Do femtocells need a "bus lane" on your broadband internet connection to speed through voice calls and ensure high quality? With internet services becoming more congested these days, is best effort really good enough?
Life in the fast lane for voice using femtocells | Technology - ThinkFemtocell
How is internet traffic coping these days?
Most internet traffic these days is
handled on a "best effort" basis, which means that you can't
quite be sure when (or even if) each packet of data will get to its
destination. Many applications are designed to cope with this,
retrying or skipping over glitches. Web browsing can cope with delays
before showing or updating each new web page. Video streaming usually
buffers a few seconds to accommodate any short outages. Voice
services, such as Skype, use codecs which spread the information
across several data packets so that individual losses don't cause
total loss of the audio.
Internet performance is degrading for many domestic users
But where congestion is heavy,
something has to give. Voice calls over the internet or live video
streaming woud be some of the first services to be noticeably
degraded in these circumstances. I've found from my own experience
that during peak hours (the evening), my wireline broadband service
slows down dramatically. Voice calls using Skype can become
unreliable and can drop out or fail; those using simpler VoIP codecs
reduce the call quality to a point where its unintelligble. In some
cases, it isn't obvious to both parties that voice quality has
degraded because sometimes this affects only one direction. And it's
not just my personal experience - I've also downloaded and listened
to a few interviews initially recorded over Skype where this has
happened.
Study confirms poor quality of experience for end users
This poor internet experience has been
confirmed by Epitiro , the internet quality of experience measurement
people, who have conducted a range of qualitative tests of many ISPs and end
users.
This contrasts with statements made by
Orange, who have not found voice quality to be an issue on their
UMA/WiFi dual mode service which is similar to femtocell services in
many ways. It also contrasts with the many millions of Skype and VoIP
users around the world, who successfully use these systems without
noticeable quality or performance limitations.The femtocell industry is quick to disagree with these conclusions too, having not experienced issues in field trials to date.
What can be done to address this?
There are three considerations here:
a) Prioritise voice traffic inside the broadband router: Voice calls can be prioritised and
fast tracked through the network. Where femtocells have been
integrated with a broadband modems, their traffic can be marked with
a priority flags that allow it to jump to the front of the queue and
so avoid latency and dropout problems. DSL modems often already do
there where they have built in VoIP ports - the femtocell is simply
treated as another VoIP priority input.This can prioritise the traffic within the domestic network (i.e. prioritise above other computers in the same house), but since the femtocell traffic is securely encapsulated in an IPsec tunnel, it can't easily be distinguished (and prioritised) by the ISP.
b) Use loss-tolerant voice codecs: Where voice codecs have been
designed for use in situations with poor quality in mind, this may
compensate for packet loss or delay. Mobile phone codecs have been
designed for poor radio links, although some of the protection is
built into the underlying radio bearer protocols rather than just the
voice codec itself and so wouldn't apply for its journey over the
wireline IP network.
c) Prioritise all traffic: We are likely to see wireline
broadband providers charge extra for handline premium traffic in the
future. Todays tariff plans for broadband seem to be differentiated
mostly by the volume of data per month and/or the peak data rate.
Those wanting higher dat rates and/or priority typically pay a higher
price. My own ISP offers a $15/month premium option where all my traffic
is prioritised - this is aimed more at businesses, and ensures that
VoIP calls are all of high quality and that web browsing and
streaming are much more responsive. Whilst its still best-effort to
some extent (if everyone took out premium service, we'd all continue
to share the same contention problems), this would be an immediate
solution to my quality problems.
Looking further ahead, I've seen
suggestions for IMS controlled networks that offer up to 8 classes of
traffic handling, ranging from VoIP and video streaming through to
best effort peer to peer filesharing. Femtocells could setup sessions to the femto gateway using IMS, with a higher priority to ensure high voice quality.
Summary
I suspect that where femtocells are
offered by networks who own or can agree priority traffic handling
for voice call traffic, then this capability will improve the
customer experience in congested networks. This may require the ISPs
to implement some changes in their networks. Simply relying on best
effort traffic handling may work in most cases, and will be better
than some VoIP services. Given the high quality of the radio
connection achieved by a domestic femtocell, it would be a shame to
see the end user experience degraded in this way. More results from field trials are required to
 |