skip to main content
research-article

QoE-Driven Rate Adaptation Heuristic for Fair Adaptive Video Streaming

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 October 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

HTTP Adaptive Streaming (HAS) is quickly becoming the de facto standard for video streaming services. In HAS, each video is temporally segmented and stored in different quality levels. Rate adaptation heuristics, deployed at the video player, allow the most appropriate level to be dynamically requested, based on the current network conditions. It has been shown that today’s heuristics underperform when multiple clients consume video at the same time, due to fairness issues among clients. Concretely, this means that different clients negatively influence each other as they compete for shared network resources. In this article, we propose a novel rate adaptation algorithm called FINEAS (Fair In-Network Enhanced Adaptive Streaming), capable of increasing clients’ Quality of Experience (QoE) and achieving fairness in a multiclient setting. A key element of this approach is an in-network system of coordination proxies in charge of facilitating fair resource sharing among clients. The strength of this approach is threefold. First, fairness is achieved without explicit communication among clients and thus no significant overhead is introduced into the network. Second, the system of coordination proxies is transparent to the clients, that is, the clients do not need to be aware of its presence. Third, the HAS principle is maintained, as the in-network components only provide the clients with new information and suggestions, while the rate adaptation decision remains the sole responsibility of the clients themselves. We evaluate this novel approach through simulations, under highly variable bandwidth conditions and in several multiclient scenarios. We show how the proposed approach can improve fairness up to 80% compared to state-of-the-art HAS heuristics in a scenario with three networks, each containing 30 clients streaming video at the same time.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. 3GPP. 2013. 3GPP system - fixed broadband access network interworking (3GPP TS 23.139 version 11.3.0 Release 11). 1--90. http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23139.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. V. Adzic, H. Kalva, and B. Furht. 2011. Optimized adaptive HTTP streaming for mobile devices. Proceedings of SPIE, Applications of Digital Image Processing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Akhshabi, L. Anantakrishnan, A. C. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. 2012a. What happens when HTTP adaptive streaming players compete for bandwidth? In 22nd International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV’12). ACM, 9--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Akhshabi, S. Narayanaswamy, A. C. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. 2012b. An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptive video players over HTTP. Signal Processing: Image Communication 27, 4, 271--287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. N. Bouten, J. Famaey, S. Latré, R. Huysegems, B. De Vleeschauwer, W. Van Leekwijck, and F. De Turck. 2012. QoE optimization through in-network quality adaptation for HTTP Adaptive Streaming. In 2012 International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM) and 2012 Workshop on Systems Virtualiztion Management (SVM’12). 336--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Claeys, S. Latré, J. Famaey, T. Wu, W. Van Leekwijck, and F. De Turck. 2014. Design and optimization of a (FA)Q-learning-based HTTP adaptive streaming client. Connection Science 26, 1, 27--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Claus and C. Boutilier. 1998. The dynamics of reinforcement learning in cooperative multiagent systems. In 15th National/10th Conference on Artificial Intelligence/Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’98/IAAI’98). American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 746--752. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. L. De Cicco, V. Caldaralo, V. Palmisano, and S. Mascolo. 2013. ELASTIC: A client-side controller for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH). In 2013 International Packet Video Workshop (PV’13). 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. L. De Cicco, S. Mascolo, and V. Palmisano. 2011. Feedback control for adaptive live video streaming. In 2nd Annual ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys’11). ACM, 145--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. De Vriendt, D. De Vleeschauwer, and D. Robinson. 2013. Model for estimating QoE of video delivered using HTTP adaptive streaming. In 2013 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM’13). 1288--1293.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. A. El Essaili, D. Schroeder, D. Staehle, M. Shehada, W. Kellerer, and E. G. Steinbach. 2013. Quality-of-experience driven adaptive HTTP media delivery. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’13). 2480--2485.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Georgopoulos, Y. Elkhatib, M. Broadbent, M. Mu, and N. Race. 2013. Towards network-wide QoE fairness using openflow-assisted adaptive video streaming. In 2013 ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Future Human-centric Multimedia Networking (FhMN’13). ACM, New York, NY, 15--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. R. Houdaille and S. Gouache. 2012. Shaping HTTP adaptive streams for a better user experience. In 3rd Annual ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys’12). ACM, 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. Jarnikov and T. Ozcelebi. 2010. Client intelligence for adaptive streaming solutions. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME’10). 1499--1504.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Jiang, V. Sekar, and H. Zhang. 2014. Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in HTTP-based adaptive video streaming with festive. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 22, 1 (Feb. 2014), 326--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Kuschnig, I. Kofler, and H. Hellwagner. 2010. An evaluation of TCP-based rate-control algorithms for adaptive internet streaming of H.264/SVC. In 1st Annual ACM SIGMM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys’10). ACM, 157--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Z. Li, X. Zhu, J. Gahm, R. Pan, H. Hu, A. C. Begen, and D. Oran. 2014. Probe and adapt: Rate adaptation for HTTP video streaming at scale. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 719--733.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. C. Liu, I. Bouazizi, M. M. Hannuksela, and M. Gabbouj. 2012. Rate adaptation for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in content distribution network. Image Communication 27, 4, 288--311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. K. J. Ma and R. Bartos. 2011. HTTP live streaming bandwidth management using intelligent segment selection. In 2011 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM’11). 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. K. Miller, E. Quacchio, G. Gennari, and A. Wolisz. 2012. Adaptation algorithm for adaptive streaming over HTTP. In 2012 International Packet Video Workshop (PV’12). 173--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. R. K. P. Mok, X. Luo, E. W. W. Chan, and R. K. C. Chang. 2012. QDASH: A QoE-aware DASH System. In 3rd Annual ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys’12). ACM, 11--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. Müller, S. Lederer, and C. Timmerer. 2012a. An evaluation of dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in vehicular environments. In 4th Workshop on Mobile Video (MoVid’12). ACM, 37--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. C. Müller, S. Lederer, and C. Timmerer. 2012b. A proxy effect analysis and fair adaptation algorithm for multiple competing Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP clients. In 2012 IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing Conference (VCIP’12). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. S. Petrangeli, M. Claeys, S. Latré, J. Famaey, and F. De Turck. 2014. A multi-agent Q-Learning-based framework for achieving fairness in HTTP Adaptive Streaming. In 2014 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS’14). 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. H. Riiser, T. Endestad, P. Vigmostad, C. Griwodz, and P. Halvorsen. 2012. Video streaming using a location-based bandwidth-lookup service for bitrate planning. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications 8, 3, Article 24 (Aug. 2012), 19 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. de O. Schmidt, R. Sadre, A. Sperotto, and A. Pras. 2013. Lightweight link dimensioning using sFlow sampling. In 2013 International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM’13). 152--155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. G. Tian and Y. Liu. 2012. Towards agile and smooth video adaptation in dynamic HTTP streaming. In 8th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT’12). ACM, 109--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. B. Villa, P. Heegaard, and A. Instefjord. 2012. Improving fairness for adaptive HTTP video streaming. In Information and Communication Technologies, Robert Szabo and Attila Vidacs (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7479. Springer, Berlin, 183--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. S. Xiang, L. Cai, and J. Pan. 2012. Adaptive scalable video streaming in wireless networks. In 3rd Annual ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys’12). ACM, 167--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. C. Zhou, X. Zhang, L. Huo, and Z. Guo. 2012. A control-theoretic approach to rate adaptation for dynamic HTTP streaming. In 2012 IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing Conference (VCIP’12). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. QoE-Driven Rate Adaptation Heuristic for Fair Adaptive Video Streaming

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications
      ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications  Volume 12, Issue 2
      March 2016
      224 pages
      ISSN:1551-6857
      EISSN:1551-6865
      DOI:10.1145/2837041
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 October 2015
      • Accepted: 1 May 2015
      • Revised: 1 April 2015
      • Received: 1 April 2014
      Published in tomm Volume 12, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader