I n t e r n a t i o n a l

T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n

U n i o n

ITU-T

Series E

TELECOMMUNICATION
STANDARDIZATION SECTOR
OF ITU

Supplement 9
(12/2013)

SERIES E: OVERALL NETWORK OPERATION,

TELEPHONE SERVICE, SERVICE OPERATION AND
HUMAN FACTORS

Supplement 9 to ITU-T E.800-series

Recommendations (Guidelines on regulatory
aspects of QoS)

ITU-T E-series Recommendations Supplement 9

ITU-T E-SERIES RECOMMENDATIONS

OVERALL NETWORK OPERATION, TELEPHONE SERVICE, SERVICE OPERATION AND HUMAN
FACTORS
INTERNATIONAL OPERATION
Definitions
General provisions concerning Administrations
General provisions concerning users
Operation of international telephone services
Numbering plan of the international telephone service
International routing plan
Tones in national signalling systems
Numbering plan of the international telephone service
Maritime mobile service and public land mobile service
OPERATIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHARGING AND ACCOUNTING IN THE
INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE SERVICE
Charging in the international telephone service
Measuring and recording call durations for accounting purposes
UTILIZATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE NETWORK FOR NONTELEPHONY APPLICATIONS
General
Phototelegraphy
ISDN PROVISIONS CONCERNING USERS
INTERNATIONAL ROUTING PLAN
NETWORK MANAGEMENT
International service statistics
International network management
Checking the quality of the international telephone service
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Measurement and recording of traffic
Forecasting of traffic
Determination of the number of circuits in manual operation
Determination of the number of circuits in automatic and semi-automatic operation
Grade of service
Definitions
Traffic engineering for IP-networks
ISDN traffic engineering
Mobile network traffic engineering
QUALITY OF TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES: CONCEPTS, MODELS, OBJECTIVES
AND DEPENDABILITY PLANNING
Terms and definitions related to the quality of telecommunication services
Models for telecommunication services
Objectives for quality of service and related concepts of telecommunication services
Use of quality of service objectives for planning of telecommunication networks
Field data collection and evaluation on the performance of equipment, networks and services
OTHER
INTERNATIONAL OPERATION
Numbering plan of the international telephone service
NETWORK MANAGEMENT
International network management
For further details, please refer to the list of ITU-T Recommendations.

E.100E.103
E.104E.119
E.120E.139
E.140E.159
E.160E.169
E.170E.179
E.180E.189
E.190E.199
E.200E.229
E.230E.249
E.260E.269
E.300E.319
E.320E.329
E.330E.349
E.350E.399
E.400E.404
E.405E.419
E.420E.489
E.490E.505
E.506E.509
E.510E.519
E.520E.539
E.540E.599
E.600E.649
E.650E.699
E.700E.749
E.750E.799
E.800E.809
E.810E.844
E.845E.859
E.860E.879
E.880E.899
E.900E.999
E.1100E.1199
E.4100E.4199

Supplement 9 to ITU-T E-series Recommendations

Supplement 9 to ITU-T E.800-series Recommendations
(Guidelines on regulatory aspects of QoS)

Summary
Supplement 9 to ITU-T E.800-series Recommendations provides guidelines on regulatory aspects of
quality of service (QoS) and it focuses on end-to-end QoS as perceived by the user when using
modern mobile and broadband services. Network performance is outside the scope of this
supplement.

History
Edition
1.0

Recommendation

Approval

ITU-T E-800 series Suppl. 9 2013-12-12

Study Group

Unique ID*

12

11.1002/1000/12112-en

Keywords
End-to-end, QoS.

____________________
*

To access the Recommendation, type the URL http://handle.itu.int/ in the address field of your web
browser, followed by the Recommendation's unique ID. For example,
http://handle.itu.int/11.1002/1000/11830-en.
E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

FOREWORD
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the United Nations specialized agency in the field of
telecommunications, information and communication technologies (ICTs). The ITU Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) is a permanent organ of ITU. ITU-T is responsible for studying technical,
operating and tariff questions and issuing Recommendations on them with a view to standardizing
telecommunications on a worldwide basis.
The World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA), which meets every four years,
establishes the topics for study by the ITU-T study groups which, in turn, produce Recommendations on
these topics.
The approval of ITU-T Recommendations is covered by the procedure laid down in WTSA Resolution 1.
In some areas of information technology which fall within ITU-T's purview, the necessary standards are
prepared on a collaborative basis with ISO and IEC.

NOTE
In this publication, the expression "Administration" is used for conciseness to indicate both a
telecommunication administration and a recognized operating agency.
Compliance with this publication is voluntary. However, the publication may contain certain mandatory
provisions (to ensure, e.g., interoperability or applicability) and compliance with the publication is achieved
when all of these mandatory provisions are met. The words "shall" or some other obligatory language such as
"must" and the negative equivalents are used to express requirements. The use of such words does not
suggest that compliance with the publication is required of any party.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this publication may involve the
use of a claimed Intellectual Property Right. ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or
applicability of claimed Intellectual Property Rights, whether asserted by ITU members or others outside of
the publication development process.
As of the date of approval of this publication, ITU had not received notice of intellectual property, protected
by patents, which may be required to implement this publication. However, implementers are cautioned that
this may not represent the latest information and are therefore strongly urged to consult the TSB patent
database at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/ipr/.

ITU 2014
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means whatsoever, without the
prior written permission of ITU.

ii

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Table of Contents
Page
1

Scope ............................................................................................................................

References.....................................................................................................................

Overview of quality of service .....................................................................................

Global challenges..........................................................................................................

Selecting the appropriate regulatory approach .............................................................

5.1
Options and principles ....................................................................................

5
5

Fundamentals of quality of service regulation..............................................................

6.1
Justifications for quality of service regulation ...............................................
6.2
Parameters and targets ....................................................................................
6.3
Activities in quality of service regulation ......................................................

6
7
9
10

Recommended approach...............................................................................................
7.1
Service level agreements ................................................................................

11
12

Specifying parameters, levels and measurement methods ...........................................

8.1
Parameters ......................................................................................................
8.2
Formulation of the target levels ......................................................................
8.3
Measurement methods ....................................................................................
8.4
Reporting ........................................................................................................

12
12
13
13
14

Appendix I List of telecommunications regulatory bodies ...................................................

15

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................

21

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

iii

Supplement 9 to ITU-T E-series Recommendations

Supplement 9 to ITU-T E.800-series Recommendations
(Guidelines on regulatory aspects of QoS)
1

Scope

This supplement provides guidelines on regulatory aspects of Quality of Service (QoS). The intent
here is to assist regulators or administrations who need to achieve desired levels of QoS for one or
more ICT services under their jurisdiction.
This supplement focuses on end-to-end QoS as perceived by the user when using modern mobile
and broadband services. Nevertheless, the guidance provided in this supplement can
correspondingly be used for traditional wire-bound and legacy services.
Network performance is outside the scope of this supplement.
2

References

[ITU-T E.800]

Recommendation ITU-T E.800 (2008), Definitions of terms related to quality

of service.

[ITU-T E.803]

Recommendation ITU-T E.803 (2011), Quality of service parameters for

supporting service aspects.

[ITU-T E.804]

Recommendation ITU-T E.804 (2014), QoS Aspects for Popular Services in

Mobile Networks.

[ITU-T P.10]

Recommendation ITU-T P.10/G.100 (2006), Vocabulary for performance and

quality of service.

Overview of quality of service

Quality of service (QoS) is defined as the totality of characteristics of a telecommunication service

that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs of the user of the service (see
[ITU-T E.800]); these characteristics can be measured by objective means (e.g., by a level meter or
a delay counter). QoS is frequently confused with elements of network performance (NP) because
(signalling) functions inside the networks are sometimes referred to as "services"; IETF uses QoS to
describe the performance of functional services in network layer models. In order to avoid that
confusion, QoS is often more precisely expressed as "end-to-end QoS".
Another confusion should be avoided when network counters and key performance indicators
(KPIs) are brought into discussions about QoS. Network counters are vendor-specific NP
parameters which cannot be standardized due to their proximity to specific implementations. A
majority of standardized KPIs are describing NP parameters and only a very limited number of such
KPIs are truly related to end-to-end QoS.
Furthermore, the end-to-end QoS that is perceived at the user interface, which is basically
summarizing the characteristics of the underlying in-service media streams, should not be mistaken
for the QoS of non-utilization stages of ICT services, which describe the (customer) "service"
surrounding ICT services offered by service providers that are outside the actual usage of services
that are of interest and concern to the users, e.g., quality and content of information on a service and
its features, the contractual conditions offered by the service provider, provisioning facilities,
documentation, and service support after contract with customers (see [ITU-T E.803] Quality of
service parameters for supporting service aspects).

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

trends

advertising

tariffs,
costs

customer expectation of QoS

customer satisfaction
QoS
(technical)

Network
Performance

Terminal
Performance

QoS
(non-technical)

Point of Sale

Customer
Care

Figure 1 Factors influencing customer satisfaction

The (average) user perception of end-to-end QoS can be assessed by subjective testing, but this is
very costly; therefore, objective methods have been developed that help to predict user perception
of QoS by objective measurement tools. The most prominent example has been recently
standardized in [b-ITU-T P.863] (Perceptual objective listening quality assessment) and is intended
for QoS assessment of voice services; this is the successor of [b-ITU-T P.862] (Perceptual
evaluation of speech quality). Objective measurement methods for other services are available, e.g.,
in [b-ITU-T J.247] (for video). In addition, parametric models have been developed, which allow
for the estimation of the end-to-end QoS perceived by the average user, e.g., the E-model of
[b-ITU-T G.107] (for a priori transmission planning) or the [b-ITU-T P.12xx]-series (parametric
assessment of streaming media) Recommendations.
The user perception of quality is, however, not limited to the objective characteristics at the
man-machine interface, summarized in the QoS concept. What counts for end users is the quality
that they personally experience during their use of a telecommunication service; Quality of
Experience (QoE), therefore, takes into account additional subjective parameters stemming from
user expectations and from the context, in which the user is embedded during the use of the service,
typical examples of context-related influences being personal mood and environment. Also, QoE
covers the potential discrepancy between the service offered and individual users reading additional
features into the service.
4

Global challenges

With the move from traditional networks, which were based on dedicated service-channels and/or
separate networks for each service, towards integrated (transport) services on a single packet-based
transport infrastructure, which delivers all (transport) services via a single network access point, an
access network and a unified so-called backbone, pre-defined transmission planning of QoS has
become a major challenge.
In traditional networks, allocation of transmission impairments was based on a simple but effective
concept: resources had been divided into the so-called international chain and both of the
terminating national networks (including terminals) with heavy regulation in place, modern
packet-based network quality parameter requirements are pretty much undefined and the impression
is that the responsibility for end-to-end QoS has been lost; basically, in an IP environment, services
must be considered as applications executed in the terminal devices; IP networks cannot provide for
self standing end-to-end QoS, but only transport classes, which enable QoS differentiation.
The view on QoS related challenges depends strongly on the role of the stakeholders involved:
Standards development organizations (SDOs) like the ITU-T or the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) or the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) have
2

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

the collective knowledge and expertise with respect to the QoS related problems inherited with the
change of paradigms in networks and terminals and also with the aspects of planning and possible
regulation of end-to-end QoS. However, SDOs are contribution-driven, which means that if
stakeholders decide to rely on industry standards instead of globally recognized standards, and if
stakeholders wish to keep control of their intellectual property and furthermore wish to not invest
resources in globally recognized standards, then there is not very much for SDOs to do except to try
to convince industry leaders, for example, in dedicated events such as conferences.
Network equipment manufacturers basically have to rely on the QoS related performance
requests (of network and system functions) from network operators and service providers. Ideally,
network equipment manufacturers would participate in the QoS work of SDOs in order to
standardize the QoS and performance requirements between several parties involved in the network
business. Unfortunately, for many network equipment manufacturers there is no visible incentive in
the short-term which would make them participate in the work of SDOs related to end-to-end QoS;
the return of investment (RoI) from this kind of engagement cannot easily be seen.
Terminal device manufacturers are confronted with a mass market today. In the past, terminal
standards were for example targeting minimum attachment requirements, which were meant to not
harm the network. Nowadays, there are terminal standards which target the possibility of provision
of high-level end-to-end QoS to the customer. This is a challenge for terminal equipment
manufacturers since the acceptance of terminals in the market is based on other factors (e.g., price,
other functions of terminals (like MP3 players, GPS, etc.), applications available for that terminal
(like games, etc.) and brand rather than end-to-end QoS at least in the first place; "kids prefer the
pink phone!").
Network operators and service providers are faced with the necessity of huge investments in both
infrastructure and access technology. They are likely to react partially by investing in new capacity,
and partially by rationing existing capacity. From their perspective, traffic management tools play
an important role, increasing the efficiency with which operators can manage existing network
capacity. "The appropriateness of different approaches to traffic management is at the heart of the
Net Neutrality debate. Given the controversial nature of this debate, it is important to bear in mind
that traffic management has always beneficial aspects to it. It is commonly used for example to
protect safety-critical traffic such as calls to the emergency services. The question, therefore, is not
whether traffic management is acceptable in principle, but whether particular approaches to traffic
management cause concern."1
But also there remains the question whether network operators and service providers may or may
not use traffic management as a welcome method towards suppressing competition from the
so-called "un-managed" (i.e., not differentiating between traffic types, source or destination points)
Internet or inhibiting the possibility of content or application providers with which it competes from
introducing new innovative products. Opening access and core packet networks as pure bit pipes
will probably not provide the revenues to match the huge investments mentioned; therefore,
network operators and service providers will aim at providing services on top of the bit stream
itself. From the beginning of the development of next generation networks (NGNs), which started in
the mid-1990s with the ETSI project TIPHON the outcome of which finally was harmonized with
ITU work in the NGN-GSI, network operators and service providers claimed that the so-called
"guaranteed QoS" (which is only a statistical guarantee) requires service differentiation in the
networks; in fact for the network this would be rather a traffic class differentiation, with different
services then requesting a certain transport class from the network.

____________________
1

"Ofcom's approach to net neutrality" http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/netneutrality/statement/.

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Regulators and administrations in general are challenged with their responsibility to consumer
protection being affected by the rapid introduction of vendor-specific new services, which they have
to take into account; in addition they are also required to strike a balance between service
competition and infrastructure competition to address the challenges associated with QoS on the
network2. In the early days of the move towards end-to-end services being no longer provided on a
fixed, well-known platform, it still seemed to be fairly easy to require that the new technology
provide QoS not less than in the ISDN era; however, today, it is easy to lose the overview of
proprietary services, provided by various network operators and service providers "on-net" and the
respectively offered QoS. The real problem seems to be that services are not standardized, which
would mean that for interconnection scenarios (one of the major responsibilities of the ITU, and one
of the main purposes of the ITRs) one would need specific service agreements for each network-tonetwork-interface (NNI).
In contrast, regulators and administrations have seen in the recent past that the un-managed Internet
has led to the creation of new services offered "over the top" (e.g., Skype), which like network
operators and service providers are an important factor contributing to the economical benefits of
their respective countries; services on the Internet can be created, improved, judged and used by
each individual within the legal context without restrictions.
Consequently, regulators and administrations have to take a close look at the conditions under
which access to these services in comparison to the access to the Internet is being provided; e.g., in
the access there may be a certain percentage of the bandwidth or of the capacity reserved for the
on-net services which then are not available for access to the Internet; similarly the packed-based
backbone of the network operator may serve for both the provision of their proprietary services
(which are intended to secure their revenues) and for the carriage of open Internet traffic (which
gives lower revenues); this may lead to a tendency to give lower priority to the open Internet traffic.
Consumers are challenged when using telecommunication services in their personal lives (i.e., the
discrepancy between advertised and actual delivery speeds of the network). In the communications
between the European Commission and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic
Communications (BEREC), the need for clear and transparent communication of QoS parameters
and network management practices has been a recurrent theme.
"Consumers may not be able to detect the actual applications of discriminating traffic management
techniques and find it difficult to distinguish between the effects of traffic management techniques
on QoS from the effects of other quality degrading factors. For instance, a consumer who is
observing that traffic is routinely throttled may not know whether this is done by intention, or is
caused by other factors such as network congestion, which is leading to the degradation of service.
Even if [network] operators or ISPs are required to declare which traffic management techniques
and policies are being used, consumers may find it difficult to act upon such information if it is
presented in a highly technical way which does not explain the 'real world' effects. Thus, it will be
important to monitor the effectiveness of transparency and QoS."3
In technical terms the global challenges can be summarized as follows:
Due to the dramatic increase in mobile communication, both in terms of the number of registered
devices and of the volume of requested resources it is quite likely that migration scenarios and
hybrid connections with existing wire-bound and traditional networks and terminals will be
neglected and appropriate QoS standards will not be established or enforced.
____________________
2

ITU GSR10 Best Practice Guidelines for Enabling Open Access,

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Events/Seminars/GSR/GSR10/consultation/index.html.

BEREC Response to the EU Commission's consultation on the open Internet and net neutrality in Europe,
30 Sep. 2010.
E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Service differentiation in modern packet based networks is facilitated with, e.g., the IP Multimedia
Subsystem (IMS), which in its QoS part is basically a resource allocation tool. Again, the exact
services are not defined or standardized which makes IMS less flexible for services to be offered
across multiple packet networks. IMS is under the sole control of the 3rd Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP), which is not an SDO in the classical sense; influence on the further development of
IMS for ITU members is therefore very limited.
Therefore, the main technical parameters to consider will be:

speed (data throughput) of the access network

congestion in the backbone

end-to-end delay (latency)

delay-variation (jitter)

packet loss (loss of information).

These parameters have multiple facets depending on which kind of gateways are used to
interconnect IP networks: jitter is the variation in delay between different packets and its
compensation (by de-jitter buffers) converts jitter into an additional delay which may build up and
increase to unacceptable values; packet loss may be concealed to an extent where essential
information is lost.
Bad terminal implementations may destroy reasonable performance delivered from the network(s);
users will not be able to judge the difference in end-to-end QoS.
That leads to the current policy challenges:
Given rapid growth in the use of the network, there is a need to consider new approaches to anchor
national strategies or regulatory frameworks around the multi-faceted concept of QoS, which may
be required to set and keep the right balance between service and infrastructure competitions to
address the challenges associated with QoS on the telecommunication network.
In particular, in order to continue providing adequate QoS, network operators and service providers
claim to need a certain traffic management over increasingly congested networks. This might
include data restrictions, traffic throttling, filtering and/or the use of data caps of thresholds. Once
the cap is exceeded, customers or end users may be, knowingly or not, confronted with the fact that,
"Internet access" provided to them is no longer Internet access, but a service provided by their ISP;
this might have implications like reduced speed, additional unsolicited services, e.g., in case of
entering wrong URLs, but also more serious service restrictions.
5

Selecting the appropriate regulatory approach

5.1

Options and principles

There are four possible elements in a regulator's approach to QoS:

Obtaining appropriate information on the level of QoS and identifying the problem areas.
This is essential since without the appropriate information the other elements cannot be
undertaken;

Publishing information on QoS performance so that customers can be better informed;

Imposing regulations on performance such as required minimum levels and fines or

compensation;

Undertaking a constructive dialogue with the operator concerned to encourage and foster
improvements.

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

There are basically two alternative approaches:

A regulation orientated approach where:

Reporting is to the regulator;
Performance targets are set in regulations;
Fines are payable to the regulator if targets are not achieved.

A customer orientated approach where:

Reporting is to the customer;
Targets and minimum performance levels are given in contracts;
Compensation for poor performance is payable to the affected customer.
In the early stages of market development, the regulation orientated approach may be more
appropriate if the performance is poor and the focus is on achieving a basic minimum level of
performance. In a later stage of development, the customer orientated approach may be preferable
so that the regulator can reduce its involvement and the operator is pushed to have a closer
relationship with the customer.
Setting performance targets needs to be treated with care and the distinction between the minimum
level of performance and the desired level needs to be maintained clearly. There is a risk that if
there is a minimum level of quality specified in a market with little competition, then this will be
regarded as an acceptable level. It might be better either not to set a target at all and just to report
achieved performance levels, or to set two levels a minimum and a desired level.
QoS regulation has a cost and the costs should be assessed against the benefits. Efforts should be
focused where there are known problems and problems areas change so there needs to be some
flexibility. The same level of effort, e.g., the same requirements for measurement and reporting
should not be applied to all possible parameters as this is needlessly expensive. One should "scratch
where it itches, not everywhere". Highest effort levels should be focused on parameters that are
both important to customers and where performance is poor or most at risk.
It is especially helpful if the legal system allows regulations to include some scope for subsequent
decisions and determinations by the regulator without needing to go through the whole procedure
for revising a regulation. For example, the regulation could include a formula such as "The
regulator may revise the list of parameters, target levels or reporting requirements in the future by
giving 3 months written notice to the operators".
6

Fundamentals of quality of service regulation

This clause provides an overview of the fundamentals of quality of service regulation. In the first
part of this clause, some definitions and terminology are introduced.

Quality of service is defined as the "collective effect of service performance, which

determines the degree of satisfaction of a user of the service" ([ITU-T E.800]). Quality of
service regulation is part of customer protection; however, customer protection is broader
than quality of service regulation and covers, for example, sales activities, complaint
resolution procedures and disconnection policies. Furthermore, quality of service is not the
same as network performance, which is concerned not with user experience but with
standards for network design.

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

6.1

The term "parameter" is used to describe the definitions of measurements to be made. A

target is defined as a potential value (or a range of values) for a parameter that must be
reached if quality is to be regarded as satisfactory. Three classes of parameters determine
user experience: "customer interface" parameters, "network infrastructure" parameters, and
"service functionality" parameters organizes parameters according to service type (such as
voice, SMS, etc.) rather than by operator type (fixed wireless, wireline, mobile, etc.) to help
with comparability between countries and consistency in the treatment of operators.
Parameters are named according to the same conventions irrespective of how they are
named in different countries. As such, "rate" defines the frequency of actions, "ratio" stands
for the proportion of actions that succeed, and "time" means the average time taken by
actions that succeed.
Justifications for quality of service regulation

Quality of service regulation aims at:

helping customers to make informed choices;

checking claims by operators;

understanding the state of the market;

maintaining or improving quality in the presence of competition;

maintaining or improving quality in the absence of competition;

helping operators to achieve fair competition; and

making interconnected networks work well together.

In addition, some guidance principles that would help regulators select parameters to be monitored,
measurements to be published and targets to be set are:

Parameters to be monitored should relate to the aspect of services that have the biggest
impact on users; they should be well defined and be cost-effective to operators. For this
reason, as far as possible they should have methods of measurement that are already in use
by the operators. They should also reflect differences in, for example, services and
geographic areas but should be consistent between services.

Measurements to be published should relate to aspects of services that users experience

directly (not the underlying technical cause). Publication of measurements needs to ensure
that they reach beneficiaries, that they are easily understood without being misleading and
that they allow for comparison between operators.

Targets to be set should relate to the quality users want. They should avoid limiting
customer choices between quality and price. Furthermore, values need to be determined
through sufficient information such as earlier measurements by operators, used in other
countries or proposed in international standards.
It was discussed that some variations of standard parameters may be necessary depending on the
specific situation in a country or sector. As a result, the measurements of a parameter might need to
distinguish between:

Market segments: Quality of service may be different for private consumers, small and
large businesses or for wholesale and retail offerings.

Reporting areas: Another distinction may need to be created if there are reporting areas
with likely differences in quality, such as rural and urban areas.

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Operators: Operators that have few customers, that resell services from other operators or
that are not dominant in the market might be exempted from monitoring parameters or
publishing measurements. Doing this could reduce inconvenience and costs. It is
recommended that setting targets would be mainly necessary with dominant operators,
whereas for other operators competition should help to reach the same results.
Services: Parameters may also be specific to services such as voice, text messages and
Internet, television and radio broadcasting as well as leased lines as the main services that
have most impact on users. However, it is recognized that even this list may be too long and
it may not always be desirable or necessary to impose quality of service regulation on all
these.

Activities in relation to quality of service regulation that emphasize the institutional and operational
aspect of these activities:

Defining parameters: When defining parameters, the involvement of operators is beneficial

and desirable. However, it also has to be noted that there is a risk that operators may
exercise undue influence and that the consultation process can be lengthy. As a result, the
regulator needs to exercise strong leadership while ensuring that stakeholders are consulted.

Setting targets: Targets are normally set by the regulator based on consultation and prior
monitoring of an operator's data. However, the report points to the possibility that the
operators could also set their own targets and be obliged to publish their targets.

Making measurements: For "customer interface" and "network infrastructure" parameters,

measurements are conveniently made by operators, whereas many "service functionality"
parameters are best made by external measurement agencies or by users to allow for
comparison and reduce the cost of measurements.

Auditing measurements: Measurements could be signed off by senior employees in a

"self-certification" process, audited by external agencies including independent auditors or
checked by regulators themselves. Important considerations are costs (for both the regulator
and the operator) and the effectiveness of audits.

Publishing measurements: Measurements should be published by the regulator to help with

comparisons between operators. To simplify the task the number of measurements to be
published could be reduced.

Ensuring compliance: The regulator may start with recommendations and move towards
obligations if the recommendations are important and practical, but the operator is not
willing to take part. A range of techniques exists that the regulator can adopt, starting from
"naming and shaming" strategies to tighter regulation, financial penalties and finally more
drastic legal enforcements. As a general principle, it is recommended that encouragements
and enforcements should be graduated and proportional.

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Table 1 List of proposed parameters

Customer interface

Network infrastructure

Service functionality

1. Customer complaint
submission rate

4. Coverage

8. Call set up ratio

2. Customer complaint
resolution time

5. Service supply time

9. Call retention ratio

3. Customer service call answer

ratio

6. Fault report submission rate

10. Listening voice quality

7. Fault repair time

11. Value added service call

answer ratio
12. Message transmission ratio
13. Packet transmission ratio
14. Packet transmission rate
15. Data transmission capacity

6.2

Parameters and targets

Quality of service regulation can have several aims that justify it; some are more important when
competition is strong, and others are more important when competition is weak. These aims are:

Helping customers to make informed choices. The price is an important factor in choosing a
service, but once customers have settled on the price they want the best quality available at
that price. Indeed, quality can be more important than price, especially for business
customers, because problems with quality are more likely to be costly. For services that are
bundled together, with one price covering several services, the quality of specific aspects of
the services can influence choices greatly. Publishing quality levels can help customers
with this.

Checking claims by operators. Operators sometimes make claims in advertisements about

their services or the services of their competitors. Publishing quality levels can enable
people to check this and help to ensure accurate claims.

Understanding the state of the market. Figures about roll-out might not be enough to show
how well policies are succeeding: they say nothing about how well equipment is maintained
after installation. Monitoring and publishing quality levels can show gaps in performance
that could be filled by market entry or that need new policies for particular groups of
people, geographic areas or operating conditions (such as emergencies).

Maintaining or improving quality in the presence of competition. Even in fully competitive

markets quality might be poor because of rapid expansion or overstretched management: in
various countries both the customer interface and the network infrastructure have become
overloaded during aggressive marketing campaigns. Competition can also reduce quality if
price cutting leads to cost cutting; quality reductions due to cost cutting can be difficult to
reverse, as new staff might need to be trained or deferred investments might need to be
brought forward. Publishing quality levels and having targets can help to maintain quality
in these cases.

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

6.3

Maintaining or improving quality in the absence of competition. A dominant operator might

be subject to price controls, unwilling to boost supply or insensitive to customer wishes,
also examining at least market and technology maturity, demand side growth, demand
elasticity, countervailing buying power, cost structure and market share similarities, and
supply side shortages. Then it might try to maintain margins by cutting costs and reducing
quality; it might even introduce an "enhanced" service and lower the quality of the
"standard" service to encourage customers to move to the "enhanced" service. Monitoring
quality levels and having targets for the retail services of the dominant operator can help to
maintain quality in these cases.
Helping operators to achieve fair competition. An alternative operator often depends
crucially on interconnecting with or reselling the facilities of a dominant operator. For
competition to be fair, the alternative operator should get the same quality level from those
facilities as the dominant operator gets. This is very difficult to ensure without firm
regulation of the structure of the dominant operator. Having targets for the wholesale
services of the dominant operator can help with it.
Making interconnected networks work well together. An end-to-end path might pass
through several networks, each controlled by a different operator. Then no individual
operator has responsibility for the end-to-end path, but a dominant operator might have a
serious effect on end-to-end paths set up by other operators. Having targets for the
wholesale services of the dominant operator can help to ensure that end-to-end paths are
satisfactory.
Activities in quality of service regulation

The main activities required by quality of service regulation, and the organizations that perform
them, are considered; some of them can be performed by operators or even users instead of the
regulator.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the main activities in quality of service regulation as described.
Consulting
stakeholders

Repeat
every
review
period

Repeat
every
reporting
period

'Should the fault repair time

(FRT) be measured?'

Defining
measurements

'The FRT is the average time

taken to repair reported faults'

Setting targets

'The FRT should not be more

than 1.5 days'

Marking
measurements

'The FRT has been measured

to be 1.375 days'

Auditing
measurements

'Has the fault repair time been

measured accurately?'

Publishing
measurements

'The FRT has been measured

to be 1.4 days'

Ensuring
compliance
Reviewing
achievements

'Encouragement and/or
enforcement'
'Should FRT continue to be
measured?'
E.800-Suppl.9(13)_F02

Figure 2 Activities in quality of service regulation

10

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Recommended approach

Information gathering and selection of parameters

Regulators should follow a combined approach of:

Listening for problems through the press, through occasional meetings with the public and
through monitoring the complaint statistics of the operators;

Requiring regular reporting against parameters with both high importance and high risk.
The selection of these parameters will change over time and will need to take account of the
costs of monitoring and reporting. If costs are low because performance can be monitored
easily and cheaply, e.g., automatically within the network then the parameters concerned
can be included anyway, but if they require extra expenditure such as test calls then
selection should be much more discriminating.
This could be called a "light touch" approach, i.e., one that focuses on pushing the service providers
closer to the consumer on issues where there are problems and that avoids an excessive burden of
reporting against all possible parameters.
Information publication
Regulators should both publish information on performance on its website and also require the
operators to send the information periodically to subscribers with their bills. Any information
should be as accessible as possible.
Target levels
Setting target levels is probably the most difficult aspect of QoS regulation. Levels should be based
on both an understanding of what the customers require and what the operator can reasonably be
expected to provide. If this is not clear, then it is better not to set a target but just to report the level
of performance achieved.
If there is a good understanding, then it is recommended setting both a minimum level below which
compensation is payable and a desired level for achieving good customer satisfaction.
Penalties
In general, ensuring compliance is highly recommended in QoS regulation. There are two
approaches in implementing quality of service regulations an encouragement and enforcement
approach. Fines are generally tied to licence obligation to be agreed on by the regulator and
operator. For the regulator to proceed with the enforcement approach, it may start with
recommendations and move towards obligations if the recommendations are important and
practical. The regulator can adopt a range of techniques, starting from "naming and shaming"
strategies to tighter regulation, financial penalties and finally more drastic legal enforcements.
However, doing this can involve extensive legal processes and may take a long time. A schedule of
penalties may be gazetted to ease implementation.
As a general principle, it is recommended that encouragements and enforcements should be
graduated and proportional.
It is also recommended that compensation should be payable to customers who are affected by
particularly poor performance. This should be addressed through service level agreements in
contracts where the agreements have to be approved by the regulator.
Service level agreements should be introduced only where there is some stability in supply. They
should not be used for new services and new technologies until a reasonable level of experience has
been gained with the technology.

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

11

Initial levels of compensation should be low; any such payments will be monitored by the
management of the operators and experience is that the benefit in alerting management to problems
far exceeds the value of the sums paid as they expose mangers to internal criticism. However for
critical parameters that have a seriously damaging effect on customers the levels of compensation
should rise depending on the extent on the problem with higher payments to business customers
than to residential ones. For example, failure to repair a fault within a specified time would incur a
penalty of say USDX per day but this rate should not be capped at a maximum of say 5 days but
continue and possibly the rate per day should rise if the time exceeds say 10 days. This formulation
is needed to ensure that the managers concerned take appropriate steps to resolve the issues and
prepare adequately for the problems that inevitably will occur.
Constructive dialogue
Whenever feasible, the regulator should engage in constructive dialogue with the operators about
quality problems. This should not be seen as a process of telling the operator how to run their
business but of asking penetrating questions that will have the effect of causing the operators to
review and reconsider their approach in areas with specific problems.
7.1

Service level agreements

The inclusion of "service level agreements" in contracts has become popular but such agreements
are not always effective as the formulation may be vague and compensation terms may not be
stated. Furthermore the process for claiming compensation may be made excessively complex to
deter claims.
To be effective a service level agreement should state:

The minimum level of performance offered to the customer, not the average level to be
achieved for all customers.

The compensation payment if the minimum level is not achieved with the sum at least
proportional to the degree of failure.
The mechanism for claiming compensation: In most cases compensation should be paid
automatically and the customer should not be required to make a claim.
8

Specifying parameters, levels and measurement methods

8.1

Parameters

The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO), the European "club"
of incumbent operators proposed the following criteria for QoS parameters:

QoS parameters should be easily understood by the public, and be useful and important to
them.

All parameters are applicable at the network termination point. Where measurements are
possible, they should be made on the customer's premises, using in-service lines. To be as
realistic as possible, real traffic rather than test calls should be used as a basis of the
measurements, wherever possible.

Parameters should be capable of verification by independent organizations. This

verification might be made by direct measurements or by audit of the operator's
measurements.

The accuracy of QoS parameter values should be set to a level consistent with costeffective available measurement methods.

12

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

The parameters are designed for both statistical and individual application. The statistical
values should be derived by the application of a simple statistical function to the individual
values. The statistical function should be specified in the standard. The standard should also
contain guidelines on how statistically significant samples should be selected.

However, making tests from the network termination point is normally not practicable. ETNO's
focus is very much on aspect of network performance, whereas other aspects of performance are
equally or more important.
The definition of parameters needs to take account of all the possible customer circumstances and
this is not easy. Alternatively the definition needs specifically to exclude circumstances where the
definition in not appropriate. Equally the definition should measure what will be perceived as good
quality and not allow circumstances where the metric is good but the performance is in fact poor, or
vice versa. For example, supply time for a new line cannot be defined just as the time between the
order being placed and the line made available since some customers may order lines to be installed
at a specific date in the future (e.g., when they are due to move in) and not as soon as possible. For
them the important measure is whether the work is carried out on the date requested.
In some cases, it may not be possible to develop a suitable definition; in this case it is better not to
require reporting than to require reporting against an inappropriate definition, otherwise an
incentive may be created for actions that reduce rather than improve quality.
Definitions of QoS parameters for QoS of mobile services are given in [ITU-T E.804]; QoS
parameters for the non-utilization stages of ICT services are given in [ITU-T E.803].
The bibliography provides a concise list of ITU-T Recommendations, currently in force, which are
considered of high importance for achieving end-to-end QoS and users' satisfaction. Many of them
cannot be used as direct basis for regulatory approaches. However, knowledge about their content
will enable regulators to have more educated discussions with operators.
8.2

Formulation of the target levels

The issue of whether to set a specific target level and whether to set a single level or a separate
minimum acceptable level and a desired level has been discussed earlier.
The levels for aggregated performance involving a number of different observations can be
formulated in two different ways:

The percentage of events that exceed or fail to meet a target level of performance
(e.g., % lines delivered in more than X days). In this case, X indicates a target level.

The number of days within which 90% of lines were delivered. In this case, no target level
is indicated.
If compensation is going to be given, then the measure must have a simple pass or fail criterion for
each individual customer.
8.3

Measurement methods

Measurement methods if possible should be objective. For some issues such as the effectiveness of
call centres and help lines it may not be possible to specify a parameter that can be measured
objectively, and subjective user assessments are used, e.g., the caller is asked at the end of the call
to assess its effectiveness on a scale of 1-5. While this does give some measure of performance, it is
not suitable for the application of penalties or compensation.
Measurement may be taken by third parties or reported by the operator itself. They may be based on
sampling or include all events. Where measurements can be built into the network or support
systems and be automatic then self-reporting covering all events is normally the best approach.

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

13

If sampling is used then consideration needs to be given to specifying criteria for the sample to be
representative and comparable between networks.
8.4

Reporting

Reporting normally involves aggregated results. The question is whether they should be aggregated
over:

All parts of the network or aggregated separately for different areas;

All customer types or reported separately for say business and residential customers.
This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis taking account of the local circumstances and
quality problems.

14

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Appendix I
List of telecommunications regulatory bodies
In order to keep regulatory efforts most effective, the QoS parameters reported, observed or
monitored will have to be adapted from time to time to take into account changes in technology,
user behaviour and general trends in society.
Therefore, the analysis of regulatory practices in other jurisdictions is best done in a real-time
exercise at a point in time when existing regulations are under revision or new ones are to be
established.
Therefore, this supplement does not contain copies of any current regulatory practices in force, but
offers a collection of links to related documentation in selected countries. All links have been
verified during the preparation of this supplement. However, such links may be unavailable
temporarily or permanently.
List of telecommunications regulatory bodies:
Afghanistan

Afghanistan Telecom Regulatory Authority

(ATRA)

http://www.atra.gov.af/index.php?lang=en

Albania

Electronic and Postal Communications Authority

([ITU-T P.10])

http://www.akep.al/

Algeria

Autorit de Rgulation des Postes et

Telecommunications (ARPT)

http://www.arpt.dz/

Angola

Telecomunicaes Ministrio das

Telecomunicaes e Tecnologias (MTTI)

http://www.mtti.gov.ao/

Argentina

Secretara de Comunicaciones (SECOM)

http://www.secom.gov.ar/

Armenia

Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC)

http://psrc.am/en/

Australia

Australian Communications and Media Authority

(ACMA)

http://www.acma.gov.au/

Austria

Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting

and Telecommunications (RTR-GmbH)

http://www.rtr.at/

Bahamas

Utilities Regulation & Competition Authority

(URCA)

http://www.urcabahamas.bs/

Bahrain

Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of

Bahrain (TRA)

http://www.tra.org.bh/en/home.asp

Bangladesh

Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory

Commission (BTRC)

http://www.btrc.gov.bd/

Barbados

Telecommunications Unit (Telecoms Unit)

http://www.telecoms.gov.bb/

Belarus

Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications

(MPT)

http://www.mpt.gov.by/

Belgium

Belgian Institute for Postal services and

Telecommunications (BIPT)

http://www.bipt.be/

Belize

Belize Public Utilities Commission (PUC)

http://www.puc.bz/

Benin

Transitory Authority for the Regulation of Posts

and Telecommunications (ATRPT)

http://www.atrpt.bj/

Bolivia
(Plurinational
State of)

Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones
(SITTEL)

http://www.sittel.gov.bo/

Botswana

Botswana Telecommunications Authority (BTA)

http://www.bta.org.bw/

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

15

Brazil

Agencia Nacional de Telecomunicaes

(ANATEL)

http://www.anatel.gov.br/

Brunei
Darussalam

Authority for Info-Communications Technology

Industry (AITI)

http://www.aiti.gov.bn/

Bosnia and
Herzegovina

Communications Regulatory Agency of BosniaHerzegovina (CRA)

http://www.cra.ba/

Bulgaria

Communications Regulation Commission (CRC)

http://www.crc.bg/index.php?lang=en

Burkina Faso

Autorite Nationale de Regulation des

Telecommunications (ARTEL)

http://www.artel.bf/

Burundi

Agence de Rgulation et de Contrle des

Tlcommunications (ARCT)

http://www.arct.bi/

Cameroon

Agence de Regulation des Telecommunications

(ART)

http://www.art.cm/

Canada

Industry Canada (ICRST)

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/h_00077.html

Canada

Canadian Radio-television and

Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/welcome.htm

Cape Verde

National Communications Agency (ANAC)

http://www.anac.cv/

Cayman
Islands

Information and Communications Technology

Authority (ICTA)

http://www.icta.ky/

Central
African
Republic

Agence charge de la Rgulation des

Tlcommunications (ART)

http://www.art-rca.org/

Chad

Office Tchadien de Regulation des Telecoms

(OTRT)

http://www.otrt.td/

Colombia

Comisin de Regulacin de Comunicaciones

(CRCOM)

http://www.crcom.gov.co/

Comoros

Autorit Nationale de Rgulation des Tics

(ANRTIC)

http://www.anrtic.co.km/

Costa Rica

Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones
(SUTEL)

http://sutel.go.cr/

Cte d'Ivoire

Agence des Telecommunications de Cte d'Ivoire

(ATCI)

http://www.atci.ci/

Croatia

Croatian Post and Electronic Communications

Agency (HAKOM)

http://www.hakom.hr/default.aspx?id=7

Chile

Subsecretaria de Telecommunicacaiones
(SUBTEL)

http://www.subtel.cl/prontus_subtel/site/edic/base/po
rt/inicio.html

Curaao
(Former
Netherlands
Antilles)

Bureau Telecommunicatie & Post (BT&P)

http://www.btnp.org/

Cyprus

Office of Electronic Communications & Postal

Regulation (OCECPR)

http://www.ocecpr.org.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=767&tt
=ocecpr&lang=gr

Czech
Republic

The Czech Telecommunication Office (T)

http://www.ctu.eu/main.php?pageid=178

Democratic
Republic of
the Congo

Autorite de Regulation de la Poste et des

Telecommunications du Congo (ARPTC)

http://www.arptc.cd/

Denmark

National IT and Telecom Agency (NITA) NITA

is closed since October 6, 2011

http://en.itst.dk/

Djibouti

Ministre de la Communication et de la Culture,

charg des Postes et Tlcommunications, PorteParole du Gouvernement (MCCPT)

http://www.mccpt.dj/

16

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Dominica

Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority

(ECTEL)

http://www.ectel.int/ntrcdominica.htm

Dominican
Republic

Instituto Dominicano de las Telecomunicaciones

(Indotel)

http://www.indotel.gob.do/

Ecuador

Consejo Nacional de Telecomunicaciones del

Ecuador (CONATEL)

http://www.conatel.gov.ec/

Ecuador

Ministerio de Telecomunicaciones y de la
Sociedad de la Informacin (MINTEL)

http://www.mintel.gov.ec/

El Salvador

Superintendencia General de Electricidad y

Telecommunicaciones (SIGET)

http://www.siget.gob.sv/index.aspx?tipo=17

Egypt

National Telecommunications Regulatory

Authority (NTRA)

http://www.tra.gov.eg/english/Main.asp

Estonia

Estonian Competition Authority (ECA)

http://www.konkurentsiamet.ee/?lang=en

Ethiopia

Ethiopian Telecommunication Agency (ETA)

http://www.eta.gov.et/

Finland

Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority

(FICORA)

http://www.ficora.fi/en/

France

Autorit de Rgulation des Communications

Electroniques et des Postes (ARCEP)

http://www.arcep.fr/

Gabon

Agence de Regulation des Telecommunications

(ARTEL)

http://www.artel.ga/

Gambia

Gambian Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

(PURA)

http://www.pura.gm/

Georgia

Georgian National Communications Commission

(GNCC)

http://www.gncc.ge/?lang_id=ENG

Germany

Bundesnetzagentur (BNA)

http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/enid/2.html

Ghana

National Communications Authority (NCA)

http://www.nca.org.gh/

Greece

Hellenic Telecommunications and Post

Commission (EETT)

http://www.eett.gr/opencms/opencms/EETT_EN/inde
x.html

Grenada

Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority

(ECTEL)

http://www.ectel.int/

Guatemala

Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (SIT)

http://www.sit.gob.gt/

Guinea

Regulatory Authority for Posts and

Telecommunications (ARPT)

http://www.arptguinee.org/

Guinea-Bissau

Ministry of Telecommunications (ICGB)

http://www.icgb.org/

Haiti

Conseil National des Telecommunications

(CONATEL)

http://www.conatel.gouv.ht/

Honduras

Comisin Nacional de Telecomunicaciones

(CONATEL)

http://www.conatel.gob.hn/

Hong Kong,
SAR

Office of Communications Authority (OFCA)

http://www.ofca.gov.hk/

Hungary

National Media and Infocommunication

Authority (NMHH)

http://www.nmhh.hu/

Iceland

Post and Telecom Administration (PTA)

http://www.pfs.is/default.aspx?cat_id=101

India

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)

http://www.trai.gov.in/

Indonesia

Badan Regulasi Telekomunikasi Indonesia/

Indonesian Telecommunications Regulatory
Authority (BRTI)

http://www.brti.or.id/

Iran (Islamic
Republic of)

Communication Regulatory Authority (CRA)

http://www.cra.ir/

Iraq

Communications and Media Commission (CMC)

http://www.cmc.iq/

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

17

Ireland

Commission for Communications Regulation

(ComReg)

http://www.comreg.ie/

Israel

Ministry of Communications (MOC)

http://www.moc.gov.il/130-en/MOC.aspx

Italy

Autorit per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(AGCOM)

http://www.agcom.it/

Japan

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

(MIC)

http://www.soumu.go.jp/english/index.html

Jordan

Telecommunications Regulatory Commission

(TRC)

http://www.trc.gov.jo/index.php?lang=english

Kenya

Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK)

http://www.cck.go.ke/

Korea (Rep.
of)

Ministry of Communications and Information

(KCC)

http://www.kcc.go.kr/user/ehpMain.do

Kosovo

Autoriteti Rregullator i Telekomunikacionit

(ART)

http://www.art-ks.org/

Latvia

Elektronisko sakaru direkcija (ESD)

http://www.esd.lv/index.php?lang=en

Lebanon

Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA)

http://www.tra.gov.lb/

Lesotho

Lesotho Communications Authority (LCA)

http://www.lca.org.ls/

Liberia

Liberia Telecommunications Authority (LTA)

http://www.lta.gov.le/

Libya

General Telecommunications Authority (GTA)

http://www.gta.ly/

Liechtenstein

Office for Communications (AK)

http://www.llv.li/amtsstellen/llv-ak-english-page.htm

Lithuania

Communications Regulatory Authority (RRT)

http://www.rrt.lt/en/home.html

Luxembourg

Institut luxembourgeois de rgulation (ILR)

http://www.ilr.public.lu/

Macau

Bureau of Telecommunications Regulation

(DSRT)

http://www.gdtti.gov.mo/eng/News/index.html

Madagascar

Office Malagasy d'tudes et de Rgulation des

Tlcommunications (OMERT)

http://www.omert.mg/

Malawi

Communications Regulatory Authority

(MACRA)

http://www.macra.org.mw/

Malaysia

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia

Commission (MCMC)

http://www.cmc.gov.my/

Mali

Ministere de la Communication et des TIC

(MTCMTL)

http://www.mtcmtl.com/

Malta

Malta Communications Authority (MCA)

http://www.mca.org.mt/

Mauritania

Autorite de Regulation (ARE)

http://www.are.mr/

Mauritius

Information and Communication Technologies

Authority (ICTA)

http://www.icta.mu/

Mexico

Federal Commission of Telecommunications

(COFETEL)

http://www.cft.gob.mx/wb/Cofetel_2008/idioma

Moldova

National Regulatory Agency for Electronic

Communications and Information Technology
(ANRCETI)

http://en.anrceti.md/front

Mongolia

Communications Regulatory Commission of

Mongolia (CRC)

http://crc.gov.mn/

Montenegro

Agency for Electronic Communications and

Postal Services (EKIP)

http://www.ekip.me/eng/agency/

Morocco

L'Agence Nationale de Rglementation des

Tlcommunications (ANRT)

http://www.anrt.net.ma/

Mozambique

Instituto Nacional das Communicacoes de

Mozambique (INCM)

http://www.incm.gov.mz/

Namibia

Namibian Communications Commission (NCC)

http://www.ncc.org.na/

18

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Nepal

Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA)

http://www.nta.gov.np/en/

Netherlands

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

[previously Onafhankelijke Post en
Telecommunicatie Autoriteit]

https://www.acm.nl/nl/

New Zealand

Commerce Commission of New Zealand

(ComCom)

http://www.comcom.govt.nz/

Niger

L'Autorit de Rgulation Multisectorielle (ARM)

http://www.arm-niger.org/

Nigeria

Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC)

http://www.ncc.gov.ng/

Norway

Norwegian Post and Telecommunications

Authority (NPT)

http://www.npt.no/

Oman

Oman Telecommunications Regulatory Authority

(TRA)

http://www.tra.gov.om/newsite1/

Pakistan

Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA)

http://pta.gov.pk/

Papua New
Guinea

National Information And Communication

Technology Authority (NICTA)

http://www.nicta.gov.pg/

Peru

Organismo Supervisor de Inversin Privada en

Telecomunicaciones (OSIPTEL)

http://www.osiptel.gob.pe/

Philippines

National Telecommunications Commission

(NTC)

http://portal.ntc.gov.ph/

Poland

Prezes Urzdu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(UKE)

http://www.uke.gov.pl/

Portugal

Autoridade Nacional de Comunicaes

(ANACOM)

http://www.anacom.pt/

Qatar

Supreme Council of Information and

Communication Technology (ictQatar)

http://www.ictqatar.qa/

Romania

National Authority for Management and

Regulation in Communications of Romania
(ANCOM)

http://www.ancom.org.ro/en/

Russian
Federation

Ministry for Communications and Informatization

of the Russian Federation (Minsvyaz)

http://www.minsvyaz.ru/

Rwanda

Regulatory Agency for Public Utility Services of

Rwanda (RURA)

http://www.rura.gov.rw/

Saudi Arabia

Communications and Information Technology

Commission (Saudi Arabia) (CITC)

http://www.citc.gov.sa/

Senegal

ART/Sngal (ARTP)

http://www.artp-senegal.org/

Serbia

Republic Agency for Electronic Communication

(RATL)

http://www.ratel.rs/

Seychelles

Ministry of Information Technology and

Communication (MISD)

http://www.misd.gov.sc/

Sierra Leone

National Telecommunications Commission

(NATCOM)

http://www.natcomsl.com/

Singapore

Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore

(IDA)

http://www.ida.gov.sg/

Slovakia

Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of the

Slovak Republic (TUSR)

http://www.teleoff.gov.sk/index.php?ID=9

Slovenia

Post and Electronic Communications Agency of

the Republic of Slovenia (APEK)

http://www.apek.si/apek-ang

Somalia

Ministry of Posts & Communication (MPC)

http://www.somali-gov.info/

South Africa

Independent Communications Authority of South

Africa (ICASA)

http://www.icasa.org.za/

Spain

Comisin del Mercado de las

Telecomunicaciones (CMT)

http://www.cmt.es/

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

19

Sri Lanka

Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of

Sri Lanka ([ITU-T E.800])

http://www.trc.gov.lk/

Sudan

National Telecommunications Corporation (NTC)

http://www.ntc.gov.sd/

Swaziland

Swaziland Posts & Telecommunications

Corporation (SPTC)

http://www.sptc.co.sz/

Sweden

Post-och telestyrelsen (PTS)

http://www.pts.se/

Switzerland

Federal Communications Commission

(ComCom)

http://www.comcom.admin.ch/

Taiwan, China

National Communications Commission (NCC)

http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/index.aspx

Tanzania

Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority

(TCRA)

http://www.tcra.go.tz/

Thailand

National Broadcasting and Telecommunications

Commission (NBTC)

http://nbtc.go.th/wps/portal/NTC/eng

The Former
Yugoslav Rep.
of Macedonia

Electronic Communications Agency (AEK)

http://www.aec.mk/

Togo

Autorit de Rglementation des Secteurs de

Postes et Telecommunications (ART&P)

http://www.artp.tg/

Trinidad and
Tobago

Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and

Tobago (TATT)

http://tatt.org.tt/

Turks and
Caicos Islands

Telecommunications Commission (TCITC)

http://www.telecommission.tc/

Tunisia

de l'Instance Nationale des Tlcommunications

de Tunisie (INTT)

http://www.intt.tn/

Turkey

Information And Communication Technologies

Authority (ICTA)

http://eng.btk.gov.tr/

Uganda

Uganda Communications Commission (UCC)

http://www.ucc.co.ug/

Ukraine

National Commission for the State Regulation of

Communications and Informatization (NCCIR)

http://www.nkrz.gov.ua/

United Arab
Emirates

Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA)

http://www.tra.ae/

United
Kingdom

Ofcom (OFCOM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom

United States

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

http://www.fcc.gov/

and individual states at

http://www.naruc.org/Commissions/

Uruguay

Unidad Reguladora de Servicios de

Telecomunicaciones (URSEC)

http://www.ursec.gub.uy/

Vanuatu

Telecommunications Regulator (Telecom

Regulator)

http://www.trr.vu/

Venezuela

Comisin Nacional de Telecomunicaciones

(CONATEL)

http://www.conatel.gob.ve/

Viet Nam

Vietnam Telecommunication Authority (VNTA)

http://www.vnta.gov.vn/

Zambia

Communications Authority (CAZ)

http://www.caz.cm/

Zimbabwe

Postal & Telecommunications Regulatory

Authority (POTRAZ)

http://www.potraz.gov.zw/

20

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

Bibliography
[b-ITU-T E.421]

Recommendation ITU-T E.421 (1988), Service quality observations

on a statistical basis.

[b-ITU-T E.422]

Recommendation ITU-T E.422 (1996), Observations on

international outgoing telephone calls for quality of service.

[b-ITU-T E.423]

Recommendation ITU-T E.423 (1988), Observations on traffic set

up by operators.

[b-ITU-T E.424]

Recommendation ITU-T E.424 (1992), Test calls.

[b-ITU-T E.425]

Recommendation ITU-T E.425 (2002), Internal automatic

observations.

[b-ITU-T E.427]

Recommendation ITU-T E.427 (1988), Collection and statistical

analysis of special quality of service observation data for
measurements of customer difficulties in the international automatic
service.

[b-ITU-T E.428]

Recommendation ITU-T E.428 (1992), Connection retention.

[b-ITU-T E.430]

Recommendation ITU-T E.430 (1992), Quality of service

framework.

[b-ITU-T E.431]

Recommendation ITU-T E.431 (1992), Service quality assessment

for connection set-up and release delays.

[b-ITU-T E.432]

Recommendation ITU-T E.432 (1992), Connection quality.

[b-ITU-T E.433]

Recommendation ITU-T E.433 (1992), Billing integrity.

[b-ITU-T E.434]

Recommendation ITU-T E.434 (1992), Subscriber-to-subscriber

measurement of the public switched telephone network.

[b-ITU-T E.436]

Recommendation ITU-T E.436 (1998), Customer Affecting Incidents

and blocking Defects Per Million.

[b-ITU-T E.437]

Recommendation ITU-T E.437 (1999), Comparative metrics for

network performance management.

[b-ITU-T E.438]

Recommendation ITU-T E.438 (2000), Performance parameters and

measurement methods to assess N-ISDN 64 kbit/s circuit-switched
bearer service UDI in operation.

[b-ITU-T E.440]

Recommendation ITU-T E.440 (1996), Customer satisfaction point.

[b-ITU-T E.470]

Recommendation ITU-T E.470 (2005), Operational considerations

for QoS of voice over IP-based networks with PSTN-IP-PSTN
architecture.

[b-ITU-T E.801]

Recommendation ITU-T E.801 (1996), Framework for Service

Quality Agreement.

[b-ITU-T E.802]

Recommendation ITU-T E.802 (2007), Framework and

methodologies for the determination and application of QoS
parameters.

[b-ITU-T E-800 series Sup.8] Recommendation ITU-T E-800 series Sup.8 (2009), Guidelines for
inter-provider quality of service.
[b-ITU-T G.101]

Recommendation ITU-T G.101 (2003), The transmission plan.

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

21

[b-ITU-T G.107]

Recommendation ITU-T G.107 (2014), The E-model: a

computational model for use in transmission planning.

[b-ITU-T G.107.1]

Recommendation ITU-T G.107.1 (2011), Wideband E-model.

[b-ITU-T G.108]

Recommendation ITU-T G.108 (1999), Application of the E-model:

A planning guide.

[b-ITU-T G.108.1]

Recommendation ITU-T G.108.1 (2000), Guidance for assessing

conversational speech transmission quality effects not covered by the
E-model.

[b-ITU-T G.108.2]

Recommendation ITU-T G.108.2 (2007), Transmission planning

aspects of echo cancellers.

[b-ITU-T G.109]

Recommendation ITU-T G.109 (1999), Definition of categories of

speech transmission quality.

[b-ITU-T G.111]

Recommendation ITU-T G.111 (1993), Loudness ratings (LRs) in an

international connection.

[b-ITU-T G.113]

Recommendation ITU-T G.113 (2007), Transmission impairments

due to speech processing.

[b-ITU-T G.114]

Recommendation ITU-T G.114 (2003), One-way transmission time.

[b-ITU-T G.115]

Recommendation ITU-T G.115 (1996), Mean active speech level for

announcement and speech synthesis systems.

[b-ITU-T G.121]

Recommendation ITU-T G.121 (1993), Loudness ratings (LRs) of

national systems.

[b-ITU-T G.131]

Recommendation ITU-T G.131 (2003), Talker echo and its control.

[b-ITU-T G.136]

Recommendation ITU-T G.136 (1999), Application rules for

Automatic Level Control Devices.

[b-ITU-T G.173]

Recommendation ITU-T G.173 (1993), Transmission planning

aspects of the speech service in digital public land mobile networks.

[b-ITU-T G.175]

Recommendation ITU-T G.175 (2000), Transmission planning for

private/public network interconnection of voice traffic.

[b-ITU-T G.177]

Recommendation ITU-T G.177 (1999), Transmission planning for

voiceband services over hybrid Internet/PSTN connections.

[b-ITU-T G.1000]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1000 (2001), Communications Quality of

Service: A framework and definitions.

[b-ITU-T G.1010]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1010 (2001), End-user multimedia QoS

categories.

[b-ITU-T G.1011]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1011 (2013), Reference guide to quality

of experience assessment methodologies.

[b-ITU-T G.1020]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1020 (2006), Performance parameter

definitions for quality of speech and other voiceband applications
utilizing IP networks.

[b-ITU-T G.1030]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1030 (2014), Estimating end-to-end

performance in IP networks for data applications.

[b-ITU-T G.1040]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1040 (2006), Network contribution to

transaction time.

22

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

[b-ITU-T G.1050]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1050 (2011), Network model for

evaluating multimedia transmission performance over Internet
Protocol.

[b-ITU-T G.1070]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1070 (2012), Opinion model for videotelephony applications.

[b-ITU-T G.1080]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1080 (2008), Quality of experience

requirements for IPTV services.

[b-ITU-T G.1081]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1081 (2008), Performance monitoring

points for IPTV.

[b-ITU-T G.1082]

Recommendation ITU-T G.1082 (2009), Measurement-based

methods for improving the robustness of IPTV performance.

[b-ITU-T J.247]

Recommendation ITU-T J.247 (2008), Objective perceptual

multimedia video quality measurement in the presence of a full
reference.

[b-ITU-T P.310]

Recommendation ITU-T P.310 (2009), Transmission characteristics

for narrow-band digital handset and headset telephones.

[b-ITU-T P.311]

Recommendation ITU-T P.311 (2011), Transmission characteristics

for wideband digital handset telephones.

[b-ITU-T P.313]

Recommendation ITU-T P.313 (2007), Transmission characteristics

for cordless and mobile digital terminals.

[b-ITU-T P.340]

Recommendation ITU-T P.340 (2000), Transmission characteristics

and speech quality parameters of hands-free terminals.

[b-ITU-T P.341]

Recommendation ITU-T P.341 (2011), Transmission characteristics

for wideband digital hands-free telephony terminals.

[b-ITU-T P.342]

Recommendation ITU-T P.342 (2009), Transmission characteristics

for narrow-band digital loudspeaking and hands-free telephony
terminals.

[b-ITU-T P.501]

Recommendation ITU-T P.501 (2012), Test signals for use in

telephonometry.

[b-ITU-T P.502]

Recommendation ITU-T P.502 (2000), Objective test methods for

speech communication systems using complex test signals.

[b-ITU-T P.505]

Recommendation ITU-T P.505 (2005), One-view visualization of

speech quality measurement results.

[b-ITU-T P.561]

Recommendation ITU-T P.561 (2002), In-service non-intrusive

measurement device Voice service measurements.

[b-ITU-T P.562]

Recommendation ITU-T P.562 (2004), Analysis and interpretation

of INMD voice-service measurements.

[b-ITU-T P.563]

Recommendation ITU-T P.563 (2004), Single-ended method for

objective speech quality assessment in narrow-band telephony
applications.

[b-ITU-T P.800]

Recommendation ITU-T P.800 (1996), Methods for subjective

determination of transmission quality.

[b-ITU-T P.800.1]

Recommendation ITU-T P.800.1 (2006), Mean Opinion Score

(MOS) terminology.
E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

23

[b-ITU-T P.805]

Recommendation ITU-T P.805 (2007), Subjective evaluation of

conversational quality.

[b-ITU-T P.862]

Recommendation ITU-T P.862 (2001), Perceptual evaluation of

speech quality (PESQ): An objective method for end-to-end speech
quality assessment of narrow-band telephone networks and speech
codecs.

[b-ITU-T P.863]

Recommendation ITU-T P.863 (2011), Perceptual objective

listening quality assessment.

[b-ITU-T P.880]

Recommendation ITU-T P.880 (2004), Continuous evaluation of

time-varying speech quality.

[b-ITU-T P.1010]

Recommendation ITU-T P.1010 (2004), Fundamental voice

transmission objectives for VoIP terminals and gateways.

[b-ITU-T P.1100]

Recommendation ITU-T P.1100 (2011), Narrow-band hands-free

communication in motor vehicles.

[b-ITU-T P.1110]

Recommendation ITU-T P.1110 (2009), Wideband hands-free

communication in motor vehicles.

[b-ITU-T P.12xx]

Recommendation ITU-T P.12xx-series (2012), Models and tools for

quality assessment of streamed media.

[b-ITU-T P.1201]

Recommendation ITU-T P.1201 (2012), Parametric non-intrusive

assessment of audiovisual media streaming quality.

[b-ITU-T P.1202]

Recommendation ITU-T P.1202 (2012), Parametric non-intrusive

bitstream assessment of video media streaming quality.

[b-ITU-T Y.1221]

Recommendation ITU-T Y.1221 (2010), Traffic control and

congestion control in IP-based networks.

[b-ITU-T Y.1530]

Recommendation ITU-T Y.1530 (2007), Call processing

performance for voice service in hybrid IP networks.

[b-ITU-T Y.1541]

Recommendation ITU-T Y.1541 (2011), Network performance

objectives for IP-based services.

[b-ITU-T Y.1542]

Recommendation ITU-T Y.1542 (2010), Framework for achieving

end-to-end IP performance objectives.

[b-ITU-T Y.1543]

Recommendation ITU-T Y.1543 (2007), Measurements in IP

networks for inter-domain performance assessment.

24

E series Supplement 9 (12/2013)

SERIES OF ITU-T RECOMMENDATIONS

Series A

Organization of the work of ITU-T

Series D

General tariff principles

Series E

Overall network operation, telephone service, service operation and human factors

Series F

Non-telephone telecommunication services

Series G

Transmission systems and media, digital systems and networks

Series H

Audiovisual and multimedia systems

Series I

Integrated services digital network

Series J

Cable networks and transmission of television, sound programme and other multimedia signals

Series K

Protection against interference

Series L

Construction, installation and protection of cables and other elements of outside plant

Series M

Telecommunication management, including TMN and network maintenance

Series N

Maintenance: international sound programme and television transmission circuits

Series O

Specifications of measuring equipment

Series P

Terminals and subjective and objective assessment methods

Series Q

Switching and signalling

Series R

Telegraph transmission

Series S

Telegraph services terminal equipment

Series T

Terminals for telematic services

Series U

Telegraph switching

Series V

Data communication over the telephone network

Series X

Data networks, open system communications and security

Series Y

Global information infrastructure, Internet protocol aspects and next-generation networks

Series Z

Languages and general software aspects for telecommunication systems

Printed in Switzerland
Geneva, 2014