The selected KPIs for data tests achieved by operators with the split per the aggregation type are presented in Figure 1. Those show differences between operators for data transfer, messaging, browsing and YouTube video watching.
Fig. 1. Selected KPI from data test
Results for Small file DL 3 MB tests are presented in Figure 2.
Fig. 2. KPIs results for Small file Transfer - Download
Big Cities:
All operators achieved excellent session success rates. A1 Srbija had the highest average data rate. Telekom Srbija had the second best result both in the average and P10/P90. Yettel was behind the competitors
Medium Cities:
A1 Srbija and Telekom Srbija had excellent session success rates. Yettel was behind the competitors with poorer success rate. A1 Srbija again had the best overall average throughput results, while Telekom Srbija was the second and Yettel the last. Both Telekom Srbija and A1 Srbija had higher P10/P90 values.
Small Cities:
Again, A1 Srbija and Telekom Srbija had excellent success rates result, followed by Yettel. A1 Srbija had the highest average data rate followed by Telekom Srbija and Yettel.
Highways:
All operators had very good success rates reaching good throughputs on the average. The difference between A1 Srbija and Telekom Srbija on the achieved average throughput is lower than in Cities. Yettel was behind the competitors.
Main Roads:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate with A1 Srbija and Yettel following behind. For the average data rate, A1 Srbija took the lead on the average and P10/P90 values. Telekom Srbija had the second second-best throughput results and Yettel was the last.
Rural Roads:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate. For A1 Srbija and Yettel, success rates were lower in rural areas, however A1 Srbija managed to achieve best the average throughput results followed by Telekom Srbija and Yettel.
Results for Small file UL 1 MB tests are shown in Figure 3.
Fig. 3. KPIs results for Small file Transfer - Upload
Big Cities:
In Big Cities, all operators achieved almost perfect session success rates. Telekom Srbija had the best result in terms of the average UL throughputs, Yettel had the second best result and A1 Srbija was slightly behind the competitors.
Medium Cities:
Similarly to the Big Cities, all operators had very good success rates. Telekom Srbija and Yettel almost equal on the average throughput results, with A1 Srbija slightly behind.
Small Cities:
Again, all operators achieved excellent session success rates Telekom Srbija had the best result on the average UL throughputs, Yettel had the second best result and A1 Srbija was slightly behind the competitors.
Highways:
All operators had very good success rates. Telekom Srbija had best result on the average, P10 and P90 values, leaving A1 Srbija and Yettel behind.
Main Roads:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate with A1 Srbija and Yettel slightly behind. For the average data rate, Telekom Srbija took the lead on the average and P10/P90 values.
Rural Roads:
Telekom Srbija with the best success rate. For A1 Srbija and Yettel, success rates were lower in rural areas. All three operators with much lower throughputs achieved than in other aggregations.
Tests results for Web Browsing tests are presented in Figure 4.
Fig. 4. KPIs results for Web Browsing tests
Big Cities:
Success rates for web pages were at a very good level for all three operators. The average browsing duration time was at a similar level for all three operators with small advantage of Telekom Srbija.
Medium Cities:
In Medium Cities, similarly to Big Cites, the success rates were very good for all three operators. Telekom Srbija had the shortest average browsing duration.
Small Cities:
Again, all operators achieved excellent session success rates. For the average duration, Telekom Srbija had the shortest browsing duration. Yettel and A1 Srbija were almost equal.
Highways:
All operators had very good success rates. Telekom Srbija had the best result on the average browsing duration, while A1 Srbija and Yettel were almost equal, with the second best results.
Main Roads:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate with Yettel second and A1 Srbija slightly behind. For the average browsing duration, Telekom Srbija took the lead again.
Rural Roads:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate. For A1 Srbija and Yettel, the success rates were lower in rural areas, both having poorer average browsing durations than Telekom Srbija.
YouTube video quality tests were performed according to ITU Recommendation J.343.1, which is relevant for the assessment of quality at the user end. The model measures the visual effect of spatial and temporal degradations as a result of video coding, erroneous transmission or video rescaling. The J.341.1 model is a no reference method, which allows assessing the quality of any content, even from unknown sources. The live streaming content was used to observe and measure quality of the video with real time data transmission to avoid buffering of the whole clip and playing it from the memory. As a result, the model provides a subjective assessment of the visual quality on a 1 to 5 mean opinion score scale for the video (VMOS).
YouTube test results of testing the quality of live stream video transmission are presented in Figure 5.
Fig. 5. KPIs results for YouTube video tests
Big Cities:
Success Rates were very good for all three operators in YouTube tests. Telekom Srbija had a slightly better result than the competitors for VMOS as well as for Video Access Time.
Medium Cities:
In Medium Cities, similarly to Big Cities, Success Rates were at a very good level for all three operators. Both Video Quality MOS and Video Access Times were at similar, very good levels for all three operators.
Small Cities:
Again, in Small Cities, Success Rates were at a very good level for all three operators. Again, both Video Quality MOS and Video Access Times were at similar good levels for all three operators.
Highways:
All operators had very good success rates. Telekom Srbija with slightly better Video Access Time. VMOS was almost equal for all three operators.
Main Roads:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate while Yettel was second and A1 Srbija slightly behind. VMOS were almost equal for all three operators. Telekom Srbija had a slightly better Video Access Time.
Rural Roads:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate. For A1 Srbija and Yettel, success rates were lower in rural areas, both reaching poorer Video Access Times than Telekom Srbija.
Messaging tests results are presented in Figure 6.
Fig. 6. Messaging tests
Big Cities:
In Big Cities, Telekom Srbija had an almost perfect session success rate, leaving Yettel and A1 Srbijabehind. Telekom Srbija had the shortest average duration, A1 Srbija had the second best result and Yettel was behind the competitors.
Medium Cities:
Similarly to the Big Cities, Telekom Srbija had an almost perfect session success rate, leaving Yettel and A1 Srbijabehind. Again, Telekom had the shortest average duration, A1 Srbija came second and Yettel had a longer session time than the competitors.
Small Cities:
Yettel and Telekom Srbija had almost perfect session success rates, leaving A1 Srbija behind. Telekom Srbija had again the shortest average duration, followed by A1 Srbija and Yettel.
Highways:
Telekom Srbija had an almost perfect session success rate, leaving Yettel and A1 Srbijabehind. Telekom Srbija had the shortest average duration, while A1 Srbija had the second best result and Yettel had the longest average duration.
Main Roads:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate Yettel being the second and A1 Srbija behind the competitors. Again, Telekom Srbija had the shortest messaging average duration.
Rural Roads:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate. For A1 Srbija and Yettel, success rates were much lower in rural areas, both reaching longer average messaging durations than Telekom Srbija which had again the shortest messaging average duration.
The selected KPIs for data tests achieved by operators with the split per the aggregation type are presented in Figure 7. Those show differences between operators for data transfer, messaging, browsing and YouTube video watching.
Fig. 7. Selected KPI from data test
Results for Small file DL 3 MB tests are presented in Figure 8.
Fig. 8. KPIs results for Small file Transfer - Download
Trains:
Telekom Srbija had the best success rate followed by Yettel. A1 Srbija was behind the competitors. Overall, the session success rates are much lower than in other aggregations mainly due to the tunnels and mountainous areas, which led to weak coverage. For the average data rate, A1 Srbija had the best average result.
Hot Spots:
All operators achieved excellent session success rates in the Hot Spots aggregation. Overall, A1 Srbija had the highest average data rate, followed by Telekom Srbija which was second and Yettel the last.
Results for Small file UL 1 MB tests are shown in Figure 9.
Fig. 9. KPI results for Small file Transfer - Uploads
Trains:
Overall, the session success rates are much lower than in other aggregations, mainly due to the tunnels and mountainous areas which led to the weak coverage. Telekom Srbija had the best success rate, followed by Yettel. A1 Srbija had the poorest success rate result.
Hot Spots:
All operators achieved excellent session success rates in the Hot Spots aggregation. Overall, Telekom Srbija had the highest average data rate, followed by Yettel and A1 Srbija.
Tests results for Web Browsing tests are presented in Figure 10.
Fig. 10. KPIs results for Web Browsing tests
Trains:
Overall, the session success rates are much lower than in other aggregations, mainly due to the tunnels and mountainous areas which led to the weak coverage. Telekom Srbija again had the best session success rate and the shortest Browsing Session Duration.
Hot Spots:
All operators achieved excellent session success rates, Telekom Srbija had the shortest average session duration, followed by Yettel and A1 Srbija.
YouTube video quality tests were performed according to ITU Recommendation J.343.1, which is relevant for the assessment of quality at the user end. The model measures the visual effect of spatial and temporal degradations as a result of video coding, erroneous transmission or video rescaling. The J.341.1 model is a no reference method, which allows assessing the quality of any content, even from unknown sources. The live streaming content was used to observe and measure quality of the video with real time data transmission to avoid buffering of whole clip and playing it from memory. As a result, the model provides a subjective assessment of the visual quality on a 1 to 5 mean opinion score scale for video (VMOS).
YouTube test results of testing the quality of live stream video transmission are presented in Figure 11.
Fig. 11. KPIs results for YouTube video tests
Trains:
The session success rates are much lower than in other aggregations, mainly due to the tunnels and mountainous areas which led to the weak coverage. Yettel had a slightly better session success rate than Telekom Srbija, leaving A1 Srbija behind. VMOS was almost equal for all operators. Yettel had the longest Video Access Time.
Hot Spots:
All operators achieved excellent session success rates. All three operators almost at pair in VMOS results. Yettel slightly behind the average Video Access Time but still at very good short access duration.
Messaging tests results are presented in Figure 12.
Fig. 12. Messaging tests
Trains:
Overall, the session success rates are much lower than in other aggregations, mainly due to the tunnels and mountainous areas which led to the weak coverage. Telekom Srbija had the best Messaging Activity Success Rate and the shortest average duration, leaving Yettel and A1 Srbija behind.
Hot Spots:
Telekom Srbija had the perfect Session Success Rate, with A1 Srbija reaching the second-best result and Yettel the last. Telekom Srbija had the shortest Messaging Average Duration, leaving A1 Srbija and Yettel behind - the latter two having close results.
