1221
1 INTRODUCTION
Over the past few decades, digital mobile wireless
communication systems have evolved from second
(2G) to fifth-generation (5G) technologies. With the
increasing diversity of provided services and the
dynamic development of cellular networks, the
importance of quality of service (QoS) has significantly
grown. Currently, these metrics provide the basis for
the quality assessment of the services provided in
mobile networks and the selection of appropriate radio
resources to support them. Furthermore, QoS is the
foundation for developing key performance indicators
(KPIs) for fourth-generation (4G), 5G, and beyond
generations of systems [1].
New technologies offer a broader spectrum of
services, more energy- and spectrum-efficient
utilization of limited radio resources. In 5G, due to the
ultra-dense network (UDN) [2] and the need to provide
broadband services in a wider range, new frequency
ranges (FRs) have been allocated for the needs of
developing mobile networks, i.e., the sub-6 GHz band
(i.e., FR1, including 700 MHz band and C-band),
millimeter-waves (i.e., FR2), and upper mid-band (i.e.,
FR3) [3]. This enables the delivery of higher-level
services (e.g., faster transmission, wider bandwidth,
lower latency) compared to older-generation mobile
networks. The potential of 5G technology is also visible
in terms of military use [4].
Overview of QoS Metrics and Mechanisms Used
in Mobile Networks
D. Wawok, W. Bonowicz, P. Zdankowski & J.M. Kelner
Military University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
ABSTRACT: Mobile networks constitute the primary telecommunications system used in road transport. They
also play an important role in maritime transport, particularly in ports and coastal areas. The development of
fifth-generation (5G) and beyond technologies — especially non-terrestrial networks (NTNs) and their integration
with satellite communication — opens up the potential for mobile connectivity even on the high seas. Quality of
service (QoS) in mobile networks is essential for ensuring high performance, reliability, and efficient management
of network resources. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the key QoS metrics and mechanisms
employed in mobile networks across different generations, from third (3G) and fourth-generation (4G) to the
latest advancements in 5G. It discusses the evolution of cellular networks and strategies for QoS management,
with a focus on critical key performance indicators (KPIs) and traffic optimization mechanisms such as bandwidth
management, packet prioritization, and service differentiation. The aim is to provide a detailed and systematic
review of QoS technologies, highlighting the differences between network generations and their impact on end-
users and telecom operators. These topics are particularly relevant in the context of growing demand for high-
throughput and low-latency services, making QoS optimization one of the key challenges facing modern mobile
networks.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 19
Number 4
December 2025
DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.04.20
1222
On the other hand, regulatory authorities for
telecommunications services (such as the Office of
Electronic Communications in Poland) are increasingly
enforcing improved QoS for end users [5]. Therefore,
developing methods and tools for continuously
assessing QoS is essential.
In this paper, we demonstrate how QoS metrics and
mechanisms are changing in different generations of
mobile networks. The remainder of the paper is
organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the evolution
of digital mobile networks. Sections 3, 4, and 5 provide
an overview of QoS metrics and mechanisms in third-
generation (3G), 4G, and 5G, respectively. The paper
concludes with a summary in Section 6.
2 EVOLUTION OF MOBILE NETWORKS
The first generation (1G) of mobile network,
introduced in the 1980s, was revolutionary for its time,
enabling analog voice communication. However, its
limitations quickly became apparent, such as poor
sound quality and a lack of security. A breakthrough
occurred in the 1990s with 2G digital networks with
Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)
standard revolutionizing communication by
introducing short message service (SMS) and
improving call quality.
The following decade brought 3G networks, which
met the growing user demand for high-speed mobile
Internet, allowing for internet-based applications and
video calls. The pace of technological development
remained high. Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard
as 4G networks delivered even faster data transmission
and lower latency, enabling high-quality video
streaming and broad adoption of cloud services [6].
Nowadays, we are in the era of 5G networks, which
offer data speeds of up to 20 Gbps, ultra-low latency,
and support for massive numbers of connected devices
(i.e., UDN). 5G technology enables the implementation
of advanced projects such as autonomous vehicles,
smart cities, and applications in virtual and augmented
reality [7].
Each generation not only raised the technological
standards but also profoundly impacted our daily
lives, reshaping how we work, socialize, and
communicate. This paper thoroughly examines each
generation, analyzing their development, key
technologies, and societal influence.
To effectively ensure and maintain QoS, resource
management systems must be designed with QoS
requirements in mind. The resource allocation process
must consider several critical factors, including
resource availability, existing control policies, such as
those defined in service-level agreements (SLAs), and
the specific quality requirements of applications,
expressed through QoS parameters such as delay,
jitter, and packet loss [8][9].
Monitoring QoS parameters is essential to verify
whether the agreed service levels are being met. If
deviations from the expected values occur, the resource
management system should reallocate resources
appropriately to maintain the desired service quality.
Before any resource reservation, the application layer
must negotiate QoS parameters through signaling
mechanisms. Once the negotiation is successful, the
session can begin [9].
In the event of QoS degradation, and if the resource
manager cannot compensate, the application should
either adapt to the new QoS level or continue service
delivery at a reduced level. QoS evaluation is based on
analyzing a set of metrics, with the most important
being delay, jitter, packet loss, and throughput.
Additionally, more detailed indicators may also apply
depending on the application type and the used
management scheme [8].
In packet-switched networks, the most commonly
applied general QoS parameters include [8]:
− delay – the total time for a packet to travel from the
sender to the receiver;
− jitter – the variation in arrival time of successive
packets;
− packet loss – the percentage of packets lost during
transmission;
− throughput – the number of bits successfully
transmitted over a given period.
Table 1 provides a more detailed comparison of 1G-
5G mobile network standards. All abbreviations
appearing in Table 1 are explained in the section before
References.
3 QUALITY OF SERVICE IN 3G MOBILE
NETWORKS
3.1 QoS Metrics
3G cellular networks use Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UMTS) and High Speed
Packet Access (HSPA) standards. In this generation,
QoS metrics played a crucial role in delivering
consistent performance for services such as voice calls,
multimedia messaging service (MMS), video
streaming, and mobile Internet access. 3G systems
defined four main service classes: conversational,
streaming, interactive, and background, each
associated with specific QoS requirements.
Key QoS metrics in 3G mobile networks include:
− end-to-end delay – the total time taken for a data
packet to travel from sender to receiver; for
conversational class, delays below 150 ms were
preferred;
− jitter – the variation in delay between successive
packets, critical for real-time applications like Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP);
− throughput – measured as guaranteed bit rate
(GBR) and maximum bit rate (MBR), depending on
the service class;
− packet loss rate (PLR) – high relevance in
video/audio transmission, where loss above 1–2%
leads to quality degradation;
− bit error rate (BER) – Indicates the quality of the
physical signal transmission by measuring the
frequency of bit-level errors.
1223
Table 1. Comparison of 1G-5G mobile networks.
KPI \ Generation
2G
3G
4G
5G
Technology
Digital
Digital
Digital
Digital
Standard
GSM, GPRS
UMTS / HSPA
LTE / LTE-A / LTE-A Pro
New Radio (NR) / 5G-A
Year introduced
~1990
~2000
~2010
~2020
Frequency band
~900 MHz / 1.8
GHz
1.6–2.0 GHz
2–8 GHz
3–6 GHz (FR1), 24–100 GHz
(FR2)
Access technology
TDMA /
FDMA
WCDMA
OFDMA + SC-FDMA
OFDMA + MU-MIMO +
beamforming
Data rate
Up to 64 kbps
144 kbps – 2 Mbps
100 Mbps–1 Gbps (up to 3
Gbps with LTE-A)
>1 Gbps (up to 10–20 Gbps in
eMBB)
Latency
~300–500 ms
~100–200 ms
~30–50 ms
<1 ms (URLLC), ~4 ms (typical)
Jitter
High
Moderate
Low
Very low (URLLC)
Packet loss
High
<1–2% (video/audio)
<0.1% for VoIP
<0.001% for URLLC
Network throughput
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Device density
(devices/km²)
~100
~1,000
~10,000
>1,000,000 (mMTC)
Reliability
Moderate
Good
Very good
Ultra-reliable (>99.999%) for
URLLC
QoS
Limited
Introduced service classes
and QoS metrics
QCI, GBR/MBR, AMBR,
PCRF
5QI, network slicing, AI/ML,
PCF, reflective QoS
Dominant use cases
Voice + SMS
Voice, SMS, MMS, mobile
internet, video
VoLTE, streaming, online
gaming, cloud services
URLLC, eMBB, mMTC, AR/VR,
autonomous systems
These metrics were monitored primarily at the
radio network controller (RNC) and used to inform
radio resource management (RRM) decisions. Metrics
like BER were also utilized to adapt physical layer
(PHY) parameters dynamically [10].
3.2 QoS Mechanisms
In UMTS networks, QoS mechanisms were designed to
differentiate services and prioritize traffic based on the
application’s sensitivity to latency, packet loss, and
bandwidth requirements. The architecture introduced
multiple service classes and integrated control
mechanisms at both radio and core network layers.
Key QoS mechanisms in 3G include:
− traffic classes – four QoS traffic classes
(conversational, streaming, interactive,
background) defined the nature and sensitivity of
services; conversational class, for instance, was
prioritized for low-latency voice calls;
− bearer services – dedicated bearers were created
with specific QoS attributes; these bearers
determined how user data was handled across the
UMTS core;
− radio access bearers (RABs) – these defined end-to-
end QoS between the user equipment and core
network;
− RRM – a critical component responsible for
admission control, load balancing, power control,
and handover decisions based on QoS demands;
− admission control and scheduling – evaluated
whether new QoS flows could be admitted based on
available radio capacity;
− QoS negotiation via non-access stratum (NAS)
signaling – user terminals initiated session requests
with QoS parameters, which the network evaluated
before accepting and reserving resources.
These mechanisms ensured that high-priority
services received preferential treatment, although their
effectiveness was often constrained by network
congestion and radio environment variability [9].
3.3 Radio Signal Quality Parameters in 3G
In 3G mobile systems (UMTS/HSPA), radio signal
quality is primarily assessed using a set of physical-
layer parameters that guide resource allocation, power
control, and mobility management. These metrics are
crucial for ensuring call stability, minimizing dropped
connections, and maintaining throughput.
In 3G, the following radio signal quality parameters
are defined [11]:
− received signal code power (RSCP) measures the
received power on the common pilot channel
(CPICH); it reflects the strength of the useful signal
without considering interference; RSCP values
typically range from –120 dBm (very weak) to –60
dBm (very strong); a signal stronger than –85 dBm
is generally considered sufficient for stable voice
and low-rate data services;
− energy per chip to noise power density ratio
(Ec/No) expresses signal quality by comparing the
pilot signal to the overall noise and interference
level; values vary from –24 dB (poor quality) to 0 dB
(excellent quality), with values above –10 dB
preferred for good user experience;
− BER provides insight into the physical link
reliability by indicating the proportion of received
bits that are corrupted; acceptable service typically
requires BER below 10⁻³; although not directly
visible to the user, BER is monitored internally to
trigger error correction or retransmission processes.
Together, these parameters are periodically
reported by the user equipment (UE) to the RNC and
are critical inputs to RRM decisions such as handovers
or code allocation.
1224
4 QUALITY OF SERVICE IN 4G MOBILE
NETWORKS
4.1 QoS Metrics
The introduction of LTE brought a more refined and
comprehensive QoS assessment system, supported by
the Evolved Packet Core (EPC). Later, LTE Advanced
(LTE-A) and LTE-A Pro were introduced as evolutions
of the LTE standard for 4G networks. Unlike 3G, LTE
uses a fully Internet Protocol (IP)-based architecture
and applies a unified QoS model across the network.
The main QoS metrics in 4G include:
− QoS class identifier (QCI) – a standardized value
assigned to each bearer, defining priority, delay
budget, and packet loss tolerance;
− priority level – Specifies the handling priority of
resource allocation requests during network
congestion;
− packet delay budget (PDB) – defines the maximum
allowable delay for packet delivery (e.g., 100 ms for
QCI 1 used in Voice over LTE (VoLTE));
− packet error loss rate (PELR) – the acceptable PLR,
specific to each QCI class;
− GBR and MBR – applied to services requiring fixed
bandwidth (e.g., real-time streaming);
− aggregate MBR (AMBR) – a shared limit for all non-
GBR services per user.
PHY indicators such as channel quality indicator
(CQI) further enable adaptive modulation and coding
(AMC) to enhance QoS provisioning dynamically [12].
4.2 QoS Mechanisms
LTE networks revolutionized QoS by shifting to a flat
IP-based architecture and incorporating enhanced
control mechanisms through the EPC. The separation
between control and user planes enabled more flexible
and scalable QoS handling.
Notable QoS mechanisms in 4G networks include:
− EPS bearers – defined QoS flow attributes for each
user session. Bearers could be GBR or non-GBR;
− QCI – each bearer was associated with a QCI value,
which determined scheduling priority, PDBs, and
error loss rates;
− policy and charging rules function (PCRF) – a core
network entity responsible for dynamic QoS policy
enforcement based on user profiles and service
type;
− access point name (APN)-based QoS – enabled
different QoS policies for various data services
linked to distinct APNs;
− evolved node base station (eNodeB) scheduling
algorithms – performed real-time traffic scheduling
and resource allocation based on QCI values;
− bearer establishment and modification procedures
– allowed dynamic creation, modification, or
removal of bearers in response to changing service
conditions.
These mechanisms allowed LTE networks to
deliver differentiated services such as VoLTE, video
streaming, and web browsing with distinct quality
guarantees [13].
4.3 Radio Signal Quality Parameters in 4G
LTE networks introduced standardized and efficient
methods of assessing signal quality by using dedicated
reference signals. These metrics not only help the
network adapt to changing radio conditions but also
support critical features such as adaptive modulation
and handover decisions.
The 4G standard defines the following radio signal
quality metrics [14]:
− reference signal received power (RSRP) measures
the average received power of LTE downlink cell-
specific reference signals (CRSs); it is used to
determine signal strength and typically ranges from
–140 dBm to –80 dBm; an RSRP above –100 dBm is
generally adequate for stable connections;
− reference signal received quality (RSRQ) is derived
from RSRP and received signal strength indicator
(RSSI), i.e., the total received power; it combines
signal strength with interference levels; values
range from –19.5 dB to –3 dB, with values above –10
dB indicating good quality;
− signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) is a
key metric for evaluating data transmission
conditions; it represents the quality of the received
signal relative to interference and noise, ranging
from –10 dB to +30 dB; high SINR (above 10 dB) is
necessary for high-throughput services such as
video streaming;
− CQI is a UE-reported value that reflects the
modulation and coding scheme (MCS) suitable
under current radio conditions; it is derived from
SINR and is used by eNodeB to schedule user data
efficiently.
These metrics are essential in LTE for maintaining
service reliability and ensuring efficient radio resource
utilization, especially in environments with varying
interference and load conditions.
Examples of QoS and signal quality metrics
measurements for UMTS and LTE networks, and video
live-streaming YouTube services are presented in [15].
5 QUALITY OF SERVICE IN 5G MOBILE
NETWORKS
5.1 QoS Metrics
5G New Radio (NR) networks introduced
sophisticated QoS monitoring mechanisms to
accommodate a diverse array of services, ranging from
ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) to
massive machine-type communications (mMTC). QoS
in 5G is defined using the 5G QoS identifier (5QI) and
associated parameters, along with growing emphasis
on quality of experience (QoE) from the user's
perspective.
New and extended 5G QoS metrics include:
− 5QI – the enhanced equivalent of QCI,
encapsulating defined parameters like PDB and
PELR for each service type;
− reflective QoS – allows uplink flows to inherit
downlink QoS characteristics automatically;
− delay tolerance level – the maximum tolerable delay
for specific applications;
1225
− reliability – probability that a packet will be
successfully delivered within a defined time frame
(e.g., >99.999% for URLLC);
− availability – the duration the network can maintain
a connection with guaranteed QoS;
− latency (one-way and round-trip) – time taken for a
packet to travel one direction or round-trip; critical
for applications like remote surgery and virtual
reality;
− effective data rate – real throughput considering
retransmissions and network congestion;
− user experience metrics (i.e., QoE) – perceived
service quality indicators such as video buffering,
loading times, and resolution stability.
Additionally, 5G networks use artificial intelligence
(AI)/machine learning (ML)-based mechanisms to
predict and adapt QoS parameters in real-time.
Network slicing allows each virtual slice to have
tailored QoS profiles, optimized dynamically based on
user demand and application context [7][16][17].
5.2 QoS Mechanisms
5G introduces a more advanced, software-driven
approach to QoS, leveraging network slicing and
service-based architecture (SBA) to deliver application-
specific quality guarantees. Unlike previous
generations, 5G allows for flexible, real-time service-
level management.
Primary QoS mechanisms in 5G include:
− 5QI – analogous to QCI in LTE but more granular,
defining default delay, reliability, and priority for
each traffic flow;
− session and service continuity (SSC) modes –
govern how QoS is maintained across mobility
events and session transitions;
− policy control function (PCF) – replaces PCRF,
providing enhanced policy management and QoS
enforcement across network slices;
− network slicing – supports multiple logical
networks over shared infrastructure, each with its
own QoS profile tailored for services like URLLC,
enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), or mMTC;
− reflective QoS – enables dynamic mirroring of
downlink QoS settings in the uplink, reducing
signaling overhead;
− unified data management (UDM) – centralizes user
subscription and QoS profile management across
the network;
− application function (AF) – communicates with PCF
to request QoS changes based on application
demands;
− AI/ML-driven QoS optimization – predictive
algorithms manage resource distribution and QoS
adaptation based on real-time analytics.
These mechanisms support diverse 5G use cases
with unprecedented granularity, flexibility, and
efficiency [18][19][20].
5.3 Radio Signal Quality Parameters
5G NR networks build upon LTE’s framework for
radio quality evaluation but adapt it to new technical
features such as massive MIMO, beamforming, and
millimeter-wave operation. Signal metrics are based on
synchronization signal blocks (SSBs), which are
broadcast periodically for measurement purposes.
In 5G, additional parameters for radio signal quality
assessment are used [21]:
− synchronization signal RSRP (SS-RSRP) measures
the power of synchronization signals, used in initial
access and mobility decisions; the expected range is
similar to LTE: –140 dBm to –80 dBm;
− synchronization signal RSRQ (SS-RSRQ) reflects the
quality of the synchronization signals relative to
interference and total received power; acceptable
values lie between –19.5 dB and –3 dB, with values
above –10 dB preferable for stable connectivity;
− synchronization signal SINR (SS-SINR) measures
the SINR on the SSB; it is crucial for beam
management and high-throughput data sessions;
values range from –10 dB (poor quality) to +30 dB
(excellent quality);
− beam-based CQI and per-beam RSRP metrics allow
for fine-grained optimization of signal quality and
mobility; in 5G, CQI may be reported per beam,
enabling the next generation node base station
(gNodeB) to select and dynamically adjust the best
transmission beam.
5G also leverages AI/ML-driven analytics to predict
signal quality trends and proactively adjust radio
parameters. In millimeter-wave bands (FR2), where
signal propagation is more sensitive to blockage,
continuous monitoring of these metrics is vital for
maintaining service continuity and quality.
Exemplary measurements of signal quality and QoS
metrics for the iPerf and Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP)-browsing scenarios in 5G are described in [22]
and [23], respectively.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The rapid evolution of mobile networks from 3G
through 4G to 5G has been accompanied by significant
advancements in QoS mechanisms and metrics. Each
generation introduced increasingly sophisticated tools
to ensure service reliability, minimize latency, and
optimize bandwidth usage, adapting to the growing
complexity and diversity of user demands. In 3G
networks, QoS mechanisms focused on basic traffic
classification and radio resource control. LTE (4G)
further enhanced QoS management through
standardized bearer architectures and a unified IP-
based framework. The advent of 5G marked a
paradigm shift by introducing network slicing, AI-
driven optimization, and real-time policy enforcement
tailored to diverse application needs such as URLLC,
eMBB, and mMTC.
These developments underline the critical
importance of dynamic and intelligent QoS solutions in
the face of modern connectivity challenges. As the
demand for high-throughput, low-latency, and highly
reliable communication continues to grow, particularly
in transport, smart cities, and industrial automation,
maintaining and improving QoS remains a central task
for network operators and researchers alike.
Continued innovation in QoS frameworks will be
essential to support the next wave of mobile
technologies and ensure seamless user experiences
across all service domains.
1226
ABBREVIATIONS
1G – first-generation
2G – second-generation
3G – third-generation
4G – fourth-generation
5G – fifth-generation
5G-A – 5G Advanced
5QI – 5G quality of service identifier (5G QoS identifier)
AF – application function
AI – artificial intelligence
AMBR – aggregate maximum bit rate
AMC – adaptive modulation and coding
APN – access point name
AR – augmented reality
BER – bit error rate
CPICH – common pilot channel
CQI – channel quality indicator
CRS – cell-specific reference signal
eMBB – enhanced mobile broadband
eNodeB – evolved node base station (evolved node B)
Ec/No – energy per chip to noise power density ratio
EPC – Evolved Packet Core
FDMA – frequency division multiple access
FR – frequency range
GBR – guaranteed bit rate
gNodeB – next generation node base station (next generation node
B / 5G New Radio node B)
GPRS – General Packet Radio Service
GSM – Global System for Mobile Communications
HSPA – High Speed Packet Access
HTTP – Hypertext Transfer Protocol
IP – Internet Protocol
KPI – key performance indicator
LTE – Long Term Evolution
LTE-A – Long Term Evolution Advanced
MBR – maximum bit rate
MCS – modulation and coding scheme
MIMO – multiple-input-multiple-output
ML – machine learning
MMS – multimedia messaging service
mMTC – massive machine-type communications
MU-MIMO – multi-user multiple-input-multiple-output
NAS – non-access stratum
NR – New Radio
NTN – non-terrestrial networks
OFDMA – orthogonal frequency division multiple access
PCF – policy control function
PCRF – policy and charging rules function
PDB – packet delay budget
PELR – packet error loss rate
PHY – physical layer
PLR – packet loss rate
QCI – quality of service class identifier (QoS class identifier)
QoE – quality of experience
QoS – quality of service
RAB – radio access bearer
RNC – radio network controller
RRM – radio resource management
RSCP – received signal code power
RSRP – reference signal received power
RSRQ – reference signal received quality
RSSI – received signal strength indicator
SBA – service-based architecture
SC-FDMA – single carrier frequency division multiple access
SINR – signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio
SLA – service-level agreement
SMS – short message service
SS – synchronization signal
SS-RSRP – synchronization signal reference signal received power
SS-RSRQ – synchronization signal reference signal received quality
SS-SINR – synchronization signal signal-to-interference-plus-noise
ratio
SSB – synchronization signal block
SSC – session and service continuity
TDMA – time division multiple access
UDM – unified data management
UDN – ultra-dense network
UE – user equipment
UMTS – Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
URLLC – ultra-reliable and low-latency communications
VoIP – Voice over Internet Protocol (Voice over IP)
VoLTE – Voice over Long-Term Evolution (Voice over LTE)
VR – virtual reality
WCDMA – wideband code division multiple access
REFERENCES
[1] P. Rost et al., “Mobile network architecture evolution
toward 5G,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no.
5, pp. 84–91, May 2016, doi:
10.1109/MCOM.2016.7470940.
[2] S. M. A. Zaidi, M. Manalastas, H. Farooq, and A. Imran,
“Mobility management in emerging ultra-dense cellular
networks: A survey, outlook, and future research
directions,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 183505–183533, 2020,
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3027258.
[3] D. Shakya et al., “Comprehensive FR1(C) and FR3 lower
and upper mid-band propagation and material
penetration loss measurements and channel models in
indoor environment for 5G and 6G,” IEEE Open Journal
of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 5192–5218,
2024, doi: 10.1109/OJCOMS.2024.3431686.
[4] D. Zmysłowski, P. Skokowski, K. Malon, K. Maślanka,
and J. M. Kelner, “Naval use cases of 5G technology,”
TransNav, International Journal on Marine Navigation
and Safety od Sea Transportation, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 595–
603, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.12716/1001.17.03.11.
[5] J. Mongay Batalla, S. Sujecki, J. M. Kelner, P. Śliwka, and
D. Zmysłowski, “On studying active radio measurements
estimating the mobile network quality of service for the
Regulatory Authority’s purposes,” Computer Networks,
vol. 235, p. 109980, Nov. 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.comnet.2023.109980.
[6] M. Sauter, From GSM to LTE-Advanced Pro and 5G: An
introduction to mobile networks and mobile broadband,
3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2017.
[7] H. Zhang, N. Liu, X. Chu, K. Long, A.-H. Aghvami, and
V. C. M. Leung, “Network slicing based 5G and future
mobile networks: Mobility, resource management, and
challenges,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no.
8, pp. 138–145, Aug. 2017, doi:
10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600940.
[8] “ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541: Network performance
objectives for IP-based services,” International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland,
Y.1541 (12/2011), Dec. 2011. Accessed: Jun. 01, 2024.
[Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-
Y.1541-201112-I/en
[9] 3GPP, “TS 123 107 - V18.0.0 - Digital cellular
telecommunications system (Phase 2+) (GSM); Universal
Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE;
Quality of Service (QoS) concept and architecture
(3GPP TS 23.107 version 18.0.0 Release 18),” 3GPP/ETSI,
ETSI TS 123 107-V18.0.0, Apr. 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_TS/123100_123199/123
107/18.00.00_60/ts_123107v180000p.pdf
[10] H. Holma and A. Toskala, Eds., WCDMA for UMTS:
Radio access for third generation mobile
communications, 3rd ed. Chichester, England; Hoboken,
NJ, USA: Wiley, 2004.
[11] 3GPP, “TS 125 215 - V11.0.0 - Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UMTS); Physical layer;
Measurements (FDD) (3GPP TS 25.215 version 11.0.0
Release 11),” 3GPP/ETSI, ETSI TS 125 215-V11.0.0, Nov.
2012. [Online]. Available:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/125200_125299/1252
15/11.00.00_60/ts_125215v110000p.pdf
1227
[12] S. Sesia, I. Toufik, and M. Baker, Eds., LTE. The UMTS
Long Term Evolution: From theory to practice.
Chichester, U.K: Wiley, 2009.
[13] 3GPP, “TS 123 203 - V18.0.0 - Digital cellular
telecommunications system (Phase 2+) (GSM); Universal
Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; Policy
and charging control architecture (3GPP TS 23.203
version 18.0.0 Release 18),” 3GPP/ETSI, ETSI TS 123 203-
V18.0.0, Apr. 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123200_123299/1232
03/18.00.00_60/ts_123203v180000p.pdf
[14] 3GPP, “TS 136 214 - V14.2.0 - LTE; Evolved Universal
Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical layer;
Measurements (3GPP TS 36.214 version 14.2.0 Release
14),” 3GPP/ETSI, ETSI TS 136 214-V14.2.0, Apr. 2017.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/136200_136299/1362
14/14.02.00_60/ts_136214v140200p.pdf
[15] D. Zmysłowski and J. M. Kelner, “Drive test-based
correlation assessment of QoS parameters for exemplary
measurements scenario in suburban environment,” in
2022 18th International Conference on Web Information
Systems and Technologies (WEBIST), Valletta, Malta:
SciTech Publishing, Oct. 2022, pp. 497–504. doi:
10.5220/0011575800003318.
[16] “ITU-T Recommendation G.1011: Reference guide to
quality of experience assessment methodologies,”
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva,
Switzerland, G.1011 (07/2016), Jul. 2016. Accessed: Jun.
01, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-
REC-G.1011/en
[17] “ITU-T Recommendation Y.3147: Quality of service
requirements and framework of deterministic
communications for remote device control services over
IMT-2020 and beyond,” International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland,
Y.3147 (04/2025), Apr. 2025. Accessed: Jun. 01, 2024.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.itu.int/epublications/es/publication/itu-t-y-
3147-2025-04-quality-of-service-requirements-and-
framework-of-deterministic-communications-for-
remote-device-control-services-over-imt-2020-an/en
[18] “ITU-T Recommendation Y.3113: Requirements and
framework for latency guarantee in large-scale networks
including the IMT-2020 network,” International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland,
Y.3113 (02/2021), Feb. 2021. Accessed: Jun. 01, 2024.
[Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/itu-
t/recommendations/rec.aspx?rec=14595
[19] “ITU-T Recommendation Y.3170: Requirements for
machine learning-based quality of service assurance for
the IMT-2020 network,” International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland,
Y.3170 (04/2020), Apr. 2020. Accessed: Jun. 01, 2024.
[Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/ITU-
T/recommendations/rec.aspx?rec=13691
[20] X. Foukas, G. Patounas, A. Elmokashfi, and M. K.
Marina, “Network slicing in 5G: Survey and challenges,”
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 94–
100, May 2017, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600951.
[21] 3GPP, “TS 138 215 - V16.2.0 - 5G; NR; Physical layer
measurements (3GPP TS 38.215 version 16.2.0 Release
16),” 3GPP/ETSI, ETSI TS 138 215-V16.2.0, Jul. 2020.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/138200_138299/1382
15/16.02.00_60/ts_138215v160200p.pdf
[22] D. Zmysłowski and J. M. Kelner, “Mobile network
operators’ assessment based on drive-test campaign in
urban area for iPerf scenario,” Applied Sciences, vol. 14,
no. 3, Art. no. 3, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3390/app14031268.
[23] D. Zmysłowski and J. M. Kelner, “Correlational analysis
in QoS parameter assessment for 5G emerging networks
in Poland,” in 2023 Signal Processing Symposium
(SPSympo), Karpacz, Poland, Sep. 2023, pp. 226–229. doi:
10.23919/SPSympo57300.2023.10302684.