On QoE Monitoring and E2E Service Assurance in 4G

Wireless Networks

Perumalraja Rengaraju, Chung-Horng Lung, F. Richard Yu
Department of Systems and Computer Engineering
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
{rpraja, chlung, richard_yu}@sce.carleton.ca
Anand Srinivasan
EION Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
anand@eion.com


Abstract From the users and service providers point of
view, the upcoming 4G wireless (WiMAX and LTE) networks are
expected to deliver high performance sensitive applications like
live mobile TV, video calling, mobile video services, etc. The 4G
networks are intended to provide an accurate service view of
customer-perceived service quality their Quality of
Experience or QoE. Delivering high QoE depends on factors
that contribute to the users perception of the target services as
well as the Quality of Service (QoS) of the network. Although a
better network QoS in many cases will result in better QoE,
fulfilling all traffic QoS parameters alone may not guarantee
satisfied users. On the other hand, if the QoS of the network
degrades, the QoE of users applications could be affected
significantly. This paper presents an integrated view of End-to-
End (E2E) QoS and service assurance support in WiMAX and
LTE networks. The integrated view also considers the existing
cross-layer implementations to achieve the necessary E2E QoS
and how the QoS and QoE should and can be monitored over the
network in an E2E fashion. The existing cross-layer
implementations ensure the E2E QoS performance before
establishing the applications. However, even though the network
has strong QoS support, the service providers should still
monitor the QoS of the network and QoE of users applications
accurately to achieve service quality assurance.
Keywords- QoE, QoS, WiMAX, LTE
I. INTRODUCTION
Two emerging technologies, the Worldwide Inter-
operability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) and Long Term
Evolution (LTE) have been designed with different QoS
frameworks to deliver high performance Internet applications
[1, 2]. The WiMAX is based on IEEE 802.16 standards,
whereas LTE is based on 3
rd
Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP). Both technologies are being considered as candidates
for the 4
th
Generation (4G) broadband wireless networks. The
WiMAX standard uses a new physical layer radio access
technology called Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple
Access (OFDMA) for Uplink (UL) and Downlink (DL) data
transmissions and LTE uses the OFDMA for DL and Single
carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access (SFDMA) for UL
data transmissions to mitigate the frequency selective fading.
Apart from this, both technologies are using Multiple Input
and Multiple Output (MIMO) technique to improve the
physical layer spectral efficiency. Adaptive Modulation and
Coding (AMC) in WiMAX and LTE, Sleep mode idle mode
operations in WiMAX, Discontinuous Reception and
Transmission (DRX/DTX) strategies in LTE and also many
implementation specific cross-layer algorithms like
opportunistic schedulers, adaptive radio resource management
functions etc. are introduced in both WiMAX and LTE
networks. These improvements definitely improve the QoS
performance of the radio access network. But the user's
satisfaction relies on both E2E QoS and end user application.
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) defines
the Quality of Experience (QoE) as overall acceptability of
an application or particular service, as perceived subjectively
by the end users [9]. The QoE is also a consequence of a
users internal state, the characteristics of the designed system
and the environment within which the service is experienced.
It can be measured by measuring both subjective and objective
measurements. The subjective measurements are related to
how the user experience the application like the application
initiation time, etc., and the objective measurements are the
QoS parameters that are related to subjective measurement
like E2E delay, etc., Assuring constant QoE at the customer
end is a major task for the service providers. The parameters
that affect QoE can be classified in to four groups:
1. Quality of audio and video content at the source: It mainly
depends on the codec and its characteristics (G.7xx for
voice; H.26x, Microsoft codec (WMV), etc. for video).
2. QoS of the E2E network from source to user terminal: The
QoS parameters that affect the performance of the E2E
applications are bandwidth, delay, jitter, and packet loss.
3. User terminal: Performance of the user equipment and the
codec used.
4. Human perception: It is usually captured by a Mean Opinion
Score (MOS) that includes expectations and ambiance. The
MOS is expressed on a five point scale (ITU-T P.800),
where 5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3 = fair, 2 = poor, 1= bad.
The minimum threshold for acceptable quality corresponds
to a MOS of 3.5 [9].
There is a significant difference between what a network
application experiences as quality at the network level (i.e.,
QoS), and what the user perceives as quality at the application
level (i.e., QoE). From the applications point of view, the
parameters which are related to the measurement of QoE are
called Key Quality Indicators (KQIs). KQIs are constructed
from Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which are derived
from network performance measurements. The definitions of
KQI and KPI and the methodology of developing KQI for
each service are defined in wireless service measurements
handbook-GB923 [6]. The development of KPIs and KQIs is
useful for the service providers to define the Service Level
Agreements (SLAs) and for the network monitoring purposes.
There are three objective methodologies for measuring the
QoE [9]:
1. The No-Reference model has no knowledge of the
original source file (application) and tries to predict
QoE by monitoring several QoS KPIs in real-time.
2. The Reduced Reference model has some limited
knowledge of the original source and tries to combine it
with QoS KPIs to reach a prediction on the QoE.
3. The Full Reference model has full access to the source
file (possibly the reference, e.g. video or audio, files.),
then combined with the measurements conducted in a
real-time environment.
As the Full Reference model has the knowledge of original
applications, it is possible to give the best accuracy on the
measurement. On the other hand the No-Reference model is
simple to measure, but may not always give accurate results.
This paper intends to provide the integrated view of E2E
QoS service assurance support in both WiMAX and LTE
networks and the architecture for QoE monitoring based on
the knowledge of QoS-KPI. For that, first we describe the QoS
support from WiMAX and LTE standards and how this QoS
support can be extended for E2E networks using cross-layer
implementations. Next, we described on how and where the
QoS and QoE can be monitored in an E2E network to assure
the service assurance.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the QoS support in WiMAX and LTE networks.
Section III discusses the extended cross-layer works in
WiMAX and LTE to support the E2E QoS for intended user
applications. The E2E QoS and QoE monitoring in 4G wireless
networks is discussed in Section IV. Finally, we conclude this
paper in Section V.
II. QOS SUPPORT IN WIMAX AND LTE NETWORKS
A. QoS Support in WiMAX Networks [1]
Figure 1 shows the E2E flat IP architecture of WiMAX
networks. Here, the Access Service Network (ASN) is
maintained by the Network Access Provider (NAP) to provide
the WiMAX radio access and the Connectivity Service
Network (CSN) is maintained by the Network Service Provider
(NSP) to provide IP connectivity and WiMAX services to the
subscribers according to negotiated SLAs. The logical entities
in the ASN network include Mobile Station (MS), Base Station
(BS) and ASN Gateway (ASN-GW), while the CSN network
consists of AAA (Authentication, Authorization and
Accounting) server, Operations Support Systems (OSS),
Mobile IP - Home Agent (MIP-HA) and CSN-GW. The CSN-
GW is connected to the application service provider network
like Public Switched Telephone Network, and other non-
WiMAX networks like 3GPP and WiFi networks. The
Network Working Group (NWG) in WiMAX forum is still
working on E2E QoS functionality.
The users service flow authorization details are stored in
the AAA server. When a user is connected to the network, the
service flow information is temporarily stored in the BS or
ASN gateway. The Radio Resource Management function
(RRM) in ASN-GW, schedulers, UL and DL bandwidth
allocations and admission controller in BS ensures that the
access network QoS will be based on this user provisioning.

Figure 1. WiMAX E2E network architecture.
Wireless QoS support is one of the fundamental parts of the
MAC layer design in IEEE 802.16 standards and it is based on
service flows. A service flow is a logical unidirectional flow of
packets between the ASN-GW and a MS with a particular set
of QoS attributes. These SFs may be created, changed, or
deleted through a series of MAC management messages. On
the other hand, the BS temporarily assigns a Connection
Identifier for each service flow and for basic connectivity. The
MAC convergence sublayer maps the service flow identifier
and connection identifier for each UL and DL data transfer.
Similarly, the traffic mapping between layer-2 and layer-3 QoS
for appropriate SFs is done at the ASN-GW for DL and at the
MS for UL directions, respectively. Between the ASN-GW and
the BS, the QoS of the SFs is supported by backhaul transport
QoS. To handle different applications separately, the IEEE
802.16 standards define five types of service flows with
different QoS requirements as given below.
Unsolicited Grant Service (UGS): The UGS is designed to
support real-time service flows that generate fixed size data
packets on a periodic basis, like Voice over IP (VoIP).
Real Time Polling Service (rtPS): The rtPS service is
designed to support real-time service flows that generate
variable size packets on a periodic basis, such as MPEG video.
Extended Real Time Polling Service (e-rtPS): The ertPS is
designed for real time traffic with variable data rate such as
VoIP service with silence suppression.
Non-Real Time Polling Service (nrtPS): This service is
introduced for non-real-time flows, which require variable size
data grants on a regular basis, such as high bandwidth FTP.
Best Effort Service (BE): This service is designed to support
best effort traffic and offers no guarantee.
With the available QoS support and QoS-based algorithms
like scheduler and admission controller in WiMAX networks,
the end user can get a consistent QoS support.
C. QoS Support in LTE Networks [2]
The LTE standard is established by 3GPP to compete with
WiMAX standards. Figure 2 shows the high level flat IP
architecture of LTE and its interfaces. Here, the Evolved
Radio Access Network (E-RAN) is maintained by the access
provider to provide the LTE radio access for the users. The
logical entities in E-RAN network have User Equipment (UE)
and evolved Node B (eNB), also called BS. The evolved
packet core (EPC) is maintained by the LTE service providers
to provide the IP connectivity and other services according to
negotiated SLAs. To assure the users QoS requirement in the
LTE network, SLAs of users profile are temporarily stored in
the eNB. BW allocations for UL and DL service flows are
based on the SLAs.

Figure 2. IP-based LTE-SAE network [2].

Figure 3. LTE-SAE bearer establishment.
In LTE network, the E2E QoS is established from UE to
the PDN-GW in a core network. The E2E connectivity
between UE and PDN GW in LTE-SAE network is
established using bearer service. It provides the QoS level of
granularity in the LTE for different service flows. Figure 3
shows the E2E QoS support and EPS bearer establishment in
the LTE networks. The radio bearers are established using the
RRC protocol. While it carries information on radio interface,
the S1 bearer forwards the information between eNB and
MME/SGW, and S5 bearer transports the packets to Packet
Data Network Gateway (PDN-GW). EPS bearers are
established between UE and PDN-GW. So the UL and DL
bearer mapping of an individual radio bearer and EPS bearer is
done in UE, eNB, Serving-GW and PDN-GW. The EPS bearer
QoS profile includes the parameters QoS class identifier
(QCI), Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP), Guaranteed
Bit Rate (GBR) and Maximum Bit Rate (MBR). Each of them
is highlighted below:
QCI: It is a scalar that is used as a reference to control
bearer level packet forwarding treatments (scheduling,
admission control, etc.).
ARP: The call admission control in the eNB uses the ARP
to decide whether a bearer establishment or modification
request is to be accepted or rejected.
GBR and non-GBR: Dedicated network resources related
to a GBR value associated with the bearer are permanently
allocated when a bearer becomes established. On the other
hand, a non-GBR bearer may experience congestion-related
packet losses. One EPS default non-GBR bearer is established
when UE connects to the LTE network. A dedicated bearer
can either be a GBR or non-GBR bearer.
MBR: The maximum sustained traffic rate the bearer may
not exceed; only valid for GBR bearers. The QCI mapping for
different applications are shown in Table I.
TABLE I. QCI MAPPING IN LTE
QCI Resource type Priority Application
1
GBR
2 Conversational voice
2 4 Video streaming
3 3 Real-time gaming
4 5 Buffered streaming
5
Non-GBR
1 IMS Signaling
6 6 Video & TCP based apps.
7 7 Voice, video
8 8 Video & TCP based apps.
An additional QoS attribute, Aggregate MBR, is used to
define the total amount of bit rate of a group of non-GBR
bearers.
Even though, the WiMAX and LTE standards provide
strong QoS support, it is necessary to ensure E2E resources to
achieve an intended QoE for real-time applications. Moreover
the QoS architecture of the WiMAX standard only focuses on
access networks. For that, cross-layer works are needed to
assure the E2E resources. The following Section describes
some existing cross-layer works that assure the E2E QoS.
III. EXTENDED CROSS-LAYER WORKS IN WIMAX AND LTE
TO SUPPORT THE E2E QOS
As the WiMAX and LTE networks support the integration
with other networks, two types of E2E QoS requirements are
considered for the analysis, that are homogeneous E2E QoS
and heterogeneous E2E QoS.
A. Homogeneous E2E QoS
The WiMAX networks provide mechanisms for QoS
support at the MAC level, but E2E QoS issues are not
addressed in the standards. So the cross-layer work is needed to
satisfy both the network-layer and MAC-layer QoS. A number
of enhancements have been proposed to enable different levels
of QoS in IP networks, including the Integrated Services
(IntServ) and the Differentiated Service (DiffServ) [3]. IntServ
is implemented by four components: the signaling protocol
(e.g., RSVP), the admission control, the classifier and the
packet scheduler. Furthermore, some rules are prescribed to
classify DiffServ IP packets into different priority queues based
on QoS indication bits in the IP header. Therefore, the QoS
architecture of WiMAX access network can support both
IntServ and DiffServ. The mapping rules have been created
between the WiMAX MAC layer and the IP layer.
In the traditional way, RSVP signaling messages can be
transmitted only in WiMAX secondary MAC management
messages. So the E2E resource is reserved for each connection
to provide the network QoS. But in the cross-layer approach,
QoS mapping is created and the connection request message,
Dynamic Service Addition (DSA) carries the RSVP-PATH
specific messages. If the BS supports both MAC and network
specific QoS, the BS accepts the connection and informs the
mobile user in the DSA response message. The message
exchanges for the connections can carry the QoS parameters of
IntServ services for E2E resource reservation. Figure 4
demonstrates the traffic classification and mapping strategies
for IntServ services. The sender sends a PATH message
including Traffic Specifications (TSpec). The parameters such
as bandwidth, delay and jitter can be easily mapped into
parameters in DSA message. According to the response of
DSA message, the provisioned bandwidth is mapped into
Reserved Specifications (RSpec) of the RESV message.

Figure 4. Traffic classification mapping for IntServ services [3].
For DiffServ services, a number of Per-Hop Behaviors
(PHBs) for different classes of aggregated traffic can be
mapped into different connections directly. Similar techniques
can also be implemented for LTE networks. In LTE networks,
E2E application level QoS negotiation and signaling can be
implemented using IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) network
entities. The IMS procedures for negotiating multimedia
session characteristics are specified by the 3GPP and are based
on IETF Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), Session Description
Protocol (SDP), and their extensions as required [5]. These
QoS mapping between wireless and wired networks are
important to assure the E2E QoS and service assurances.
B. Heterogeneous E2E QoS
In modern technologies, users should be able to access
their services through different access technologies, such as
WLAN, WiMAX, LTE, UMTS, technologies, from the same
or different network operators, and to seamlessly move
between different networks with active communications [4].
The recent standardization efforts in the IETF for a new
extensible IP signaling protocol suite, NSIS describes the
network layer signaling to provide network QoS. The NSIS
signaling layer protocol is used to signal the application QoS
requirements and request the resource allocation along the full
path of data flows. The NSIS protocol supports the
interoperability between different QoS-enabled domains
defining distinct QoS models depending on the underlying
network technologies. The QoS model defines the QoS
parameters, the traffic descriptors and the methods to provide
the desired QoS through the Resource Management Function
(RMF) specification for the NSIS nodes of a specific domain.
So the recent research efforts in WiMAX and LTE networks
are trying to integrate the WiMAX E2E architecture with
NSIS signaling architecture and LTE architecture with NSIS
signaling architecture.
The existing cross-layer works described in this Section is
used to assure the E2E resources. On the other hand, the ISPs
should monitor their E2E network to verify the QoS and for
service verification. The following Section describes how the
ISPs can monitor their E2E network.
IV. QOS AND QOE MONITORING IN 4G WIRELESS
NETWORKS
Monitoring only the QoS for an E2E network is not
enough for the ISPs; they also have to monitor their QoE
support from gateways to the user terminals to satisfy their
customers. Depending on the location of root causes, the
number of customers affected in a network will vary. If the
network QoS that is affected is close to the gateways, the QoE
of most of the customers will be affected. Otherwise, the
customers QoE of that particular network segment will be
affected.

Figure 5. E2E QoS/QoE monitoring.
Figure 5 shows the network architecture for the QoS and
QoE monitoring for 4G wireless networks. As the QoE
monitoring for an application should start from the head end or
possibly the service providers gateway to the user terminal,
the QoE monitoring tool should be connected to gateway of
the service providers network. In the network setup, the
measuring probes are integrated with various network
elements from the gateway to the access network. These
probes are active probes, i.e., they can monitor the network
QoS periodically over the network and if there is any QoS
degradation, then they will send an alarm signal to the
Network Management system (NMS) which is closely
integrated with the QoE monitoring tool. Upon receiving an
alarm signal, the NMS will initiate the QoE monitoring tool
for the QoE measurement on the affected segment. Depending
on the type of traffic handled on that segment, the QoE
monitoring tool measures the QoE based on the QoS
measurements for the No-Reference model or the Reduced
Reference model. If the measurements are not sufficient to
predict the QoE of a specific application, the service provider
can go further on QoE measurement using the Full Reference
model. With the Full Reference model, the measuring probes
measures the QoS-KPI of known applications and send it back
the QoE monitoring tool. After that, the QoE monitoring tool
can predict the actual QoE for a specific application.
The QoE-KQIs at the application and service layer, and the
KPIs at the transport layer, and the QoS at the network layer
for different applications, e.g., VoIP, are shown in Figure 6.
The QoE measurement using the Full Reference model
considers most of the KQIs for constructing the QoE, as the
model knows the original application. On the other hand, the
Reduced Reference model considers some of the KQIs and the
No-Reference model has no knowledge of application-specific
information; it constructs KQIs only from the QoS-KPIs to
predict the QoE. The QoE monitoring for different
applications are explained as follows.

Figure 6. QoE-KQI and QoS-KPI for different applications.
A. VoIP [6,7]
The traditional call quality testing is only based on
subjective measurements like call availability, quality,
interruption, etc. The subjective QoE measurement of voice
quality defined in the ITU P.800 is based on the MOS value.
Recently, considerable progress has been made on objective
measurements and the various developments of standards are:
1. The E-model (ITU G.107)
2. Full Reference model Perceptual Evaluation of
Speech Quality (PESQ ITU P.862)
3. No-Reference perceptual model ITU-T P.563
4. Speech Processing, Transmission and Quality
Aspects (ETSI TS 102-250)
The E-model, defined in the ITU-T G.107, analyzes the
QoS parameters and quantifies the voice quality by calculating
an R factor between 0 (worst) and 100 (excellent). The
expression for the R factor (eqn. 1) represents the sum of all
degradation factors in the communication.
R = (R
o
-I
s
) - I
d
- I
e,eff
+ A (1)
The Signal-to-Noise Ratio [R
o
] represents the subjective
quality impairment due to circuit noise, room noise at sending
and receiving sides, and subscriber line noise. The default
value given in ITU-T Rec. G.107 is 94.77.
The simultaneous impairment factor [I
s
] represents the
subjective quality impairments due to loudness, side tone, and
quantization distortion.
The delay impairment factor [I
d
] represents the subjective
quality impairments due to echo and absolute delay.
The equipment impairment factor [I
e,eff
] represents the
subjective quality impairments due to low bit rate CODEC,
packet/cell loss, etc.
The advantage factor [A] allows for compensation of
impairment factors to consider advantages of access to the
user, e.g., mobile terminals.
Some cost effective open source solutions use PESQ test
methodology to measure the MOS value. In this test
procedure, the SIP protocol is used for voice transmissions.
For the evaluation of the speech quality, the PESQ algorithm
compares the local reference WAV file with the recorded
WAV from the Asterisk (SIP) server.
B. Video streaming and IPTV [7,8,10]
In a broadcast system, each single video program is
described by a Program Map Table which has a unique
Program ID (PID). For instance, a transport stream used in
digital television might contain three programs to represent
three television channels. A receiver wishing to decode a
particular channel has to decode the payloads of each PID
associated with its program. The receiver can discard the
contents of all other PIDs.
With respect to the monitoring, the impairments of video
can happen at various locations: At the video head end, some
of the common problems coming from the video provider are
improper PID mappings or data table mappings in the video
source, as well as lip synch issues or bandwidth configuration
issues caused by the transcoder. After the traffic arrives at the
gateway, these impairments can be monitored at the service
providers gateway. The other network impairments can be
monitored from different locations that are shown in Figure 5.
The various standards for measuring video QoE are given in
Table II.
TABLE II. VIDEO QOE STANDARDS
Methodology
Image Resolution
HDTV and SDTV VGA, CIF and QCIF
Subjective
ITU-R BT.500, ITU-T
J.140 and ITU-T J.24
ITU-T P.910
Full Reference
ITU-T J.144 and ITU-R
BT.1683
ITU-T J.247
Reduced
Reference
ITU-T J.144 and ITU-R
BT.1683
ITU-T J.247
No-Reference ITU-T SG12
The most accurate approach to evaluating perceived video
quality is the subjective assessment by humans. But the
assessment may be different for different people. On the other
hand, the Full Reference model generates closer accuracy to
the subjective measurements. The Full Reference model is
computed separately within the context of plane, edge and
texture regions of the scenes. The different measures on the
original signal in comparison with the reference signal are
Peak SNR (PSNR), Mean Square Error (MSE), Positive Sobel
Difference (PSD), Negative SD (NSD) and Absolute SD
(ASD). These measures are finally converted into MOS-V
score. The Video Quality Metric (VQM) software, developed
by the Institute for Telecommunication Science follows the
ITU-T J.144 and ITU-R BT.1683 standards. It has high
correlation with subjective video quality scores.
IPTV is a system where a digital television service is
delivered by using IP packets over a broadband network
infrastructure. The most suitable method of QoE assessment
for IPTV is based on No-Reference model that are Parametric
model for Non-intrusive Assessment of Multimedia Streaming
(P.NAMS) and Media Delivery Index (MDI). P.NAMS uses
information from packet headers (RTP and MPEG2 Transport
Stream headers), buffering information, information about
codecs and encoded bitrates. P.NAMS does not use any
payload information. The MDI factor indicates the frame loss,
latency, jitter, delay and channel change times problems
generated on the network independent of video encoding. The
recommended maximum acceptable value of Delay Factor
(DF) is 9 50 ms and the average media loss rate (MLR) for
HDTV is 0.00005, while for SDTV and VoD, the MLR is
0.0004 [8].
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented an integrated view of E2E QoS
support in WiMAX and LTE networks and how the QoS and
QoE can be monitored by the ISPs. The E2E QoS support
includes the existing QoS and service assurance supports in
WiMAX and LTE networks, and the cross-layer works to
assure the E2E QoS before establishing the applications. The
QoS and QoE monitoring Section advocate the need to
monitor E2E QoS and QoE from the gateway to user
terminals. In the same Section, the effective E2E QoS and
QoE monitoring on 4G wireless networks at various possible
locations were described. Here, the same QoE models can also
be applied for other 3GPP wireless networks. The measuring
probe monitors the QoS of the network and, if the network
QoS degrades, sends an alarm signal to NMS. The NMS then
initiates the QoE monitoring tool to measure QoE. This
approach is useful for the service provider to take a preventive
action and to ensure service assurance.
REFERENCES
[1] WiMAX Forum: WiMAX End-to-End Network Systems Architecture
(Stage 3: Detailed Protocols and Procedures), 2008.
[2] 3GPP TS 23.401 v. 8.8.0, General Packet Radio Service Enhancements
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network Access,
2009.
[3] J. Chen, et al., An integrated QoS control architecture for IEEE 802.16
broadband wireless access systems, in Proc. IEEE GLOBCOM05,
Dec. 2005.
[4] S. Sargento, et al., Context-aware end-to-end QoS architecture in multi-
technology multi-interface environments, in Proc. of 16
th
IST Mob. and
Wireless Comm. Summit, July 2007.
[5] S. Choi, et al., A study on end-to-end QoS provision for multimedia
services in beyond 3G convergence networks, in Proc. IEEE VTC07F,
Oct. 2007.
[6] ITU-T, Recommendation G. 107, The E-model, a computational model
for use in transmission planning 2002.
[7] DSL Forum, Triple-play Services Quality of Experience (QoE)
Requirements Technical Report TR-126, 2006
[8] Agilent Technologies, IPTV QoE:Understanding interpreting MDI
values http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-5088EN.pdf
[9] Fernando Kuipers, et al., "Techniques for measuring quality of
experience", in Proc. Intl Conf. Wired/Wireless Internet Comm., June
2010.
[10] ITU-T Recommendation J.144R1, Objective perceptual video quality
measurement techniques for digital cable television in the presence of a
full reference 2007.