skip to main content
research-article

A Video Bitrate Adaptation and Prediction Mechanism for HTTP Adaptive Streaming

Published:21 March 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Adaptive Streaming (HAS) has now become ubiquitous and accounts for a large amount of video delivery over the Internet. But since the Internet is prone to bandwidth variations, HAS's up and down switching between different video bitrates to keep up with bandwidth variations leads to a reduction in Quality of Experience (QoE). In this article, we propose a video bitrate adaptation and prediction mechanism based on Fuzzy logic for HAS players, which takes into consideration the estimate of available network bandwidth as well as the predicted buffer occupancy level in order to proactively and intelligently respond to current conditions. This leads to two contributions: First, it allows HAS players to take appropriate actions, sooner than existing methods, to prevent playback interruptions caused by buffer underrun, reducing the ON-OFF traffic phenomena associated with current approaches and increasing the QoE. Second, it facilitates fair sharing of bandwidth among competing players at the bottleneck link. We present the implementation of our proposed mechanism and provide both empirical/QoE analysis and performance comparison with existing work. Our results show that, compared to existing systems, our system has (1) better fairness among multiple competing players by almost 50% on average and as much as 80% as indicated by Jain's fairness index and (2) better perceived quality of video by almost 8% on average and as much as 17%, according to the estimate the Mean Opinion Score (eMOS) model.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. S. Akhshabi, L. Anantakrishnan, A. C. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. 2012a. What happens when HTTP adaptive streaming players compete for bandwidth? In Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video. ACM, 9--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Akhshabi, S. Narayanaswamy, A. C. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. 2012b. An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptive video players over HTTP. Sign. Process.: Image Commun. 27, 271--287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Alberti, D. Renzi, C. Timmerer, C. Mueller, S. Lederer, S. Battista, and M. Mattavelli. 2013. Automated QoE evaluation of dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of the 2013 5th International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 58--63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Beben, P. Wiśniewski, J. M. Batalla, and P. Krawiec. 2016. ABMA+: lightweight and efficient algorithm for HTTP adaptive streaming. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Multimedia Systems 2016 May 10 (2). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. C. Begen, T. Akgssul, and M. Baugher. 2011. Watching video over the web: Part 1: Streaming protocols. IEEE Internet Comput. 15, 2, 54--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. N. Bouten, R. D. O. Schmidt, J. Famaey, S. Latré, A. Pras, and F. De Turck. 2015. QoE-driven in-network optimization for adaptive video streaming based on packet sampling measurements. Comput. Netw. 81, 96--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. G. Brown. 1957. Exponential smoothing for predicting demand. In Operations Research, INST Operations Research Management Sciences, 145--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S. Carmel, T. Daboosh, E. Reifman, N. Shani, Z. Eliraz, D. Ginsberg, and E. Ayal. 2002. Network media streaming. US Patent 6, 389--473.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. C. Chatfield. 1978. The holt-winters forecasting procedure. Appl. Stat. 264--279.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. C. Chen, L. K. Choi, G. De veciana, C. Caramanis, R. W. Heath, and A. C. Bovik. 2014. Modeling the time—varying subjective quality of HTTP video streams with rate adaptations. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 23, 2206--2221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. M. Claeys, S. Latre, J. Famaey, and F. de Turck. 2014. Design and evaluation of a self-learning HTTP adaptive video streaming client. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2014 Apr; 18, 4, 716--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. W. J. Conover. 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Wiley and Sons, 99--104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. I. D. Curcio, V. K. M. Vadakital, and M. M. Hannuksela. 2010. Geo-predictive real-time media delivery in mobile environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Mobile Video Delivery. ACM, 3--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. De vriendt, D. De vleeschauwer, and D. Robinson. 2013. Model for estimating QoE of video delivered using HTTP adaptive streaming. In Proceedings of the 2013 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2013). IEEE, 1288--1293.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Echostar. Retrieved from http://www.echostar.com/ProductsAndServices/VideoAndBroadcast/Delivery/Technology.aspx, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. Hao, R. Zimmermann, and H. Ma. 2014. Gtube: Geo-predictive video streaming over http in mobile environments. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. ACM, 259--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. R. Houdaille and S. Gouache. 2012. Shaping http adaptive streams for a better user experience. In Proceedings of the 3rd Multimedia Systems Conference. ACM, 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. T. Huang, R. Johari, N. Mckeown, M. Trunnell, and M. Watson. 2014. A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: Evidence from a large video streaming service. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM. ACM, 187--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Iperf. Retrieved from http://iperf.sourceforge.net/, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R. Jain, D. M. Chiu, and W. R. Hawe. 1984. A Quantitative Measure of Fairness and Discrimination for Resource Allocation in Shared Computer System. Digital Equipment Corporation, Eastern Research Laboratory, Hudson, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Jansen, T. Coppens, and D. de Vleeschauwer. 2002. Quality assessment of video streaming in the broadband era. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advanced Concepts for Intelligent Vision Systems (ACIVS’02). 38--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Jiang, V. Sekar, and H. Zhang, 2014. Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in HTTP-based adaptive video streaming with FESTIVE. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 22, 1, 2014, 326--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Jiang, V. Sekar, and Y. Sun. 2015. DDA: Cross-session throughput prediction with applications to video bitrate selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.02056. 2015 May 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. V. Joseph and G. De veciana. 2014. NOVA: QoE-driven optimization of DASH-based video delivery in networks. In 2014 Proceedings INFOCOM. IEEE, 82--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. P. Juluri, V. Tamarapalli, and D. Medhi. 2015. Look-ahead rate adaptation algorithm for DASH under varying network environments. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the InDesign of Reliable Communication Networks (DRCN). 89--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. P. Juluri, V. Tamarapalli, and D. Medhi. 2015. SARA: Segment aware rate adaptation algorithm for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW). 1765--1770.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. P. Kaufman. 1995. Smarter Trading. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. R. Kuschnig, I. Kofler, and H. Hellwagner. 2011. Evaluation of HTTP-based request-response streams for internet video streaming. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems. ACM, 245--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. H. T. Le, D. V. Nguyen, N. P. Ngoc, A. T. Pham, and T. C. Thang. 2013. Buffer-based bitrate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Advanced Technologies for Communications (ATC). IEEE, 33--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Z. Li, A. C. Begen, J. Gahm, Y. Shan, B. Osler, and D. Oran. 2014a. Streaming video over HTTP with consistent quality. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. ACM, 248--258. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Z. Li, X. Zhu, J. Gahm, R. Pan, H. Hu, A. Begen, and D. Oran. 2014b. Probe and adapt: Rate adaptation for http video streaming at scale. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. 32, 719--733.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. B. Li, Z. Wang, J. Liu, and W. Zhu. 2013. Two decades of internet video streaming: A retrospective view. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 9, 33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Y. Lir, S. Dey, D. Gillies, F. Ulupinar, and M. Luby. 2013. User experience modeling for DASH video. In Proceedings of the 20th International Packet Video Workshop 2013. 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. C. Liu, I. Bouazizi, and M. Gabbouj. 2011. Rate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems. ACM, 169--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. S. Liu and J. Y. L. Forrest. 2010. Grey Systems: Theory and Applications. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. X. Liu. 2007. Parameterized defuzzification with maximum entropy weighting function—another view of the weighting function expectation method. Math. Compu. Model. 45, 177--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. V. Mart and N. Garc. 2016. Evaluation of q-learning approach for HTTP adaptive streaming. In IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE 2016). 293--294.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. K. Miller, E. Quacchio, G. Gennari, and A. Wolisz. 2012. Adaptation algorithm for adaptive streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of the 2012 19th International Packet Video Workshop (PV). IEEE, 173--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. R. K. Mok, E. W. Chan, and R. K. Chang. 2011. Measuring the quality of experience of HTTP video streaming. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems. ACM, 245--256. 485--492.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. R. K. Mok, X. Luo, E. W. Chan, and R. K. Chang. 2012a. QDASH: A QoE-aware DASH system. In Proceedings of the 3rd Multimedia Systems Conference. ACM, 11--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. (MPEG) IJSW. 2010. Dynamic adaptive streaming over http. w11578, CD 23001-6, w11578, CD 23001-6. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 (MPEG), Guangzhou, China.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. E. H. Mamdani. 1974. Application of fuzzy algorithms for control of simple dynamic plant. In Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IET). 1585--1588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. J. Nagle. 1984. Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks. (Jan. 1984). http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc896. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Netflix. Retrieved from https://www.netflix.com/ca/, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. J. Park and K. Chung. 2015. Rate adaptation scheme for HTTP-based streaming to achieve fairness with competing TCP traffic. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN’15). IEEE, 222--226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. S. Petrangeli, J. Famaey, M. Claeys, S. Latré, and F. D. Turck. 2015. Qoe-driven rate adaptation heuristic for fair adaptive video streaming. ACM Trans Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 12, 28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Red Bull Playstreets. 2014. {Online}. Available: http://www-itec.uniklu.ac.at/ftp/datasets/mmsys12/RedBullPlayStreets/redbull2s/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 8, 24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. L. Rizzo. 1997. Dummynet: A simple approach to the evaluation of network protocols. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 27, 31--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. A. J. Smola and B. Schölkopf. 2004. A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat. Comput. 14, 199--222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. A. Sobhani, A. Yassine, and S. Shirmohammadi. 2015. A fuzzy-based rate adaptation controller for DASH. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video. ACM, 31--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. K. Spiteri, R. Urgaonkar, and R. K. Sitaraman BOLA: Near-optimal bitrate adaptation for online videos. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. T. C. Thang, H. T. Le, A. T. Pham, and Y. M. Ro. 2014. An evaluation of bitrate adaptation methods for HTTP live streaming. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. 32, 693--705.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. T. C. Thang, Q. Ho, J. W. Kang, and A. T. Pham. 2012. Adaptive streaming of audiovisual content using MPEG DASH. IEEE Trans. Consumer Electron. 58, 78--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. G. Tian and Y. Liu. 2012. Towards agile and smooth video adaptation in dynamic HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies. ACM, 109--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. L. Toni, R. Aparicio-pardo, G. Simon, A. Blanc, and P. Frossard. 2014. Optimal set of video representations in adaptive streaming. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, 2014, March. 271--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. P. Xiong, J. Shen, Q. Wang, D. Jayasinghe, J. Li, and C. Pu. 2012. NBS: A network-bandwidth-aware streaming version switcher for mobile streaming applications under fuzzy logic control. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 1st International Conference on Mobile Services (MS). IEEE, 48--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. J. Yao, S. S. Kanhere, and M. Hassan. 2012. Improving QoS in high-speed mobility using bandwidth maps. IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. 11, 603--617. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. X. Yin, V. Jindal, and A. B. A Sekar Sinopoli. 2015. control-theoretic approach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over HTTP. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 45, 4 (Sep. 2015), 325--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. I. T. Young. 1977. Proof without prejudice: Use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the analysis of histograms from flow systems and other sources. J Histochem. Cytochem. 25, 1977, 935--941.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. L. A. Zadeh. 1975. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I. Inf. Sci. 8, 199--249.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. A. Zambelli. 2009. IIS smooth streaming technical overview. Microsoft Corporation 25, 3, 40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. C. Zhou and C. W. LIN. 2015. A markov decision based rate adaption approach for dynamic HTTP streaming. Vis. Commun. Image Processing (VCIP 2015). 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. C. Zhou, C. Lin, X. Zhang, and Z. Guo. 2013. Buffer-based smooth rate adaptation for dynamic HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA’13). IEEE, 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Video Bitrate Adaptation and Prediction Mechanism for HTTP Adaptive 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 13, Issue 2
          May 2017
          226 pages
          ISSN:1551-6857
          EISSN:1551-6865
          DOI:10.1145/3058792
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2017 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: 21 March 2017
          • Revised: 1 January 2017
          • Accepted: 1 January 2017
          • Received: 1 December 2015
          Published in tomm Volume 13, 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