Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Logarithmic laws in service quality perception: where microeconomics meets psychophysics and quality of experience

  • Published:
Telecommunication Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Utility functions, describing the value of a good or a resource from an end user’s point of view, are widely used as an important ingredient for all sorts of microeconomic models. In the context of resource allocation in communication networks, a logarithmic version of utility usually serves as the standard example due to its simplicity and mathematical tractability. In this paper we argue that indeed there are much more (and better) reasons to consider logarithmic utilities as really paradigmatic, at least when it comes to characterizing user experience with specific telecommunication services. We justify this claim with the help of recent results from Quality of Experience (QoE) research, and demonstrate that, especially for Voice-over-IP and mobile broadband scenarios, there is increasing evidence that user experience and satisfaction follows logarithmic laws. Finally, we go even one step further and put these results into the broader context of the Weber-Fechner Law, a key principle in psychophysics describing the general relationship between the magnitude of a physical stimulus and its perceived intensity within the human sensory system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. ITU–T Rec. E.800 (2008). Terms and definitions related to quality of service.

  2. ITU-T Rec. G.100/P.10 (2008). Vocabulary for performance and quality of service, amendment 2: new definitions for inclusion in Recommendation P.10/G.100.

  3. ITU-T Rec. G.107 (2000). The E-model, a computational model for use in transmission planning.

  4. ITU-T Rec. P.800 (1996). Methods for subjective determination of transmission quality.

  5. ITU-T Rec. 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.

  6. GNU: Speex (2004). http://www.speex.org/.

  7. Fiedler, M., Chevul, S., Radtke, O., Tutschku, K., & Binzenhöfer, A. (2005). The network utility function: a practicable concept for assessing network impact on distributed services. In Proc. ITC-19, Beijing, China, Sept. 2005 (pp. 1465–1474).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fiedler, M., & Hossfeld, T. (2010). Quality of experience-related differential equations and provisioning-delivery hysteresis. In Proc. 21st ITC specialist seminar, Miyazaki, Japan, March 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fiedler, M., Kilkki, K., & Reichl, P. From quality of service to quality of experience. Executive Summary, Seminar 09192, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, available at URL: http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2009/2235/pdf/09192.SWM.Paper.2235.pdf.

  10. Fiedler, M., Hossfeld, T., & Tran-Gia, P. (2010). A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service. IEEE Network, special issue “Improving QoE for Network Services”, pp. 36–41.

  11. Hayel, Y., Maillé, P., & Tuffin, B. (2005). Modelling and analysis of Internet pricing: introduction and challenges. In Proc. international symposium on applied stochastic models and data analysis (ASMDA), Brest, France, May 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hayel, Y., Rubino, G., Tuffin, B., & Varela, M. (2006). A new way of thinking utility in pricing mechanisms: a neural network approach. In Proc. CLAIO’06, Montevideo, Uruguay.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hossfeld, T., Tran-Gia, P., & Fiedler, M. (2007). Quantification of quality of experience for edge-based applications. In Proc. 20th international teletraffic congress (ITC20), Ottawa, Canada, June 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hossfeld, T., Hock, D., Tran-Gia, P., Tutschku, K., & Fiedler, M. (2008). Testing the IQX hypothesis for exponential interdependency between QoS and QoE of voice codecs iLBC and G.711. In Proc. 18th ITC specialist seminar on quality of experience, Karlskrona, Sweden, May 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibarrola, E., Liberal, F., Taboada, I., & Ortega, R. (2009). Web QoE evaluation in multi-agent networks: validation of ITU-T G.1030. In Proc. ICAS’09, Valencia, Spain, April 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kelly, F. P. (2003). Fairness and stability of end-to-end congestion control. European Journal of Control, 9, 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kilkki, K. (2008). Quality of experience in communications ecosystems. Journal of Universal Computer Science, Special issue on socio-economic aspects of next generation Internet, Spring.

  18. Longo, M. R., & Lourenco, S. F. (2007). Spatial attention and the mental number line: evidence for characteristic biases and compression. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1400–1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lopez, D., Gonzalez, F., Bellido, L., & Alonso, A. (2006). Adaptive multimedia streaming over IP based on customer oriented metrics. In Intern. symposium on computer networks, Istanbul, June 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Odlyzko, A. (1999) Paris metro pricing for the Internet. In Proc. of the ACM conference on electronic commerce (EC’99), London, UK (pp. 140–147).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reichl, P., Thissen, D., & Linnhoff-Popien, C. (1996). How to enhance service selection in distributed systems. In Proc. DCCN’96, Tel Aviv, Israel, Nov. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Reichl, P. (2010). From charging for quality-of-service to charging for quality-of-experience. Annals of Telecommunications, 65(3), 189–199. Special issue on “Quality of Experience and Socio-Economic Issues of Network-Based Services”.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Reichl, P., Egger, S., Schatz, R., & D’Alconzo, A. (2010). The logarithmic nature of QoE and the role of the Weber-Fechner law in QoE assessment. In Proc. IEEE ICC’10, Cape Town, South Africa, May 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reichl, P., Fabini, J., Kurtansky, P., & Stiller, B. (2006). A stimulus-response mechanism for charging enhanced quality-of-user experience in next generation all-IP networks. In Proc. CLAIO’06, Montevideo, Uruguay, Nov. 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ricciato, F. (2006). Traffic monitoring and analysis for the optimization of a 3G network. IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine, 13(6).

  27. Robinson, J. (1962). Economic philosophy. Chicago, Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rubino, G., Tirilly, P., & Varela, M. (2006). Evaluating users’ satisfaction in packet networks using random neural networks. In ICANN (vol. 1, pp. 303–312).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sun, L., & Ifeachor, E. C. (2002). Perceived speech quality prediction for voice over IP-based networks. In Proc. IEEE ICC’02, New York, USA, April/May 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Soldani, D., Li, M., & Cuny, R. (2006). QoS and QoE management in UMTS cellular systems. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Takahashi, T. (2006). Time-estimation error following Weber-Fechner law may explain subadditive time-discounting. Medical Hypotheses, 67(6), 1372–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tuffin, B. (2003). Charging the Internet without bandwidth reservation: an overview and bibliography of mathematical approaches. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 19(5), 765–786.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Varela, M. (2005). Évaluation pseudo–subjective de la qualité d’un flux multimédia. PhD Thesis, University of Rennes 1, France.

  34. Varela, M., Marsh, I., & Grönvall, B. (2006). A systematic study of PESQ’s behavior (from a networking perspective). In Proc. MESAQIN’06, Prague, Czech Republic, June 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Weber, E. H. (1834). De pulsu, resorptione, auditu et tactu. Annotationes anatomicae et physiologicae. Leipzig: Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Telecommunications Research Center Vienna (FTW), Donau-City-Str. 1, 1220, Vienna, Austria

    Peter Reichl & Raimund Schatz

  2. Université Européenne de Bretagne, 5 Bvd Laënnec, 35000, Rennes, France

    Peter Reichl

  3. INRIA Rennes Bretagne-Atlantique, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042, Rennes Cedex, France

    Bruno Tuffin

Authors
  1. Peter Reichl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruno Tuffin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raimund Schatz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Reichl.

Additional information

This paper is an extended version of the paper “Economics of Logarithmic Quality-of-Experience in Communication Networks” which has been mentioned as Best Paper Award runner-up at the 9th Conference of Telecommunication, Media and Internet Techno-Economics (CTTE 2010), Ghent, Belgium, and has been invited for submission to this special issue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reichl, P., Tuffin, B. & Schatz, R. Logarithmic laws in service quality perception: where microeconomics meets psychophysics and quality of experience. Telecommun Syst 52, 587–600 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-011-9503-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-011-9503-7

Keywords