skip to main content
research-article

EQ: A QoE-Centric Rate Control Mechanism for VoIP Calls

Published:13 February 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The rising popularity of data calls and the slowed global economy have posed a challenge to voice data networking—how to satisfy the growing user demand for VoIP calls under limited network resources. In a bandwidth-constrained network in particular, raising the bitrate for one call implies a lowered bitrate for another. Therefore, knowing whether it is worthwhile to raise one call's bitrate while other users might complain is crucial to the design of a user-centric rate control mechanism. To this end, previous work (Chen et al. 2012) has reported a log-like relationship between bitrate and user experience (i.e., QoE) in Skype calls. To show that the relationship extends to more general VoIP calls, we conduct a 60-participant user study via the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform and reaffirm the log-like relationship between the call bitrate and user experience in widely used AMR-WB. The relationship gives rise to a simple and practical rate control scheme that exponentially quantizes the steps of rate change, therefore the name—exponential quantization (EQ). To support that EQ is effective in addressing the challenge, we show through a formal analysis that the resulting bandwidth allocation is optimal in both the overall QoE and the number of calls served. To relate EQ to existing rate control mechanisms, we show in a simulation study that the bitrates of calls administered by EQ converge over time and outperform those controlled by a (naïve) greedy mechanism and the mechanism implemented in Skype.

References

  1. 3GPP. 2011. 3GPP TS26.171: Speech codec speech processing functions: Adaptive multi-rate - wideband (AMR-WB) speech codec; general description.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. ITU-T. 1996. ITU-T Recommendation P.800, Methods for Subjective Determination of Transmission Quality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. ITU-T. 1996. ITU-T Recommendation P.830, Subjective Performance Assessment of Telephone-band and Wideband Digital Codecs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. ITU-T. 2006. ITU-T Recommendation P, 10/G.100. Vocabulary for Performance and Quality of Service.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. ITU-T. 2008. ITU-T Recommendation P.910, Subjective Video Quality Assessment Methods for Multimedia Applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. ITU-T. 2012. ITU-T Recommendation G.729: Coding of speech at 8 kbit/s using conjugate-structure algebraic-code-excited linear prediction.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Amazon Mechanical Turk. Retrieved from https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S. A. Baset and H. Schulzrinne. 2006. An analysis of the Skype peer-to-peer internet telephony protocol. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’06).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. Bertsekas and R. Gallager. 1992. Data Networks. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. P. Thomas. 1986. Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Wiley-Interscience.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Bolot and T. Turletti. 1994. A rate control mechanism for packet video in the internet. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’94).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Bonfiglio, M. Mellia, M. Meo, N. Ritacca, and D. Rossi. 2008. Tracking down Skype traffic. IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’08).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. T. Bu, Y. Liu, and D. Towsley. 2006. On the TCP-friendliness of VoIP traffic. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’06).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. C.-N. Chen, C.-Y. Chu, S.-L. Yeh, H.-H. Chu, and P. Hunag. 2012. Measuring the perceptual quality of Skype sources. In Proceedings of ACM Communications and Computer Networks (SIGCOMM, W-MUST’12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C.-N. Chen, C.-Y. Chu, S.-L. Yeh, H.-H. Chu, and P. Hunag. 2014. Modeling the QoE of rate changes in Skype/SILK VoIP Calls. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 22, 6 (December 2014), 1781--1793. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. K.-T. Chen, C.-Y. Huang, P. Huang, and C.-L. Lei. 2006. Quantifying Skype user satisfaction. In Proceedings of ACM Communications and Computer Networks (SIGCOMM’06). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. L. D. Cicco, S. Mascolo, and V. Palmisano. 2007. An experimental investigation of the congestion control used by Skype VoIP. In Proceedings of Wired/Wireless Internet Communications (WWIC’07). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. L. De Cicco and S. Mascolo. 2008. A mathematical model of the Skype VoIP congestion control algorithm. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC’08).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. T. Dieker. 2002. Simulation of Fractional Brownian Motion. Master's thesis, University of Twente, the Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Fiedler, T. Hossfeld, and P. Tran-Gia. 2010. A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service. IEEE Network 24, 2 (2010), 36--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Floyd and K. Fall. 1999. Promoting the use of end-to-end congestion control in the internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 7, 4 (1999), 458--472. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Floyd, M. Handley, J. Padhye, and J. Widmer. 2000. Equation-based congestion control for unicast applications. In Proceedings of ACM Communications and Computer Networks (SIGCOMM’00). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. C. Fraleigh, F. Tobagi, and C. Diot. 2003. Provisioning IP backbone networks to support latency sensitive traffic. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. M. Ghobadi, R. Mahajan, A. Phanishayee, H. Rastegarfar, P.-A. Blanche, M. Glick, D. Kilper, J. Kulkarni, G. Ranade, and N. Devanur. 2016. ProjecToR: Agile reconfigurable datacenter interconnect. In ACM SIGCOMM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Handley, S. Floyd, J. Padhye, and J. Widmer. 2003. TCP friendly rate control (TFRC): Protocol specification. RFC 3348 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. T.-Y. Huang, P. Huang, K.-T. Chen, and P.-J. Wang. 2010. Can Skype be more satisfying? A QoE-centric study of the FEC mechanism in the internet-scale VoIP system. IEEE Network 24, 2 (2010), 42--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. F. Kelly. 1997. Charging and rate control for elastic traffic. European Transactions on Telecommunications 8 (1997), 33--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. F. P. Kelly, A. Maulloo, and D. Tan. 1998. Rate control for communication networks: Shadow price proportional fairness and stability. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49 (1998), 237--252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. H. Kim, K. Kim, Y. Han, and S. Yun. 2004. A proportional fair scheduling for multicarrier transmission systems. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC’04).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. R. Kwan, C. Leung, and J. Zhang, 2009. Proportional fair multiuser scheduling in LTE. Signal Processing Letters 16 (2009), 461--464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. R. J. La and V. Anantharam. 2002. Utility-based rate control in the Internet for elastic traffic. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 10, 2 (2002), 272--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. R. Longo and S. F. Lourenco. 2007. Spatial attention and the mental number line: Evidence for characteristic biases and compression. Neuropsychologia 45 (2007), 1400--1406.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. R. S. Moyer and T. K. Landauer. 1967. Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature 215, 5109 (1967), 1519--1520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. P. Reichl, S. Egger, R. Schatz, and A. DAlconzo. 2010. The logarithmic nature of QoE and the role of the weber- fechner law in qoe assessment. In Proceedings of ICC’10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. P. Reichl, B. Tuffin, and R. Schatz. 2010. Economics of logarithmic quality-of-experience in communication networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Telecommunications Internet and Media Techno Economics. CTTE, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. F. Ribeiro, D. Florencio, C. Zhang, and M. Seltzer. 2011. CROWDMOS: An approach for crowdsourcing mean opinion score studies. In IEEE ICASSP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. L. Rizzo. 1998. Dummynet and forward error correction. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. L. Rizzo. 2000. Pgmcc: A TCP-friendly single-rate multicast congestion control scheme. In Proceedings of ACM Communications and Computer Networks (SIGCOMM’00). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. E. D. Scheirer. 1998. Tempo and beat analysis of acoustic musical signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103, 1 (1998), 588--601.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. J. Shen. 2003. On the foundations of vision modeling: I. Weber's law and Weberized TV restoration. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 175, 3--4 (2003), 241--251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Statistic Brain. 2016. Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/skype-statistics/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. N. Wakamiya, M. Murata, and H. Miyahara. 2000. On TCP-friendly video transfer with consideration on application level QoS. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME’00).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. K. Vos, S. Jensen, and K. Soerensen. 2010. Internet-draft: Draft-vos-silk-02, SILK speech codec. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Y. Xue, B. Li, and K. Nahrstedt. 2006. Optimal resource allocation in wireless ad hoc networks: A price-based approach. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 5, 4 (2006), 347--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. J. Yan, K. Katrinis, M. May, and B. Plattner. 2006. Media- and TCP-friendly congestion control for scalable video streams. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 8 (2006), 196--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Y.-C. Yen, C.-Y. Chu, C.-N. Chen, S.-L. Yeh, H.-H. Chu, and P. Huang. 2013. Exponential quantization: User-centric rate control for Skype calls. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Annual Conference of the Special Interest Group on Data Communication (ACM SIGCOMM’13), Poster Session, Hong Kong, August. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Y.-C. Yen, C.-Y. Chu, S.-L. Yeh, H.-H. Chu, and P. Huang. 2013. Lab experiment vs. crowdsourcing: A comparative user study on skype call quality. In Proceedings of the 9th Asian Internet Engineering Conference (AINTEC’13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. EQ: A QoE-Centric Rate Control Mechanism for VoIP Calls

    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 Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems
      ACM Transactions on Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Computing Systems  Volume 3, Issue 1
      March 2018
      124 pages
      ISSN:2376-3639
      EISSN:2376-3647
      DOI:10.1145/3186330
      • Editors:
      • Sem Borst,
      • Carey Williamson
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 February 2018
      • Accepted: 1 November 2017
      • Revised: 1 May 2017
      • Received: 1 February 2016
      Published in tompecs Volume 3, Issue 1

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader