1 / 11

Jukka Rakkolainen / ECO

Jukka Rakkolainen / ECO. Nordic-Baltic Electronic Communications Regulators’ Workshop Network Neutrality and Consumer Protection Vilnius, 29 August 2012. Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View. Contents. Introduction CEPT, ECC, ECO, WG NaN

ugo
Download Presentation

Jukka Rakkolainen / ECO

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jukka Rakkolainen / ECO Nordic-Baltic Electronic Communications Regulators’ Workshop Network Neutrality and Consumer Protection Vilnius, 29 August 2012 Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View

  2. Contents Introduction • CEPT, ECC, ECO, WG NaN QoS requirements in Universal Service Directive • Article 22: Quality of Service NaN PT TRIS work on QoS Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / Jukka Rakkolainen

  3. The CEPT – The ECC The European Conference of Postal and Telecommunication Administrations (CEPT) covers the whole Europe with its 48 members • The ECO is the permanent office of CEPT located in Copenhagen The Electronic Communications Committee within in CEPT develops common policies and regulations in electronic communications and related applications for Europe The Working Group Numbering and Networks • develop policies in numbering, naming and addressing, and • advise on technical regulatory matters to encourage innovation and to support fair competition between the different market actors and in the interest of the citizens Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / Jukka Rakkolainen

  4. Organization of the ECC Electronic Communications Committee Chairman: T. Ewers (D) Vice-Chairmen: G. Sundal (NOR) S. Himonas (CYP) Steering Group European Communications Office Director: M. Thomas (G) Deputy Director: B. Espinosa (F) WG FM ECC PT1 WG SE WG NaN WG CPG Frequency Management Spectrum Engineering Numbering and Networks Conference Preparatory Group IMT-Matters Chairman: E. Fournier (F) Vice-Chairmen: S. Bond (G) A. Kühn (D) • Chairman: • S. Pastukh (RUS) • Vice-Chairmen: • C. Reis (POR) • T. Weilacher (D) Chairman: D. Chauveau (F) Vice-Chairmen: P. Toivonen (FIN) J. Afonso (POR) Chairman: Vice-Chairmen: A. Kholod (SUI)K. Loew (D) Chairman: J. Vannieuwenhuyse (BEL) Vice-Chairman: S. Gemming (D) Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / Jukka Rakkolainen

  5. Structure of the ECC Electronic Communications Committee Organization of the WG NaN Steering Group European Communications Office WG NaN WG SE WG FM WG CPG WG NaN ECC PT1 Conference Preparatory Group Frequency Management Spectrum Engineering Numbering and Networks IMT-Matters Numbering and Networks Chairman: Jan Vannieuwenhuyse (BEL) Vice-Chairman: Sascha Gemming (D) PT TRIS PT FNI PT NP Number Portability Technical Regulatory Issues Future Numbering Issues Chairman: Johannes Vallesverd (NOR) Chairman: Natalija Gelvanovska (LTU) Chairman: Sascha Gemming (D) Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / Jukka Rakkolainen

  6. What is the Problem within QoS? Continuously increasing number of internet service providers (ISPs) Offers to end-users vary not only by price or technology, but also by QoS parameters, e.g. transmission speed, delay, etc So what is wrong? • Each ISP defines and measures QoS parameters in a different way • Values of different ISP are not comparable Therefore it is not possible for end-users to compare different offers and the QoS they are promising Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / JukkaRakkolainen

  7. USD Article 22: Quality of Service EU regulations provide NRAs with tools to overcome problems identified Art 22/1:The NRA shall be able to require that service providers publish comparable, adequate and up-to-date information for end-users on the quality of their services Art 22/2:The NRA may specify the QoS parameters to be measured and the content, form and manner of the information to be published However NRAs are lacking practical experience Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / Jukka Rakkolainen

  8. How can TRIS help to solve the problem? The present PT TRIS study aims to accommodate the NRAs with the practical application of the EU’s regulations on QoS This, in turn, will allow the citizens to compare ISPs and make a more objective choice of an internet offer As the advanced choice of the ISP is not only based on the price but also on the performance of the connection, the information about the performance should be comparable Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / Jukka Rakkolainen

  9. The Aim of PT TRIS Report The draft PT TRIS report”Monitoring of Quality of Residential Internet Access Service – Pre-selected minimal set of technical parameters and measurement methods. Best Practices”aims to tackle the requirements within the USD In order to identify possible discrimination in terms of the QoSit is firstly needed to establish and harmonize system of evaluation of QoS on national and international levels This will also help to stimulate the competition between ISPs not only in terms of price, but also in terms of QoS Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / Jukka Rakkolainen

  10. The Aim of PT TRIS Report The aim is tostudy existing standardization, learn from experience from the field (i.e. what some countries already have done) and to formulate best practices and recommendations The Report covers • Problem statement and policy objectives • Definitions of technical QoS parameters and proposed harmonized minimum set of them • Measurement of QoS parameters • Presentation of QoS values to the end-users • Complementary QoS evaluation methods The objective of the work is to make QoS information comparable, adequate and user friendly Planned approval for public consultation in November 2012 Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / Jukka Rakkolainen

  11. Thank you for your attention! NaN PT TRIS web-site:http://www.cept.org/ecc/groups/ecc/wg-nan/pt-tris Jukka Rakkolainen • European Communications Office (www.cept.org/eco) • jukka.rakkolainen@eco.cept.org Quality of Internet Access – a Broader View ECO / Jukka Rakkolainen

More Related