## 5 Results of QoE\({}_{i}\) Modeling and Discussion
### Research Sample Statistics  
The structure of the research sample consisted of 167 surveyed users of communication services on the territory of the Republic of Srpska and BiH. After filtering the data, i.e., removal of missing values, the sample size was reduced to 157 completely filled forms used for further analysis and processing, of which 52% were predominantly male respondents, and 48% were female.  
Regarding age structure, respondents between the age of 30 and 45 dominates with 55% of the total sample. The representation of users by other age intervals, in descending order, is as follows: interval 45 to 60 years with 29%, interval 20 to 30 with 8%, respondents older than 60 with 8%, respondents younger than 20 with a negligible 0.006 % [15].  
The questionnaire offered six possible responses to the question related to the legal-regulatory affiliation of the respondent's organization/firm to one of the forms. The analysis of the results shows that 53% of the people surveyed from the sample work in educational/scientific institutions, followed by 24% in companies, 16% in state or local administration bodies, 3% in agencies, associations--chambers, unions, entrepreneurs, banks, representative offices, etc., 3% in other organizational forms, and the fewest number of respondents belongs to the category of students, 1%.  
Out of the total number of people surveyed, 128 or 81.5% declared that they had experience using services from only one provider. Out of the given number, 82.8% refers to users of the Mtel network. The second place in terms of frequency of use with 7.8% belongs  
Figure 2: Interaction model of paired factors affecting \(QoE_{i}\).  
to other IT providers: BH Telekom with 5.4%, HT Eronet with 3.1%, and other networks with 0.8%. The rest of the respondents out of the sample (19.5%) used/use the services of two or more telecommunication service providers.  
Average qualitative assessment of the level of user experience, i.e., perceived level of QoS can be rated as good. The corresponding quantitative rating expressed through the MOS is equal to 2.97. When it comes to user satisfaction with the price of services, the achieved MOS value is 2.83, which can be considered as solid. Users rated the legal security in interactions with the provider in the area of contract-based service provision and bill payment by cost accounting with an average score of 2.97 (solid) [15].  
For four defined classes of traffic [24], based on the MOS values that represent the average ratings of the quality of experience level, it can be concluded that background traffic services have the highest rating, MOS = 3.87. On the other hand, real-time services, such as audio and video streaming, were rated with the lowest average rating, MOS = 3.54. The largest number of users or 29.9% declared that they had experience in using the provider's services from 15 to 20 years. Only 2.5% of users had a short experience, from one to five years.  
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for indicators of user satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In addition to the mark of each indicator, the values of the arithmetic mean (MOS), standard deviation, variance, sum of squares, minimum, median and maximum are given. The statistical focus on question 10 shows that _communication_ is the best-rated indicator of user satisfaction with MOS = 3.71, while the worst-rated indicator is _coverage_ with an average MOS of 2.92. Negative influences on the final level of _QoE\({}_{i}\)_ values are expressed through five indicators of dissatisfaction defined by question 11, out of which _behavioral rigidity_ has the greatest impact, rated with MOS = 2.88, and the least influence is caused by _prospective anxiety_, with a value of MOS = 2.80 [15]. As can be seen on the basis of Table 2, the MOS values are lower for indicators of dissatisfaction compared to indicators of satisfaction.