Mobile Video and LTE: Profitability Challenge or Revenue Opportunity?
View the Q&A
Currently, only 10% of mobile subscribers are using video, and are already consuming over 50% of network capacity (March 2011 Bytemobile Analytics Report). As higher-capacity LTE networks are deployed, more video content including over-the-top (OTT) video is forecast to be consumed. The increased strain on network resources and greater impact on customer experience will generate a rapidly growing need for content-level service differentiation and new video monetization strategies for LTE.
This webinar discusses how LTE can be the foundation for a better subscriber Quality of Experience, allowing operators to convert video from a profitability challenge to a revenue opportunity.
Register now and attend this webinar to discover:
- Insights from Informa analyst on what subscribers want and would pay for
- How to deliver a differentiated mobile video experience that keeps valuable customers happy
- Opportunities to partner with OTT/content providers and unlock new revenue
- New business models that mobile operators can implement today to meet customers’ needs and better monetize video on LTE networks
Register for this webinar to find out what you need to deliver a mobile video experience that drives customer satisfaction and revenue growth now and into the future.
Tags; Archive, LTE, LTE, Mobile Video, networks, Openet, OTT, telecoms.com
Thank you for your questons, this Q&A is now closed. You can email your questions direct to Gary at Gary.Rieschick@openet.us and Jeff at jsanderson@bytemobile.com.
What is the TPS benchmarking for Openet PCRF for Gx & Gy Proxy to support T1 Operator?
Yatin,
Openet has multiple tier 1 mobile deployments with operators over 50M subscribers so the product is highly scalable. I can’t share the exact numbers on this Q&A due to the number of competitors registered but you can request a follow-up discussion if you wish to discuss further.
how operator ensures ROI on this Solution?
The ROI has been reasonably easy for operators once they realize this type of solution offers: better QoE for subscribers, less customer care calls, reduced churn, less bill shock when roaming and the ability to evolve service plans towards the next generation of mobile data business models.
Is Openet Solution compliant to 3GPP Rel. 11 ? How abt Interface between PCRF & OCS? Is it Sy or Gy?
The Openet solution has Release 11 capability but the key is what the PCEF support in terms of compliance. The version of the Gx interface is typically driven by what the PCEF can support rather than the PCRF. The PCRF to OCS is Sy in some cases but there has been a few implementations of Gy proxy where the PCEF communicates with PCRF then a proxy is done to the OCS. This is typically because the incumbent OCS can’t support the TPS load so the more performant PCRF reduces the number of messages, etc.
With this: are we adding more complexity on telco’s network; i.e more CAPEX at a time where telcos are looking for ways to reduce it? I guess this will lead to xaaS model, would your solution fit this model?
Do you see WiFi as a “cheaper” alternative to LTE with potentially better user experience than 3G?
Fair question on Wi-Fi versus 3G. Since operators are just begining to build out metro overlay networks with Wi-Fi it’s hard to speculate. WIth that said I do believe there’s a business case for metro wi-fi and it will be important for standard data offloading which PCRF has a role. On the flip side PCRF is also key to VoLTE for LTE which is one of the leading drivers or part of that business case. In summary the business drivefs of Wi-Fi and LTE are considerably different.
What is the Interface between Openet PCRF & Video Optimization Box ?
3GPP compliant Gx interface
What was the special case for the 4g operator that had 51% of video traffic from Netflix? That is insane!
It was actually 51% of total Video traffic. In this case total video amounted for around 75% of total data volume. So Netflix was around 37% of total data volume, As I said, these guys had no volume caps (all you can eat) so blowing through large amounts of data volume didnt impact subscribers usage
With this: are we adding more complexity on telco’s network; i.e more CAPEX at a time where telcos are looking for ways to reduce it? I guess this will lead to xaaS model, would your solution fit this model?
Some may say this type of approach adds complexity but remember this type of solution reduces video traffic by 30+%. That type of reduction in video traffic reduces augmentation costs and the overall ongoing CAPEX which is a far better savings than the cost these nodes. Note that both PCRF and PCEF are standards based functions that also get used for many other purposes which we didn’t have time to cover today. Let us know if you want to discuss in more detail offline.
How can caching video be integrated into PCRF to enhance service while minimizing load on the network?
Good question. There’s been a good amount of operator discussions about caching with policy management. Note that the Video optimization nodes like from ByteMobile that include caching. Anyhow if the subscriber is pulling cached content then policy is needed to ensure the level of QoE aligns with the subscriber entitlements (e.g. service plan). This may seem simple but when there’s many subscriber in a small geographic area with congestion the role of policy doing real-time changes to video delivery becomes key.
Would it be any help to push the caching further out towards the users to make sure it is in the affected geographic area? For example, to put a cache server at the eNodeB?
Good question. Yes content caching can be deployed near the eNodeB but to date most of the video optimization with caching deployments are in the IP core on the Gi interface. This is largely due to the fact that the backhaul and IP core networks aren’t the network bottleneck.
Most operators see the value in having caching as close to the users. So far, within the mobile architecture, there are limited opportunities to do that from within the Radio network however. I cant speak for other video enforcement / caching vendors but we are working with the traditional mobile equipment vendors to find a way of jointly solving this problem, allowing us to place our value deeper within the mobile network.
That would be good because the backhaul to the sites is becoming an issue, and as Gary said, often times the issue of high video usage is geographically local.
Thanks Joel, I hoped the webinar was useful.
Caching would be integrated into the Video Enforcement platform (the bytemobile platform for instance) as opposed to the PCRF. Our video enforcement solution supports video caching. Their are multiple benefits to video caching. Its not just about saving load (on the internet side) by not pulling down videos directly from the Internet but more importantly we find there are huge benefits to user experience. By having the content sourced locally from within the operators network, then the operator has more control. We see lots of evidence that the internet content sites (as well as links to the internet) suffer during the busy periods. This may not be the operators fault but the users wont see it that way.
What we are finding is that those operators that have deployed our technology are looking at our caching technology as part of a overal Mobile CDN evolution.
Please confirm the percentage of video on lte (80% or 18%)
It depends but on average we are seeing video consume around 50% of all data volume on existing 3G/HSPA networks. That number creeps up where you have better quality networks and with LTE we have seen networks where video is commanding up to 70% of total data volume.
Great case! How much does upsell cost? How much consumer take up?
Upsell cost varies depending on the interval of time the subscriber wants to buy. For instance often times the subscriber may want a temporary bump in video quality for the next two hours to watch a video or do a video conference. For this small window of time the upsell cost is relatively small, $2 for example. If the customer wants to change to a higher plan then it could be $5-10 more per month but all of this is driven by the operator and how they wish to change the service plans.
Is their a standard for policy management protocol? is there a role for Radius? does all of this require IMS?
Policy Mgt uses a standards compliant Gx (DIAMETER) interface to manage video optimization nodes. RADIUS isn’t needed because the source IP to subscriber ID mapping is provided by the PCRF. The PCRF get’s subscriber awareness from the Gx message from the access gateway. IMS isn’t required but can be part of the deployment strategy.
Any evidence that consumers will be “more than willing to pay for a higher quality of service”? Mobile service is already very high quality (when connection is available), but also very, very expensive. Not clear consumer will pay more for higher QoS.
Mobile users are consumers. Most consumers are already willing to pay for higher quality enteratinment via traditional content delivery channels. I would disagree that mobile service is already high quality. I may be able to get decent access to Youtube here in the UK but when I try to use BBC’s iPlayer its just not possible most of the time. I guess its market dependent but most mature 3G markets are suffering from the ‘capacity crunch’. It’s a bit of a lottery whether you will get a decent service with Video (irrespective of what you are paying today). I believe many users (especially those consistent video users) would be willing to pay more for higher quality versus restricted quality.
But if they’re paying GBP 5 for 500 MB, or about GBP 5/hour for high quality video format, how much more will they pay for a higher quality connection?
If I watch a 40 minute TV program in HD then I will probably consume around 2GB of my monthly volume. So I can only watch 3 programs (or a full movie) a month before I either get clattered with overage charges (bill shock!) or my speed is greatly reduced (which results in not being able to watch any video). This approach will stymy the adoption of mobile video. Quota is not a great way of managing mobile video. Operators will need to embrace video to moentize it. If I know I am over my quota I probably wont use the service so eagerly and get my video from other content delivcery channel for the remaining majority of the mobile billing period. A number of operators that we are working with are looking to rethink volume caps. Most will use volume to apply as a protection mechanism for non-video traffic but leverage quality based service differentiation (LD, SD, HD) as a more ‘front & centre’ tool for tarrifing.
How is this different from a DPI + policy solution?
Video enforcement is not trivial. You have to fully understand both the video content and what type of experience is being delivered in real time to do a good job. You can only do that when you are processing the actual content. DPI’s dont do this. They are essentially packet level platforms that can shape application flows. Sure you can shape video but video doesnt conform to a constant bit rate so you really need to enforce video, frame by frame, chunk by chunk etc. Using DPI’s to control Video will significantly impact delivered user experience because of their lack of content layer intelligence. What if the network conditions change during the video session? This is pretty common on mobile networks. Unless you know how this is impacting user expereince (in real-time) then you cant change your treatment of the video. One of the techniques could be to modify the content itself to ensure that it can squeeze through the available throughput. DPI’s can modify the content. I’m not dissing DPI’s they have an critical role to play in the controll of traffic, but having them manage content layer user experience is just something they cant do.