCC-R3P interface between the PCRF and the A-PCEF.
After device and user authentication, the MS enters the WiMAX network. The MS
performs P-CSCF discovery procedure and obtain P-CSCF address, then the MS
performs IMS registration if it is not registered (Figure 8). The MS makes a VoIP
call by sending a SIP signaling message which includes the media information
and QoS information. When the P-CSCF received the message, it checks if the
call is an emergency call, if it is, then it will forward the message to the
Emergency-CSCF (details in next section). If the call is not an emergency call, it
forwards the message to the MSs S-CSCF. The S-CSCF finds the callers
network entry point and forwards the message to that entry point. The P-CSCF
also passes the media QoS information to the PCRF to trigger IP-CAN session
modification at the caller side. The PCRF is responsible to generate the rules and
charging policy and delivers to the GW so that GW can modify or build a bearer
path for the VoIP call. The callers network entry point, I-CSCF, receives the SIP
message from the callers S-CSCF, the I-CSCF forward the message to the
callers S-CSCF in its network. The S-CSCF checks and ensures that the caller
subscribed to the IMS service, and forwards the message to the P-CSCF. The PCSCF in the callers network passes the media QoS information to the callers
PCRF to trigger IP-CAN session modification, the PCRF is responsible to
generate the rules and charging policy and deliver to the callers access network
GW so that the GW can modify or build a bearer path from the caller side to
support the VoIP call.

Figure 8 - IMS Integration with Policy and Charging Control (PCC) framework
Network Reference Model Depicting a mobile to mobile call

4.3 Mobile IPTV, multimedia streaming

Streaming digital video over the IP core and access platforms, with various
networking mechanisms, has come to be called mobile IPTV. This streaming
technology considers the possible service transfer from wire to wireless/from
wireless to wire that is in place to ensure quality of service/quality of experience
(QoS/QoE). The technology for mobile IPTV service can be deployed to meet
several advanced challenges such as mobility, adaptability, ubiquitousness, and
so on.
Mobility is the most critical factor in dynamically changing access points without
an obstacle in order to adapt to the next generation network (NGN) environment.
Also, different applications and services should be available with high quality in
the fixed/mobile convergence environment and on the devices.
Mobile IPTV services support differentiated QoS classes. The QoS class
between a mobile node (MN) and a service provider can be initialized at
subscription time. The QoS class is dynamically changed by on-demand
requests. As shown in Figure 9, when the MN chooses to connect one of the
networks or moves to another network, the MN requests the mobile or fixed
network information (e.g., bandwidth availability, time delay, and packet-loss ratio
of wired or wireless channel) to select one of the detected networks (e.g.,
wireless local area network, wireless broadband, code division multiple access).

Figure 9 - Handover scenario of a mobile node using Mobile IPTV services

Upon receiving a solicitation from the MN, an information server provides the
mobile or fixed network information related to the decision of the handover or
access. After it is connected, the MN tracks the temporal properties (e.g., time
delay, packet-loss ratio, etc.) of the traffic stream against the agreed QoS
classes. For example, when the MN detects that the QoS class has gone down, it
can handover the service to a new network instantly.
It is expected that the MN can define the access and handover policies to use its
services. After detecting the presence of a mobile network, the MN could choose
one of the networks to obtain service, which is based on the QoS class required
for a particular mobile IPTV service.
Mobile communications over a wide area have become more and more popular
because of the emerging wireless IP networks and services. However,
multimedia transmission and streaming may suffer from an unreliable Internet
connection and heterogeneous bandwidth to the different receivers. The
multimedia streaming service, which is aware of the network resource, is still a
critical topic for user-perceived QoEguaranteed service. For example, if a user
wishes to watch a fast moving video with content such as sports or dance, a
much higher bit rate is required than for a user watching a slow-moving video.
The bandwidth allocation in the distribution network will be very different for these
two users to ensure that both users receive the same QoE. The bit rate required
for the delivery of content at a fixed quality varies. Therefore, the priority of an
individual video stream must be allowed to vary correspondingly both over time
and from one stream to another.
Also, the personal mobile IPTV broadcasting service considers that the QoEguaranteed video contents are transferred seamlessly between heterogeneous
devices based on each user profile. The user currently has various handheld
devices. It is always possible to buy an additional new device and use more than
one at the same time. In this case, to maintain a high QoE-guaranteed video
service for the specific devices that a user owns, all of the terminal capability
information is associated with each user subscription profile on the home
subscription server (HSS) system. The HSS function is defined as one of the
subdivided functions of an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) service network that is
contained in the initial filter criteria.
Access to the supporting terminal capability and user profile information must be
coordinated so that the context of the desired service can be received from the
originating device to the target client device. This service involves seamlessly
transferring QoE-guaranteed video and displaying it between different devices
based on user profiles. To display the proper scene, the HSS, application server
(AS), and softswitch (SSW) systems are composed to provide video streams
seamlessly for the heterogeneous devices environment. These systems consider
both the terminal capability and the user profile for personal mobile IPTV
broadcasting service as shown in Fig. 10. The HSS system controls and matches
all of the profile information in terms of service providers, users, and devices. A
call session control function (CSCF) can either play the role of a proxy (P)-,
interrogating (I)-, or serving (S)-CSCF for seamless session controls.

Figure 10 - Configuration of personal mobile IPTV broadcasting service

considering terminal capability and user profile
The personal mobile IPTV broadcasting service is more suited for transferring
real-time sessions. Basically, it supports the capture of the session control
information from the originating terminal device and transferring it to the target
terminal device. This is done by a session control function that enables a user to
have heterogeneous mobile devices. For the scenarios to provide a personal
mobile IPTV broadcasting service, the provider would first find an available
network resource for streaming (e.g., bandwidth, multicast address). Then, it
would give this information to a content providing end-user that is controlled by
the HSS. This example is shown in Fig. 10 as illustrated at a football stadium.
Second, the content providing end-user sends an extracting video stream by first
considering the liquid crystal display (LCD) panel sizes of heterogeneous
devices. It also considers an actual broadcasting video stream with multicast or
multiple unicasts by using the information in the AS. Third, the receiving client in
the mobile environment may be able to select a specific content. This will be
based on user profile and terminal capability with logical source information
provided by content search results. In this process, service control functions may
participate in session routing information gathered by the SSW. This message
contains actual content address and session information for receiving it. Fourth,

the receiving client devices in the mobile environment can request a content
delivery function to join the session. The receiving client devices obtain the
content from the content delivery function that is designed and located in the AS.
Together, the providing functions in the HSS, SSW, and AS control all of the
service providers, end-users, and terminal capability.
The IPTV contents provider provides a video stream on several heterogeneous
devices, for example, a cellular phone, PDA, computer, or HDTV (IPTV), and so
on. These devices have various LCD panel sizes and different resolutions from
small to large, as these are heterogeneous networks (e.g., WLAN, WiBro,
CDMA). The viewer can feel very uncomfortable if the multimedia content
transfers from a widescreensized LCD panel to a small-sized LCD panel without
considering the resolution and aspect ratios. The user may not recognize the
scene that appears on the device in the mobile IPTV service environment.
Quality degradation due to down-sampling, up-sampling, en(de)coding, and so
on in the delivery channel can occur for a mobile IPTV service.
The term resolution is often expressed as a pixel count and as the spatial
dimension in digital imaging that is captured and displayed on a device. The
resolution is defined by three cases: low resolution (LR), high resolution (HR), or
super resolution (SR). Consider the following case: an LR image captured by a
mobile phone has a resolution of 128 * 128, but we would like to display it on a
higher resolution screen of 1024 * 768. SR processing techniques are required
so that the blurring effect can be reduced to improve user-perceived QoE. In this
case, additional and complicated processing techniques are required to convert
the LR image to a higher one. The aspect ratio of an image is defined as its width
divided by its height. If an image is displayed on a device with an aspect ratio
different from that of the image, modification is required, and it is an interesting
issue for frame rate conversion. The resolutions of commonly used displays and
several commonly used aspect ratios for various applications are shown in Table
3.
Table 3 frame resolution and aspect ratio comparison of heterogeneous
devices

Video content-based adaptable processing for mobile IPTV

The AS system extracts scalable-based multiple video streaming from the
original video content that depends on the target terminal types and the allowable
bandwidth of delivery channels. The AS system does this by using scalable video
coding (SVC) technology for the heterogeneous devices that are aware of the
mobile IPTV service. For non-scalable video content, the original video content
should be prepared separately for the types of target user terminals and delivery
channels. It is not desirable to maintain different versions of video bitstreams of
the same content depending upon specific target device types and allowable
bandwidth of the delivery networks.
To support a variety of user terminal devices and delivery channel capabilities, a
joint standardization activity by the International Standards Organization/
International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC), the Moving Picture Experts
Group
(MPEG),
and
the
International
Telecommunication
UnionTelecommunication (ITU-T) was developed. This SVC technology that targets
flexible and efficient representation of scalable video streams uses a single
bitstream to provide multiple spatial, temporal, and quality resolutions. SVC
allows only for one-source-multiple-use by a single encoding; therefore, it
produces flexible video bitstreams at different scalability layers with high coding
efficiency on mobile IPTV systems. Figure 11 shows how the SVC encoder can
produce scalable bitstreams at different scalability layers.

Figure 11 - Structure of the SVC encoder and end-to-end content delivery

Each layer is encoded with separated encoders and the input video stream is
spatially decimated to support multiple spatial resolutions. For each spatial layer
(or signal to noise ratio [SNR] layer), the prediction comes from either a spatially
up-sampled, lower layer picture or temporally neighboring pictures at the same
layer. Because the information of different layers contains correlations, an
interlayer prediction scheme reuses the texture, motion, and residue information
of the lower layers to improve the coding efficiency at the enhancement layer.
The prediction module must interpolate when a layer is up-sampled to a different
spatial resolution. SVC supports a non-dyadic spatial resolution ratio among
spatial layers. Temporal prediction utilizes the hierarchical-B structure to support
multilevel temporal scalability.
Temporal scalability is a technique that enables a single bitstream to support
multiple frame rates. It is typically supported with a predetermined temporal
prediction structure as defined by the standard. In MPEG-2/4, temporal scalability
is achieved by the well-known IBBP prediction structure. Up to three frame rates
are supported by decoding only I-pictures, either I- and P-pictures, or all of the I-,
P-, and B-pictures, respectively. The motion-compensated temporal filtering
(MCTF) structure can be used as a preprocessing tool for better coding
efficiency.
Although the SVC makes the scalable representation of video contents with high
coding efficiency possible, the complexity of the SVC encoder is quite high so
that currently, real-time encoding is very difficult to achieve. Thus, the
optimization of the SVC encoder is very important to greatly improve the
encoding speed. As well, the useful SVC rate control mechanism is being
researched to produce the best possible visual quality of bitstreams for the
heterogeneous network capability with bandwidth.
SVC addresses several technical issues in new ways as follows:
A hierarchical-B structure is used to support multilevel temporal scalability.
Intra-texture, motion, and residue predictions are used to exploit correlations
among spatial and SNR coding layers.
The enhancement layer information is used in the prediction loops to exploit
temporal redundancy.
The context adaptive entropy coding and the cyclic block coding result in
improved coding efficiency.
Finally, SVC can be used for various applications such as multi-resolution
content analysis, content adaptation, complexity adaptation, and bandwidth
adaptation.

4.4 Mobile data services

The proportion of mobile users who accessed websites, downloaded apps, used
email and used instant messaging services on their handsets all increased in the
year to Q1 2012, largely as a result of growth in smartphone take-up. The largest
increases were in the use of mobiles to browse the internet and access email,
with the proportion of mobile users doing each activity increasing by 12
percentage points, to 40% and 29% respectively (Figure 12).
Growth in the use of instant messaging services such as BlackBerry Messenger,
iOS iMessage and multi-platform service WhatsApp was also evident, with 19%
of mobile users saying that they used instant messaging on their mobile, the
same proportion who said that they downloaded apps to their mobile phone. Use
of both of these services also increased in the year to Q1 2012.

Figure 12 - Use of data services on mobile handsets

Ofcom research suggests that there was a fairly even split of internet use on
mobile phones by location in Q1 2012, with 94% of those who accessed the web
on their mobile handset saying that they did so at home and the same proportion
that they do this outside the home (Figure 13). The majority of respondents
(60%) said that they accessed the web on their mobile equally inside and outside
the home.
When considering the relatively high use of mobile internet at home, it is
important to note that many mobile handsets will connect to a WiFi network when
in the home (according to Ofcom research, 61% of UK homes had a WiFi router
in Q1 2012). When in the home, those with a WiFi connected mobile phone are
able to access the web without having to boot up a PC/laptop, and usually
without the reception issues which may arise when connecting to a mobile data
network.

Figure 13 - Location of internet access using a mobile handset

The increasing use of internet services on a mobile handset was concentrated
among younger consumers in the year to Q1 2012 (Figure 14). While the
proportion of consumers using a mobile handset to access the internet was
unchanged in the 55-64 year-old and 65+ age groups in the year to Q1 2010 (at
17% and 3% respectively), it increased among all other age groups, the largest
percentage point growth being among 16-24 year olds, where take-up increased
from 57% to 68%.
Increasing use of mobile handsets to access the internet was also evident across
most socio-demographic profiles in the year to Q1 2012, with the C2 group being
the only one for which there was not a statistically significant increase over the
period.

Figure 14 - Use of the internet on mobile phones, by socio-economic group

4.5 Mobile social networking

What are mobile social networks?
Mobile Social Networks is a means of transmitting information (communicating)
using a mixture of voice and data devices over networks including cellular
technology and elements of private and public IP infrastructure (such as the
Internet). Mobile Social Networking (MSN) refers to all of the enabling elements
necessary for the contribution (posting and uploading) and consumption
(viewing/experiencing) of social media across a mobile network. Key to the
definition is the users implicit or explicit choice of network technologies. If the
user accesses a community service platform by way of any device that uses a
cellular network, alone or in combination with a commercially-accessible wireless
network that has access to cellular network operator-owned resources, then that
activity is included in the scope of this section. Furthermore, mobile community
operators and participants are, and can be, influenced by the platforms, trends
and members of communities on the Internet. Mobile social networking can be
divided into:
Social media are non-professional digital photos, written communications (textbased blog postings), sounds (voice and/or musical expression) and video,
integrated and digitally shared with a group of known and/or unknown
networkconnected individuals. In this section, social media is used synonymously
with end-user generated content (UGC);
Profiles are dynamic social media showcases (pages), which can be updated
by the author and enhanced with social networking features such as interaction;
Community portals are the destinations to which the user or subscriber
points a software application (e.g., a mobile web browser) to obtain content in the
community or agglomeration of groups;
Communities in the context of social networks are defined as networks of
interpersonal ties providing sociability, support, information, sense of belonging
and social identity. In the context of MSN, communities are groups composed of
individuals registered to provide the mobile communitys operator (host)
information of a personal and/or professional nature. A social network operators
member or subscriber base frequently contains multiple, even numerous, groups.
Communities form either virally (organically) as a result of people inviting others,
or as a result of explicitly organized campaigns.
Social graphs, when the term is used in the broadest contexts, are the visual
representations of connections between individuals and groups. Social graphs
are one of the outputs of social network analytics.
Social messaging in the context of MSN refers to a loosely defined set of tools
and platforms which permit people to exchange messages with groups
(communities) or individuals, sometimes in combination with SMS but most
frequently using a web platform and browser.

History of mobile social networking

Social networking on mobile networks were launched as chat services in Japan,
Scandinavia, Italy, France and the US from 1999 and evolved into chat rooms
and texting community services. By 2004, camera-phones and 3G networks
introduced a second generation of platforms primarily for dating services (see
Table 4). In 2006/2007 a third generation emerged offering richer services
predominantly based on WAP 2.0 and MMS. In 2008 a fourth generation of MSN
provides users with a high level of control over their information broadcast via
their profiles or active handset services (location awareness, for
example).Technologies such as Web 2.0 widgets, Flash Lite, Open Social and
the OHA operating system, coupled with advanced social media capture and
transfer systems, has delivered a higher level of functionality to MSN.
Table 4 - The history of Mobile Social Networks

Uses for mobile communities

In order to align service features with the needs of target users and to avoid
overcrowding or creating overly complex user interfaces, mobile communities
should identify the human need that they satisfy. Although mobile community
services tend to target a focused set of needs, a community can meet multiple
needs (see Figs 15 & 16). The platform on which the community is operating can
have multiple services which meet different needs.
Friending: People join Friending communities to satisfy their need to belong to
a group or multiple groups in a community in which there are people known in
the real/physical world, or people who were unknown but share a common
interest or passion. In essence this is the core of all social networking about
staying in synch with real-life friends.
Entertainment and curiosity: Mobile entertainment communities are designed
to meet the need to have fun alone or in a group; this includes consuming all
types of professional and UGC. Some of the mobile entertainment communities
with UGC uploading, downloading and purchasing have some crossover with
Competition and could also generate revenues for users directly or indirectly.
Entertainment communities could also share real-world experiences and
recommendations (eg restaurants, clubs, cultural activities, sports and musical
performances). Using photo status updates, it is possible to satisfy this category
with Friending, and therefore creating a strong cross-over between the two
categories.
Professional: A mobile community may assist its members to develop and/or
meet their professional aspirations. For example, there are communities
designed to support information exchanges about developing and mutual testing
of mobile Web sites. Mobile web designers, mobile game developers and
application developers already participate in these communities. Like
entertainment-centred communities, the participants may sell their services to
other community members and achieve fame or develop reputations.
Fame: Mobile communities using editorial teams can be a good place for
people seeking attention to contribute their UGC. One community shares its
video footage of rare animals and those watching can ask questions of the
person who is on location. In these communities, creative members dedicate
their time to contributing digital content such as screen savers, ringtones, video

clips and broadcasting these to the largest number of people possible. For those
contributing to this type of community, content is their currency and the more
people who see their content the better. Some community services sponsored
and hosted by news organizations (citizen journalism), such as the BBC, are also
classified in this category.
Causes: Commonplace on the Web and will make transition to mobile platforms
when mobile-only Internet access increases. Focuses on members wanting to
create social value around making the world a better place promoting peace
and social responsibility. These community members could focus on hosting and
organizing events, virtual or in the physical world, and campaigning for causes
such as documenting social warming. Many of the places where causes need to
be captured for others to witness and/or movements organized do not have
broadband Internet access or PCs.
Social shopping: Mobile social shopping communities can ask questions about
products they are thinking of buying, obtain recommendations from friends about
a possible purchase, or can organize and negotiate low margin purchases based
on pooling of needs. This category of service will evolve quickly as advertisers
combine their desire to attract new customers with shopper profiles. Another
driver of this category of community is the high level of trust people place in the
recommendations of their friends and family members.
Competition: In the next two years, new ways of competing with others in a
mobile community will emerge and cross over with desire to build a reputation in
a virtual community based on skill level. These communities reward winners of
mobile games with prizes and by keeping track of the users worldwide ranking.
While the cross over with fame communities is high, the goal is more clearly
articulated and quantifiable than in fame (which is relative). Furthermore,
competitive communities are less focused on content, more on individual actions
and results in one-to-one or one-to-many contests.

Figure 14 - Uses for mobile social networking

Figure 15 - Mobile social networking in the context of broad trends

By the end of 2007 there were 55 million registered participants using mobile
community services. Usually, there are three forecast scenarios: conservative,
middle and high growth. The forecasts for the total number of unique mobile
community users, by 2012, ranged from 428 million in the conservative scenario,
562 million in the middle scenario and 770 million in the high-growth scenario
(see Fig 16).

Figure 16 - Global unique mobile community users, 2007-2012

The revenue forecasts by region and community type are calculated by
multiplying the AIGPU per community service in a region by the number of
estimated registered users in the community type and region (see Fig 17). Since
the registered users are forecast in three scenarios, there are also three revenue
forecast scenarios: from 693 million in 2006, the global revenue in 2012 is
forecast to reach 19.6 billion in the Conservative scenario; 25.8 billion in the
Middle scenario forecast; and, under the most favorable circumstances, the High
Growth scenario, the model predicts that revenues could achieve 35.4 billion.

Figure 17 - Global total mobile community revenues in three scenarios,

2007-2012

4.6 Location based services

Technological innovations, notably over the past decade, facilitate the collection
of substantial amounts of personally identifiable data about virtually anyone who
accesses information online. The rapid pace of change in both technology and
business models is fueling an active and growing debate around the world about
the appropriate use of that data. The following section focuses on Locationbased services (LBS) defined as mobile services that combine information
about a users physical location with online connectivity.
Location-based services have great potential for growth. While estimates vary,
most research indicates that revenues are expected to triple in the next five
years. Although Apples application store has only been in operation since July of
2008, it surpassed 25 billion downloads worldwide as of March 2012. This growth
trend extends to applications that rely on a users location: 7,200 location-based
applications were offered in February 2010, compared to 3,300 locationapplications in July 2009. In June 2011, Foursquare, the location-based social
networking company, reported that it had exceeded ten million users who have
checked-in, posting their location to friends over 750 million times.
LBS have facilitated the development of several types of services and
applications:
Navigation and Travel Applications in this category allow a user to perform a
search based in part on location, i.e., to find the nearest hotel, ATM, bus stop, or
particular restaurant.
Tracking and Geosocial Networking Using applications in this category,
users can share their location with friends, family, or strangers via online social
networks. Included in this category are applications that recommend restaurants
or other places of interest based on where a users network of friends has
checked-in, or that enables businesses to reward their customers for loyalty
based on repeated visits or check-ins. Other applications in this category enable
parents to track the location of their children, family and caregivers to monitor
dementia patients, and pet owners to recover lost dogs.
Gaming and Entertainment These applications allow users to play games on
their wireless devices with friends and family, persons in their local network, or
anyone online. Some location-based games track phone movement and create
real-life scavenger hunts. This category also includes photography and video
applications that record the GPS location tags for photos and videos or allow
users to add location information to their photos.
Retail and Real Estate Retail applications enable consumers to find the
nearest store, provide in-store maps, check real-time inventory data, or shop
from their phone, while real estate applications show houses for sale or rent or in
foreclosure in a given area.

 Advertising Location-based advertising allows users to receive ads relevant

to their current location or based on patterns of frequently visited locations. The
ads generally appear within other applications or in web browser windows.
News and Weather These applications provide users with weather and news
targeted to their specific location. Some applications provide connection to local
radio or TV providers for video or audio streaming, including access to police
scanners.
Device Management LBS management applications allow users to track and
control their wireless devices from other sources (like a home computer) or to
control other devices from their wireless devices. This may include tracking,
locking, or erasing a lost phone, or locating, unlocking, and starting a vehicle.
Public Safety Some LBS applications principally serve public safety
functions. In addition to the San Ramon Valley California Fire Protection District
CPR application described above, Google is developing an Amber Alert
application that would inform users in the possible vicinity of missing or abducted
children. Another application that has been developed by the University of
Maryland enables students to alert campus security to an incident, provide its
location, and stream live audio and video directly to the dispatcher.
LBS Technologies
There are three primary location technologies currently in use:
Cellular Sector/Base ID. Cellular handsets must constantly register their
presence with the nearest base station in order to establish service even when in
standby mode. Because the network operator has the exact location of each
base station, the location of the handset can be resolved to within the coverage
area. The radius covered can vary greatly, from several miles down to a city
block or even an individual business or residence, depending on the cell density
and network architecture. Increased resolution can be achieved by triangulating
between overlapping cell sectors and is often used by providers to improve
accuracy for emergency response and to monitor coverage.
Global Positioning System (GPS). A substantial majority of mobile handsets, as
well as an increasing number of tablets and laptops, are equipped with GPS
chips that allow the devices to calculate their own position to within ten meters or
less. GPS can determine location independently of other technologies, though it
is often used in conjunction with them to enable a quicker location fix or where
the required line-of-sight to the sky is obscured. While the location can be
calculated entirely by the device, it is generally in the form of simple coordinates
(e.g. latitude and longitude), and most mobile applications need to transmit that
data to third parties in order to obtain maps or other information based on the
devices location.
Wi-Fi. LBS leverage the Wi-Fi technologies in handheld devices that scan their
surroundings for known or open networks. Wi-Fi LBS rely on active surveys of an
area to note the unique identifier and location of each Wi-Fi base station. These

may include everything from hotspots in coffee shops and hotels to residential
and business networks. When a Wi-Fi enabled device accesses a location
service, the browser or application may send to the service the coordinates of
Wi-Fi networks it currently sees, enabling the current location to be triangulated.
The technology employed in LBS is evolving rapidly and is becoming more
accurate, less expensive, and faster. In addition, the specific technology
employed is generally transparent to the user. Depending on the application,
once a users location has been determined, it is generally transmitted to one or
more entities, including third parties with whom the user may have no established
commercial relationship. Parties to whom location data may be available include
the wireless carrier to which the user subscribes, the handset manufacturer,
operating system developer, application developer, location service provider,
advertiser or ad network, and others. Slight shifts in an applications architecture
that may adjust the amount or level of detail of personal information collected by
the LBS can have profound privacy implications.
Power of Proximity
Everyone today with the power of their smartphones and social connect reach,
want to know who or what is near them:
o A friend, a colleague, an acquaintance, an extended family...
o A coffee shop, a restaurant, a club, a hotel...
o A train station, bus stop, cab service...
o A job vacancy, a vacant studio/apartment...
o A Mega Sale...
List could be endless...
Getting connected to people and services in their proximity is one the most seek
services of a smartphone user. The advent of a huge open App distribution
channels and its easier access; has led to increasing interest of various
organizations and service providers to rollout mobile location-based applications
to smartphone users.
A location-based service (LBS) is an information or entertainment service, which
is accessible with mobile devices through the mobile network and which uses
information on the geographical position of the mobile device.
LBS is a mobile computing service that provides information and functionality to
users based on their geographical location. It can be as simple as find the
closest cab station to looking for friends nearby, going up to a sales alert in a
shop when individual walk past.
LBS in this era are both Reactive as well as Proactive (Figure 18).

Figure 18 LBS vs. users

Users would ask an application or a system for information and receive a
response. Information can be sent to users based on their location rather than
users having to manually search for it.
Benefits provided of LBS Applications to Users and Service Provides is just not
limited to following:
o It helps in providing contextual information to user based on their request
as against a universe of data available on the Internet.
o Service providers can push relevant information to users, to enable them
to speed up their decisions and activities.
o It reduces the amount of manual data entry required by users to access a
service; LBSs can automatically obtain location information and other data
from smartphones to display results.
o By sharing location-tagged information, more up-to-date localised
information is available to all users.
o Receiving alerts, such as notification of a sale on gas or warning of a
traffic jam
o Location-based mobile advertising
o Games where users location is part of the game play

o Real-time Customer Services based on location

As per a report released by Juniper Research (Fig.19), the revenues from mobile
location-based services are expected to go more than $12.7 billion with 1.5 billion
mobile users base by 2014. Revenues will come from sales of apps through
application stores and other channels, but also from mobile advertising tied to
those apps.

Figure 19 Growth of LBS

4.7 Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of Experience (QoE)

Due to the accelerating uptake of mobile broadband services, Quality of
Experience (QoE) assessment and optimization for wireless networks has
become a topic of vital importance. In this field, subjective quality evaluation
methods based on MOS (Mean Opinion Score) are the most widely used
approaches for understanding and measuring perceived performance. However,
while these methods have been proven to reliably quantify users degrees of
satisfaction, they do not sufficiently address the following fundamental question:
Which quality levels are actually acceptable to end users and which ones not?.
Powerful devices, compelling applications and falling subscription prices have led
to a growth of demand for mobile broadband services at an unprecedented rate.
For example, Coda Research and Cisco expect global Mobile Broadband traffic
volume to roughly double every year, with approx. 418 million users generating
1.8 exabytes by 2017. This development represents a huge challenge for
network operators and service providers: on the one hand, they need to address
this demand growth by building faster networks with higher capacity while on the
other hand, they have to operate on a profitable basis. Consequently, operators
need to trade off between investing in their infrastructure at minimum cost and
providing their end customers with maximum quality. This problem becomes
eminent in the context of interactive web applications and file downloads, where
high latency and long waiting times caused by low quality network access directly
translate into user annoyance and churn.
For these reasons, the notion of Quality-of-Experience (QoE) has gained strong
interest, both from an academic research and an industry perspective. QoE
refers to an understanding of the qualitative performance of communication
systems and applications that transcends traditional technology-focused Qualityof-Service (QoS) parameters such as delay, jitter, loss rates, and throughput.
Instead, the concept is linked as closely as possible to the subjective perception
of the end user. This user-centric focus is also reflected in the most widespread
definition originating from the ITU-T SG 12 which describes QoE as overall
acceptability of an application or service, as perceived subjectively by the end
user., which may be influenced by user expectations and context.
Although this definition of QoE is based on the notion of acceptability, an actual
discussion and definition of the concept is not provided in ITU-T SG 12. In
addition, we witness that current QoE assessment practice neglects this aspect:
the most widespread subjective evaluation methodology, Mean Opinion Scores
(MOS), actually focuses on measuring user satisfaction with the system under
test in terms of a degree-of-liking (based on ordinal scales such as ACR and
DCR) rather than explicitly measuring overall acceptance of a given quality level.
However, while such approaches enable fine-grained comparison and ranking of
different quality conditions based on subjects opinion scores, they fail to provide
conclusive results regarding a fundamental question: Is a particular quality level
acceptable to the end user or not?. The answer to this question is of high

relevance to mobile network operators and service providers alike, since

acceptance or non-acceptance of their offer (e.g. mobile broadband access)
directly relates to winning or losing the customer.
Although its prominent role in defining QoE, there has little discussion taken
place regarding a common definition of the term acceptability itself. In the related
fields of economics and innovation research, two prominent concepts of
acceptability have been developed: The concept of willingness to pay defines
acceptability as a simple outcome of an economic decision process, whereas the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) treats acceptability as a multidimensional
phenomenon, but does not provide a distinct definition. However, these concepts
are targeted towards acceptability before actual usage and acceptability of the
whole offer (incl. price/costs and system) and thereby neglects user decisions
made during the stage of actual system usage.
In this respect, QoE research is more concerned with this latter concept of
acceptability in use: the majority of QoE studies so far have relied on directly
inquiring subjects regarding the acceptability of the quality levels experienced.
However, this was done without explicitly explaining the concept, silently leaving
the definition what acceptance actually means to the individual test participant.
The main purpose of QoE and acceptability assessment is the understanding
and optimization of user perceived quality of multimedia services. Usually,
assessments are carried out by means of subjective user testing, with quality
parameters such as bitrate, packet loss rate etc. being controlled by the operator
and the resulting QoE being assessed via ordinal scales. Examples for such
scales are the ACR scale or the MUSHRA scale as standardized by the ITU-T.
Whereas such methods and scales are appropriate to compare the performance
of different systems, they are not able to provide evidence whether the achieved
quality in fact is acceptable for the targeted user or not. Existing standards
address this shortcoming only to a certain extent. They specify the measures
good or better (GoB) and poor or worse (PoW) as well as the terminating calls
early (TME) measure.
In contrast to the large body of work on overall multimedia service quality
measures on ordinal scales, less attention has been given to acceptability
measures on binary scales and the relations between those two types. A
quantification of such relations would serve as an answer to questions like Is a
MOS rating of 3.0 (fair) acceptable or unacceptable to the user of this service?.
The term of Web QoE refers to the user perceived quality of networked data
services, primarily focusing on HTTP based services. Prominent examples of
such services are web browsing and file downloads. Regarding assessment
methodologies for Web QoE, recent work shows that the utilization of the MOS
methodology and ACR scales from video and audio quality assessment has
emerged as a de-facto standard for Web QoE evaluation.

4.8 Future network sharing for mobile operators

The evolution of network sharing
A well-established business model in the telecom industry, network sharing has
existed in various forms more or less since the mobile phone began to take a
global foothold in the 1980s. Many operators reap significant rewards from
including some form of network sharing in their business model. This may involve
roaming or site sharing, and may even go as far as the sharing of radio assets
and the core network.
As industries mature, their focus on improving asset efficiency tends to increase
and this is the case today for the telecom industry. Driven by factors such as
deregulation, capex, high levels of competition and significant fixed costs, this
tendency has also been seen in the utilities and airline industries, for example.
To obtain targeted efficiency gains, these industries have modernized their
business models by splitting up the value chain into specialized segments; this
has led to economies of scale in terms of assets, and supported a shift of focus
and resources to the core business.
To drive operational efficiency and obtain other benefits beyond cost savings,
most of todays operators use some level of outsourcing. In the next step of the
industrialization process the wholesale model operations and assets are
shared among multiple players through a third party, resulting in greater savings
and further increasing efficiencies in opex and capex.
Wholesale network sharing is an evolved form of the network-sharing models
that have been used in the industry so far. This model supports shared network
coverage and capacity based on Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs), and brings the necessary economies of scale.
The wholesale model is flexible as each operator can maintain differentiation
through specific coverage-and capacity-expansion agreements that help them to
reach their business goals.

Figure 20 - The wholesale network-sharing model

Drivers for a wholesale model

Wholesale network sharing is considered by telecom operators as an alternative
to the joint-venture (JV) models they are using when they are faced with serious
challenges such as a lack of licenses, tough market conditions and financial
issues.
License shortages and a lack of available spectrum are two significant factors
driving operators to find new ways of sharing networks based on cooperation
with a third party.
In many markets, licenses for new technologies, such as LTE, are about to be
launched. To use new spectrum in a way that is efficient from a technical
perspective, competitive and of maximum consumer benefit, especially when it
comes to LTE on the sought-after 800 MHz band, no more than three operators
tend to be granted the rights to use new bands to offer competitive services
leaving some without the possibility of differentiating themselves with new
services. Those excluded from the market in these situations are then forced to
launch new technologies through shared networks.
In markets such as Western Europe and India, regulators today tend to take a
liberal view of the sharing of newly issued licenses, stimulating increased
competition and thus facilitating the wholesale approach.
Tougher competition increases the pressure on profit margins, affecting the
ability to generate revenue from user services. One way to relieve this pressure
is to increase opex and capex efficiency, which is supported by the wholesale
model through:
>>Sharing of operations and assets by multiple parties.
>>Reselling excess capacity.
>>Maximizing the utilization of existing networks.
>>Eliminating the need to build yet another radio-access network (RAN) when
expanding into new technologies.
>>Adopting a lighter operational model in terms of assets (an asset-optimized
model).
>>Improving cash flow, through tighter coupling of cost and revenue, coverage
and capacity, expansions can be made on a just-in-time basis to meet subscriber
demands.
Divesting assets to a third party can generate cash that can be used to
deleverage the business or direct funds to other investments. Capacity can be
subsequently leased from the third party and the network can be consolidated
with those of other operators to form a shared platform for common build-out.
Such third parties can in some cases commercialize and optimize a network from
a financial perspective to a greater extent than a single operator could. Naturally,
this increases the operators motivation to adopt a wholesale model and partake
in savings created with additional operators.

Comparing models
Figure 21 includes five possible network-sharing models. Of these approaches,
active sharing of assets occurs in the active (and passive) operator JV model as
well as the third-party wholesale model. Bringing in a third party into active
sharing is similar to the TowerCo model for passive sharing that has evolved
over the past 10 to 20 years.

Figure 21 - Financial benefits of network sharing

Traditional network-sharing models, such as active and passive JV, can
contribute to the creation of added value for the operator through improved opex
and capex. However, a structured approach to network sharing it is not always
easy for competitors to reach an agreement on how to share, or how to leverage
best practice.
In the active and passive JV model, operators share the passive parts (such as
sites, towers and power) as well as the active parts (the radio network, backhaul
and core) of their networks. Typical agreements cover about 10 percent of an
operators passive asset base and 10 percent of active network assets, with a
combined total of around 20 percent. With the effective implementation of a
wholesale model and off-load assets to a third party, this figure can double by offloading to a third party.
Implementing a wholesale model is largely about optimizing the efficiency of the
passive and active parts of the network and operations bearing in mind that
different parts of the network have varying characteristics in terms of lifespan,
capital requirements, and technology complexity. When optimizing scale as well

as operational and capital efficiency, it is natural to divide a wholesale-model

business into two parts: a TowerCo/FiberCo model for sharing of passive
capacity; and a NetCo model for sharing active capacity. This approach is
illustrated in Figure 22.

Figure 22 - Optimized set-up for passive and active network sharing

To ensure that such a model meets the needs of the participating operators in
terms of managed coverage and capacity, partners need to be able to guarantee
services and performance across their passive and active network-elements.
This can be achieved through end-to-end SLAs and KPIs.
Wholesale benefits
The implementation of new business models in a maturing industry with a view to
achieving improved efficiency is ultimately all about scale. The financial drivers
for a wholesale model include: freeing up cash from existing assets (as an
opportunity in itself, or in response to a financial constraint); addressing the need
for predictable opex and capex savings; and improving the cash-flow situation.
Cash flow can be improved by linking cost and revenue more closely. To achieve
this, the wholesale business model creates the flexibility needed in order that
coverage and capacity may be assigned to match demand.
With this model, operators can typically reduce their asset base by up to 20
percent, and increase cash flow by about 8 percentage points as compared with
the traditional network-sharing model.
An additional positive side effect of adopting this model is that an operator with a
substantially lighter fixed-asset base can potentially achieve an improved market
evaluation as a result of a perceived better risk-reward distribution, which more
accurately reflects retail business.

Some operational factors support the attractiveness of the wholesale model;

these include the benefits of being more specialized, more flexible, and able to
differentiate. For example, this model reduces the technological risk associated
with launching and scaling up new technologies. Operator differentiation can be
focused on the individual operators unique marketing targets and expansion
plans, allowing operators to focus on services rather than on infrastructure
issues.
From an overall market perspective, the wholesale model stimulates competition
by improving the position of sub-scaled operators and market entrants. Utilizing
spectrum and infrastructure assets more efficiently makes room for more players
and facilitates an increased focus on services offered to users. The wholesale
model fosters cooperation among operators; using a third party for governance
can reduce the impact of cultural barriers that might otherwise present
challenges. Compared with JVs and mobile virtual network operator (MVNO)
relationships, the wholesale model simplifies business interactions and enables
greater influence over services provided and the ability to differentiate.
Some special considerations need to be addressed as the wholesale model
evolves. To unlock the additional value, industry players need to work together,
with each player making a contribution based on its key capabilities (see Figure
23).

Figure 23 - The wholesale ecosystem

To enable the use of a wholesale model, regulators need to allow license owners
to sell network capacity to other operators. Regulations must allow third parties to
own active assets and sell shared capacity, and its essential that regulators
maintain their positive view of infrastructure sharing. New regulations and
telecom acts are currently being discussed and implemented in markets such as

Western Europe and India, but it is important for this discussion process to
become more widespread.
The continued success of network sharing requires operators to share a greater
part of both business commitments and commercial risks.
Vendors can provide a number of important capabilities, including:
>>The use of governance models that provide strategic, business and
operational management, so that operators can retain the appropriate level of
control over the network to reach their business goals.
>>Transparency of performance and processes preventing sensitive commercial
information from being shared.
>>Shared operational risk. This is associated with operating and securing the
economic efficiency of a shared network.
>>Shared technical risk, which is enabled by guaranteeing modernization of
coverage and capacity and long-term performance improvements.
When it comes to infrastructure, the tendency is for investors to have a long-term
perspective and limited appetite for technology risk. When it comes to investing
in a shared environment, stakeholders tend to finance passive infrastructure over
active assets. A greater proportion of the value chain could be captured if both
the passive and the active components in a partnership could be combined,
hence sharing out the risk associated with the active infrastructure.
The use of a wholesale model presents a number of investment opportunities, as
it:
>>Provides access to guaranteed long-term revenue streams.
>>Combines the lower risks of brownfield asset investments with the
attractiveness of potentially higher returns from greenfield assets.
>>Opens new avenues for business in markets where licenses and spectrum
availability are limited.
The wholesale model presents a way for investors to expand into active sharing
from a portfolio of passive infrastructure investments. The telecom community
needs to invite investors into the discussion to help stimulate the evolution.
Typical scenarios
The following three scenarios illustrate when the wholesale model could be used
to advantage. While not an exhaustive list (and there are many possible
variations of each scenario), these are representative of the circumstances in
which operators tend to consider wholesale options.

Wholesale models are being considered in many other types of situations. Each
scenario is different, driven by commercial needs, geographical conditions, and
the government and regulatory agendas of each individual market.
Carriers in common
The aviation and mobile-networks industries are similar in many ways. In the
early years of commercial aviation, airlines bought and serviced their own
aircraft, just as mobile-industry players built and maintained their own networks.
In the 1970s some aviation players started to move towards a leasing model to
eliminate the upfront investment and align infrastructure costs with differing
revenue streams and the varying profitability of different routes. This is similar to
the wholesale model in mobile networks, where capacity is bought when needed
rather than being invested in upfront.
Models in the aviation industry have evolved down to the component level so that
aircraft engines, for example, are leased on a power-by-the-hour model, giving
the component supplier greater control over the maintenance schedules of parts.
The leasing model allows suppliers to optimize equipment across their customer
base and reduce total cost of ownership. This is analogous to telecom suppliers

providing operators with capacity and availability guarantees through SLAs and
KPIs.
Airlines differentiate by arranging highly strategic flight schedules at key airports.
Just like spectrum in the mobile world, arrival- and departure-slot assignments
are the core assets of the aviation industry, where airlines seek to maximize
earnings from each route and use each one to competitive advantage.
In the 1990s, as competition intensified and earnings-per-seat declined, certain
routes became loss-makers. Reach (which is synonymous with coverage in the
mobile context) is extremely important for an airline, and the decision to cease
operating a specific route is not taken lightly. With the development of codesharing (which is synonymous with active network-sharing), airlines gained
greater flexibility to manage their routes, thus ensuring full reach and
differentiation while improving the utilization and profitability of less frequently
used routes.
The aviation industry is now focused on the revenue-generating activities of
pricing, flight and route management and customer service. As the example of
low-cost carriers versus full-service airlines demonstrates, airlines have a wide
range of ways in which to differentiate even though the aircraft are shared. The
funding and maintenance of the aircraft are secondary to the revenue-generating
activities. Airlines trust key partners to execute these tasks in much the same
way as suppliers participate in the wholesale model.
Conclusion
The wholesale network-sharing model is likely to play an important role as the
pressure on margins in the telecom industry continues to mount, and new ways
to counter spectrum limitations are needed. Wholesale network sharing has the
potential to unlock additional value for all parties involved and improve the
sustainability of the telecom industry while promoting competition at the retail
level. These opportunities are being discussed by operators and other
stakeholders in a variety of markets worldwide.
A wholesale network-sharing model can deliver significant benefits, including:
>>Opex and capex efficiencies through economies of scale and efficient asset
utilization.
>>Cash release through the sale of assets.
>>Better cash flow through the tighter coupling of cost and revenue.
>>A simpler governance structure; operators retain the right level of control over
the network to reach their business goals.
Implementing a business model based on the wholesale network-sharing model
requires a joint effort by, and contributions from, all industry players: operators,
investors, vendors and regulators. Many believe that the first wholesale models
will be implemented in markets where spectrum and license availability are
limited or where financial pressure is high.

4.9 Business and regulatory aspects of future mobile broadband

Governments see the availability and efficient management of radio spectrum as
an important driver for economic growth. As an example, a communication from
the European Commission to the parliament estimates that the total value of
services that depend on the use of radio spectrum in the EU exceeds EUR 250
billion, which is about 2.2 per cent of the annual European GDP.
The 2008 US spectrum auctions of the 700 MHz band, provided also a good
indication of the value of (a part of) the digital dividend. These auctions raised
USD 19.1 billion for 56 MHz of spectrum, implying an average value of USD 340
million per megahertz. The later German auction of May 2010 assigning 60 MHz
in the 800 MHz band raised proceeds of EUR 3.57 billion, or EUR 60 million per
megahertz. In France, the auction of 60 MHz in the 800 MHz band raised EUR
2.6 billion or EUR 40 million per megahertz.
The importance of the digital dividend bands for the mobile community,
compared with higher frequency bands, is essentially related to its ability to
provide a larger service area per base station. Since this area increases as the
square of the frequency, the number of base stations required to cover a given
territory is approximately ten times greater at 2.6 GHz than at 800 MHz, hence
the cost of the network. In addition, UHF frequencies penetrate buildings more
easily.
An efficient allocation of the digital dividend is also expected to boost innovation
in ICT and help provide new and more affordable services. The EU and the
United States (US) see the availability of spectrum critical for their competitive
edge in the global market place. Especially after the recent global economic
downturn the importance of the digital dividend has been emphasized and
policies have been accelerated.
On-going mobile market developments also show an exponential rise in data
traffic on these networks, as a consequence of the growing success of smart
phones. This evolution calls for rapid new allocations of spectrum to the mobile
service, increasing the pressure of demand for the digital dividend allocation to
that service.
Within Europe, discussions on the digital dividend started in 2006 with the
adoption of a first RSPG opinion and a first Mandate from EC to CEPT in early
2007. In response, CEPT identified the upper part of the UHF band as the
preferred band for the purpose of a mobile allocation as part of the digital
dividend.
After WRC-07 decision, in April 2008, the EC issued a second Mandate to CEPT
on the technical considerations regarding harmonisation options for the digital
dividend in the European Union. On the basis of the CEPT response, the EC
adopted the following:
European Commission Recommendation 2009/848/EC on "Facilitating the
release of the digital dividend in the European Union, in October 2009",

 Commission Decision 2010/267/EU20 on harmonised technical conditions of

use in the 790-862 MHz frequency bands for terrestrial systems capable of
providing electronic communications services in the European Union, in May
2010.
Although this decision is not binding on EU Member States, it may soon become
such as a result of the recent resolution of the initial difficulties with aeronautical
radionavigation in Eastern Europe and once complete transition to digital
television broadcasting has been achieved, i.e. by the GE06 Agreement deadline
of 17 June 2015.
The technical considerations regarding harmonization options for the digital
dividend in the European Union are described in CEPT reports. Four CEPT
reports have been adopted, see Table 5.
Table 5 CEPT reports related to digital dividend and new mobile broadband

CEPT Report 31 in particular concludes that the preferred frequency

arrangement for the frequency range 790 to 862 MHz should be based on the
FDD mode in order to facilitate cross-border coordination with broadcasting
services, noting that such an arrangement would not discriminate in favour of or
against any currently envisaged technology. The frequency arrangement is
shown below. It has been included in the European Commission Decision
mentioned above and is therefore of mandatory application in EU countries
wishing to use the mobile service in this band (Figure 24).

Figure 24 - Preferred harmonized channeling arrangement for the band 790-862

MH in EU

Worldwide harmonization
The decision of WRC-12 to allocate the band 694-790 MHz to the mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, service in Region 1 opens the way for the worldwide
harmonization of both the 700, 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands for IMT.
This harmonization would resolve the long standing differences in UHF mobile
spectrum allocations between Regions, which result from the incompatible
deployment of CDMA and GSM networks in the 850/900 MHz bands from the
years 1990.
Significant activity is currently taking place for the adoption of such a plan. An
example of solution proposed to reconcile the CEPT and APT plans while
continuing to accommodate residual CDMA 850 networks is shown in Figure 25.
This would provide a total of 2 x 60 MHz in the 700 and 800 MHz bands, while
relying on the existing band plans of CEPT and APT.

Figure 25 - Example of possible harmonized band plan for 700, 800 and 900
MHz bands
Although it should be recognized that the current use of the 700 MHz by
broadcasting may prevent its availability to the mobile service in many countries
in the years to come, this band will however become available soon for the latter
service in many countries, which have lesser requirements for broadcasting and
will therefore benefit from worldwide harmonization of the frequency band plans
for IMT.

4.10 Reference list

1. A. Oredope, V. Pham, B. Evans, Deploying IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Services
in Future Mobile Networks, National Conference on Communications (NCC), 2011
2. Alcatel Lucent, Whats Next for Mobile Voice? The case for IMS VoIP in 3G/LTE,
White paper, February 2010
3. Forecast: Mobile Services, 2004-2013, Gartner, June to September 2009
4. North America Mobile Data Forecast, Pyramid, December 2009
5. The LTE Network Architecture: A comprehensive tutorial, Alcatel-Lucent,
CPG0599090904
(12),
December
2009,
http://www.alcatellucent.com/wps/ocumentStreamerServlet?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_
Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=White_Papers/CPG0599090904_LTE_Network_Archit
ecture_EN_StraWhitePaper.pdf
6. Dataquest Insight: LTE Market Update, Gartner, September 25, 2009
7. Orange launches worlds first high-definition voice service for mobile phones in
Moldava,
8. September 10, 2009,
http://www.orange.com/en_EN/press/press_releases/cp090910en.jsp Whats Next
for Mobile Voice? | Strategic White Paper 17
9. Global Telecom Companies Announce a Standards Based Solution for Voice and
SMS Services over LTE, Verizon et al, http://news.vzw.com/news/2009/11/pr200911-03a.html
10. AT&T Extends VoIP to 3G Network for iPhone, AT&T, October 6, 2009,
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=27207
11. Verizon opens door to Android, Google Voice, Fierce Wireless, October 6, 2009,
http://www.fiercewireless.com/ctialive/story/verizon-opens-door-androidgooglevoice/2009-10-06
12. Options for Providing Voice over LTE and Their Impact on the GSM/UMTS
Network, Alcatel-Lucent, CPG1649091001 (11), August 2009, http://www.alcatellucent.com/wps/DocumentStreamerServlet?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource
_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=White_Papers/CPG1649091001_Options_for_Provid
ing_Voice_as_LTE_is_Introduced_EN_StraWhitePaper.pdf
13. 3GPP (http://www.3gpp.org/Specification-Numbering)
14. VoLGA Forum. http://www.volga-forum.com/
15. GSMA
Rich
Communication
Suite.
work/mobile_lifestyle/rcs/gsma_rcs_project.htm

http://www.gsmworld.com/our-

16. Verizon
LTE
press
release,
February
18,
2009.
http://all.alcatellucent.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLt4w3czL
XL8h2VAQA9ypdMQ!!?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONT
ENT_FILE=News_Releases_2009/News_Article_001451.xml

17. Alcatel-Lucent Ultimate Wireless

http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/

Broadband

End

to

End

LTE

Solution,

18. Telefnica, Etisalat, FT/Orange, NTT DoCoMo LTE press release, November 19,
2009.
19. Bouygues LTE press release, December 8, 2009. http://all.alcatellucent.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLt4w3czL
XL8h2VAQA9ypdMQ!!?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONT
ENT_FILE=News_Releases_2009/News_Article_001890.xml
20. M. Olsson, S. Sultana, S. Rommer, L. Frid, and C. Mulligan, SAE and the Evolved
Packet Core: Driving the Mobile Broadband Revolution. Academic Press, 2009.
21. G. Camarillo and M. A. Garcia-Martin, The 3G IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) :
merging the internet and the cellular worlds. Chichester, West Sussex ; Hoboken,
NJ: J. Wiley, 2006.
22. J. Han and H. Wang, Principle and performance of TTI bundling for VoIP in LTE
FDD mode, in IEEE WCNC, 2009.
23. D. Jiang, H. Wang, E. Malkamaki, and E. Tuomaala, Principle and performance of
semi-persistent scheduling for VoIP in LTE system, in International Conference on
Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 2007. WiCom 2007,
pp. 28612864, 2007.
24. R. Rajavelsamy, V. Jeedigunta, B. Holur, M. Choudhary, and O. Song, Performance
evaluation of VoIP over 3G-WLAN interworking system, Wireless Communications
and Networking Conference, 2005 IEEE, vol. 4, 2005.
25. D. Wisely, IP for 4G. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009.
26. I. Tanaka, T. Koshimizu, and K. Nishida, CS Fallback Function for Combined LTE
and 3G Circuit Switched Services, NTT DOCOMO Technical Journal, vol. 11, no. 3,
pp. 1319, 2009.
27. Alcatel-Lucent, Options for Providing Voice over LTE and Their Impact on the
GSM/UMTS Network, 2009.
28. O. Stepaniuk, Voice over LTE via Generic Access (VoLGA) as a possible solution of
mobile networks transformation, in Modern Problems of Radio Engineering,
Telecommunications and Computer Science (TCSET), 2010 International
Conference on, p. 205, 2010.
29. A. Technologies, LTE and the Evolution to 4G Wireless, 1st ed. Agilent
Technologies, 2009.
30. R. Budhiraja, B. Ramamurthi, B. Evans, A. Oredope, and M. Dianati, Deploying IP
Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Services over Next Generation Networks (NGNs): The
IU-ATC Integrated Test Bed", 2nd Open NGN and IMS Testbeds Workshop, 2010.
31. What is voice over lte (volte)?, PRESS BACKGROUNDER AUGUST 2012
32. WiMAX VoIP Solutions for 4G Networks, WMF-M14-v01 2010-08-30
33. Jinsul Kim, Tai-Won Um, Won Ryu, and Byung Sun Lee, Heterogeneous Networks
and Terminal-Aware QoS/QoE-Guaranteed Mobile IPTV Service, IEEE
Communications Magazine, May 2008

34. ITU-T Draft Rec. Q.FMC-IMS, L. Ma, Fixed Mobile Convergence with a Common
IMS Session Control Domain, Sept. 2007.
35. ITU-T Draft Rec. Y.MPLS-MOB, T. W. Um, S. G. Choi, and J. K. Choi, MPLS-Based
Mobility and QoS Capabilities for NGN Services, Apr. 2007.
36. ITU-T Rec. Y.1281, Mobile IP Services Over MPLS, Sept. 2003.
37. D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, Mobility Support in IPv6, IETF RFC 3775,
June 2004.
38. E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, and R. Callon, Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture, IETF RFC 3031, Jan. 2001.
39. ITU-T Draft Rec. Q.MMF, S. J. Koh and H. Y. Jung, Generic Framework of Mobility
Management for Next Generation Networks, Apr. 2007.
40. Communications Market Report 2012, OFCOM 18 July 2012
41. WHITE PAPER MOBILE SOCIAL NETWORKING, INFORMA, 2008
42. LOCATION-BASED SERVICES: AN OVERVIEW OF OPPORTUNITIES AND
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau May 2012
43. Location Based Services, info@e-zest.net | www.e-zest.net
44. Raimund Schatz, Sebastian Egger, Alexander Platzer, Poor, Good Enough or Even
Better? Bridging the Gap between Acceptability and QoE of Mobile Broadband Data
Services, IEEE ICC 2011
45. Wholesale network sharing, Ericsson White paper 284 23-3178 Uen | May 2012
46. Digital Dividend: insights for spectrum decisions, ITU - Telecommunication
Development Sector, August 2012