Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Wine&Internet
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Wine&Internet

  • 63 views
Published

 

Published in Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
63
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. They are alike in many ways. http://dsm-publishing.com/images/internet-marketing-services1.jpg http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02220/wine1_2220880b.jpg vs. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 2. Both qualities change with time, but they are valued differently. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 3. Their true qualities cannot be determined on their own. Both of them are media in nature and thus need complements to fulfill their purposes. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 4. Their qualities are not well disclosed nor easily understandable for novice users. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 5. Factors that affect their qualities are numerous and cannot be fully controlled by users or suppliers. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 6. When users have problems, there is no single entity that helps users solve them. Often, users themselves is the cause of the problems. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 7. For individual users or for individual cases, there should be “appropriate quality levels”; however, nobody cannot tell for sure what the levels are. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 8. The ad messages from providers are basically same, or inherently not comparable. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 9. Most of users would be happy if some “neutral” experts helped them choose an appropriate level for them. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 10. For wine, we have grading systems and sommeliers. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 11. Why not for the Internet? Independent QoS evaluation ISP Sommelier Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 12. Significance of QoS evaluations • Improving the resource allocation in the broadband ecosystem by facilitating competition – from users’ perspectives in the retail market – from content providers’ perspectives in the wholesale market • Helping governments evaluate success and failure of the ecosystem development Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 13. But we do not need an evaluation authority. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 14. Rather, we need a tradeshow space for numerous QoS evaluators. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 15. with a trustworthy appraiser or sommelier. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 16. Because Many parameters affect measurement outcomes and therefore determine winners and losers. Any single entity cannot try all the possible combinations of these parameters. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 17. And because Users themselves sometimes do not have sufficient literacy to understand the measured parameter and usually do not understand their individual needs or requiring QoS. Therefore, preparing a tradeshow space is not enough. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 18. Government cannot be a QoS evaluator. Changes are far more important than levels. Level itself differs among countries, regions, people, and companies; thus cannot be compared properly . We need a sustainable measurement mechanism, which any government is not very good at operating. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 19. Government cannot be a QoS sommelier either. Transparency, openness, and personal relevancy are what users need. National average is important only for a government and not for the general public. Importance of a “second opinion”. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 20. Status quo of the “best effort” 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Ratio of actual speed over advertised speed Actual speed (average, Mbps) Japan(Nov. 2009) Japan(Jan. 2011) Japan(Mar./Apr. 2012) Japan(Mar. 2013) US (2009) UK (May 2010) Australia (2008Q4) Ireland (2008) Source: Akamai, Epitiro,FCC, and Jitsuzumi (2013) Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 21. Status quo of the “best effort” 0 5 10 15 20 When connecting via LTE When connectign via 3G via home/office Wi-Fi Average actual speed for smart phone users (Mbps) Source: RBB TODAY SPEED TEST Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 22. Recommendations for governments • Prepare the market for evaluators – Specify parameters that evaluators have to provide when presenting measured results – Create an auditing mechanism or a test bed which each evaluator can use to verify his/her measurement ability • Prepare the market for ISP sommeliers – Specify the minimum requirements for a ISP sommelier business – Provide a watchdog system for possible misconduct Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 23. The Internet LTE Fiber, DSL Network Operators and ISPs Content Servers This is where ISPs control. GW This is where customers are concerned about. QoS measurements by ISPs QoS measurements by independent bodies Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 24. Measurement by company A Measurement parameters Location of measurement servers…………. Method of measurement ………. Number of samples …………. Period, Intervals …………. ……….. Results QoS at Location 1 for ISP α Radio field strength Average DL speed ○○Mbps Average UL speed ○○Mbps Jitters max ○○ms Packet loss ××% Latency □□ms …………. QoS at Location 1 for ISP β ………. Company B Company C Company D Measurement.org, Measurement.com Detailed data for professional users Easily understandable and tailored summary for ordinary users ISP sommelier Contractual information of each ISP Research on usage pattern for individual users Competition among sommeliers Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.
  • 25. Copyright © 2013 Toshiya Jitsuzumi. All rights reserved.