Although the data capacity of 3GPP networks has increased significantly since its initial development, user traffic continues to outpace the growth in capacity, resulting in increased network congestion and degraded user service. In particular, the explosion of Internet data traffic, especially the growing portion of the traffic traversing mobile networks, has caused much of the congestion currently being experienced. This explosion is partly attributable to the increase in the number of users using smart phone devices possessing 3G/4G capabilities together with large screens and various Internet applications, such as browsers and video and audio streaming applications. Additionally, laptops and tablets with 3G/4G access capabilities are a major source of mobile data traffic. An annual growth rate of 50% is expected to continue, with growth likely to continue outpacing the increase in infrastructure needed to handle it.
A primary point of congestion in 3GPP networks is the radio access network (“RAN”) nodes (e.g., nodeB and radio network controller (“RNC”) or eNodeB (“eNB”)). In particular, because radio spectrum is the most expensive resource for a local authority to acquire and control, it is difficult for an operator to easily upgrade its radio capacity. Hence the radio congestion for user plane traffic is effectively unavoidable. During periods of radio congestion due to user plane traffic, the RAN nodes may attempt to throttle, or limit, user data packets based on the quality of service (“QoS”) profile of the radio bearer; however, RAN nodes are unable to provide application-based differential treatment. Moreover, user data packets are not throttled by RAN nodes until after those packets have already traversed the network between the PDN gateway (“PGW”) and the RAN nodes, resulting in inaccurate accounting and unnecessary increase in backhaul load.
Network sharing environments, such MOCN environments, have special considerations associated therewith that should be taken into account by congestion reporting solutions. For example, if a particular eNB is being shared by two Public Land Mobile Networks (“PLMNs”), respectively designated PLMN A and PLMN B, in a manner that A and B have independent core networks and the eNB experiences congestion, then absent prior written consent, B should not be informed about congestion being experienced by A's users and vice-versa.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds