Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Video Streaming

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality of Experience

Part of the book series: T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services ((TLABS))

Abstract

This chapter addresses QoE in the context of video streaming services. Both reliable and unreliable transport mechanisms are covered. An overview of video quality models is provided for each case, with a focus on standardized models. The degradations typically occurring in video streaming services, and which should be covered by the models, are also described. In addition, the chapter presents the results of various studies conducted to fill the gap between the existing video quality models and the estimation of QoE in the context of video streaming services. These studies include work on audiovisual quality modeling, field testing, and on the user impact. The chapter finishes with a discussion on the open issues related to QoE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that the focus was so far on visual stimuli and, therefore, video quality models. Due to its impact on the scientific work dedicated to rebuffering models, and although it is audiovisual, the model of [26] is presented in this section.

References

  1. Al-Qeisi KI (2009) Analyzing the use of UTAUT model in explaining an online behaviour: Internet banking adoption. Ph.D. thesis, Brunel University

    Google Scholar 

  2. Argyropoulos S, Raake A, Garcia MN, List P (2011) No-reference video quality assessment for SD and HD H.264/AVC sequences based on continuous estimates of packet loss visibility. In: International workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pp 31–36

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beerends JG, Caluwe F (1999) The influence of video quality on perceived audio quality and vice versa. J Audio Eng Soc 47:355

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belmudez B, Möller S, Lewcio B, Raake A, Mehmood A (2009) Audio and video channel impact on perceived audio-visual quality in different interactive contexts. In: IEEE international workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Borowiak A, Reiter U, Svensson UP (2012) Quality evaluation of long duration audiovisual content. In: IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, pp 337–341

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bosc E, Le Callet P, Morin L, Pressigout M (2013) Visual quality assessment of synthesized views in the context of 3D-TV. In: Zhu C, Zhao Y, Yu L, Tanimoto M (eds) 3D-TV systems with depth-based-image-rendering architectures, techniques and challenges, Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boulos F, Parrein B, Callet PL, Hands D (2009) Perceptual effects of packet loss on H.264/AVC encoded videos. In: International workshop on video processing and quality metrics for consumer electronics

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chateau N (1998) ITU-T Contribution COM 12–61 Relations between audio, video and audio-visual quality. International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chikkerur S, Sundaram V, Reisslein M, Karam LJ (2011) Objective video quality assessment methods: A classification, review, and performance comparison. IEEE Trans Broadcasting 57(2):165–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Corriveau P, Gojmerac C, Hughes B, Stelmach L (1999) All subjective scales are not created equal: The effects of context on different scales. Signal Process 77(1):1–9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Cranley N, Perry P, Murphy L (2006) User perception of adapting video quality. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(8):637–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Daly S (1992) The visible difference predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. In: SPIE human vision, visual processing and digital display, vol 1666

    Google Scholar 

  13. Davis AG, Bayart D, Hands DS (2009) Hybrid no-reference video quality prediction. In: Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on broadband multimedia systems and broadcasting, pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  14. Davis F, Bagozzi R, Warshaw P (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35:982–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. De Moor K, Ketyko I, Joseph W, Deryckere T, De Marez L, Martens L, Verleye G (2010) Proposed framework for evaluating quality of experience in a mobile, testbed-oriented living lab setting. Mob Netw Appl 15(3):378–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. De Pessemier T, De Moor K, Joseph W, De Marez L, Martens L (2013) Quantifying the influence of rebuffering interruptions on the user’s quality of experience during mobile video watching. IEEE Trans Broadcast 59(1):47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dobrian F, Awan A, Joseph D, Ganjam A, Zhan J, Sekar V, Stoica I, Zhang H (2013) Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. Comm ACM 56(3):91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. DSL Forum Technical Report, TR-126 (2006) Triple-play services quality of experience (QoE) requirements, DSL Forum

    Google Scholar 

  19. EBU-SAMVIQ (2003) SAMVIQ subjective assessment methodology for video quality. Report by the EBU Project Group B/VIM, European Broadcasting Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frossard P, Verscheure O (2001) Joint source/FEC rate selection for quality-optimal MPEG-2 video delivery. IEEE Trans Image Process 10(12):1815–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Garcia MN, Raake A (2010) Parametric packet-layer video quality model for IPTV. In: International conference on information science, signal processing and their applications

    Google Scholar 

  22. Garcia MN, Schleicher R, Raake A (2011) Impairment-factor-based audiovisual quality model for IPTV: influence of video resolution, degradation type, and content type. EURASIP J Image and Video Process 2011:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gros L, Chateau N (2001) Instantaneous and overall judgements for time-varying speech quality: assessments and relationships. Acta Acustica 87(3):367–377

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hands D (2004) A basic multimedia quality model. IEEE Trans Multimedia 6(6):806–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hoßfeld T, Egger S, Schatzand R, Fiedler M, Masuch K, Lorentzen C (2012) Initial delay vs. interruptions: between the devil and the deep blue sea. In: International workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hoßfeld T, Schatz R, Biersack E, Plissonneau L (2013) Internet video delivery in Youtube: from traffic measurements to quality of experience. In: Biersack E, Callegari C, Matijasevic M (eds) Data traffic monitoring and analysis: from measurement, classification and anomaly detection to quality of experience. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  27. Huynh-Thu Q, Garcia MN, Corriveau FS, Raake PJ (2011) Study of rating scales for subjective quality assessment of high-definition video. IEEE Trans Broadcast 57(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huynh-Thu Q, Ghanbari M (2012) The accuracy of PSNR in predicting video quality for different video scenes and frame rates. Telecommun Syst 49(1):35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. ITU-R Recommendation BT.500 (2012) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  30. ITU-R Recommendation BT.500-12 (2009) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  31. ITU-R Recommendation BT.710-4 (1998) Subjective assessment methods for image quality in high-definition television. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  32. ITU-R Recommendation P.1202 (2012) Parametric non-intrusive bitstream assessment of video media streaming quality. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  33. ITU-R Recommendation P.1202.1 (2012) Parametric non-intrusive bitstream assessment of video media streaming quality–lower resolution application area. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  34. ITU-R Recommendation P.1202.2 (2012) Parametric non-intrusive bitstream assessment of video media streaming quality–higher resolution application area. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  35. ITU-T Contribution COM 12–27 (1994) Extension of combined audio/video quality model. Bellcore, USA

    Google Scholar 

  36. ITU-T Recommendation G. 1070 (2007) Opinion model for video-telephony applications. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  37. ITU-T Recommendation G.1080 (2008) Quality of experience requirements for IPTV services. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  38. ITU-T Recommendation H.264 (2013) Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  39. ITU-T Recommendation J.144 (2001) Objective perceptual video quality measurement techniques for digital cable television in the presence of a full reference. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  40. ITU-T Recommendation J.341 (2011) Objective perceptual multimedia video quality measurement of HDTV for digital cable television in the presence of a full reference. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  41. ITU-T Recommendation P.10/G.100 Amd 2 (2008) Vocabulary for performance and quality of service. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  42. ITU-T Recommendation P.1201.1 (2012) Parametric non-intrusive assessment of audiovisual media streaming quality–lower resolution application area. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  43. ITU-T Recommendation P.1201.2 (2012) Parametric non-intrusive assessment of audiovisual media streaming quality–higher resolution application area. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  44. ITU-T Recommendation P.910 (1999) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  45. ITU-T Recommendation P.910 (2008) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  46. ITU-T Recommendation P.911 (1998) Subjective audiovisual quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  47. ITU-T Recommendation P.920 (2000) Interactive test methods for audiovisual communications. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  48. ITU-T Recommendation P.930 (1996) Principles of a reference impairment system for video. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  49. ITU-T Contr. COM 12–20 (1993) Experimental combined audio/video subjective test method. Bellcore, USA

    Google Scholar 

  50. ITU-T Delayed Contribution COM 12 D.038 (1998) Results of an audio-visual desktop teleconferencing subjective experiment. NTIA/ITS, USA

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jang YH, Noh JM (2011) Customer acceptance of IPTV service quality. Int J Inf Manage 31(6):582–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Jones C, Atkinson D (1998) Development of opinion-based audio-visual quality models for desktop video-teleconferencing. In: IEEE International workshop on quality of service

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Häkkinen J (2008) Profiles of the evaluators: impact of psychographic variables on the consumer-oriented quality assessment of mobile television. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vo 6821, article id. 68210L, p 14

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jumisko-Pyykkö S, Strohmeier D (2013) Cognitive styles and visual quality. IS&T/SPIE Electron Imaging 4(4):86670K–86670K

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kanumuri S, Cosman P, Reibman A, Vaishampayan V (2006) Modeling packet-loss visibility in MPEG-2 video. IEEE Trans Multimedia 8(2):341–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kanumuri S, Subramanian S, Cosman P, Reibman A (2006) Predicting H.264 packet loss visibility using a generalized linear model. In: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp 2245–2248

    Google Scholar 

  57. Keimel C, Habigt J, Diepold K (2012) Hybrid no-reference video quality metric based on multiway plsr. In: Proceedings of the 20th European signal processing conference, pp 1244–1248

    Google Scholar 

  58. Keimel C, Habigt J, Klimpke M, Diepold K (2011) Design of no-reference video quality metrics with multiway partial least squares regression. In: International workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pp 49–54

    Google Scholar 

  59. Keimel C, Klimpke M, Habigt J, Diepold K (2011) No-reference video quality metric for HDTV based on H.264/AVC bitstream features. In: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp 3325–3328

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kohlrausch A, van de Par S (2005) Audio-visual interaction in the context of multi-media applications. In: Blauert J (ed) Communication acoustics. Springer, Berlin, pp 109–138

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Lee K, Park J, Lee S, Bovik A (2010) Temporal pooling of video quality estimates using perceptual motion models. In: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp 2493–2496

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lee SO, Jung KS, Sim DG (2010) Real-time objective quality assessment based on coding parameters extracted from H.264/AVC bitstream. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 56(2):1071–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Liao N, Chen Z (2011) A packet-layer video quality assessment model with spatiotemporal complexity estimation. EURASIP J Image Video Process 5:1

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lin TL, Kanumuri S, Zhi Y, Poole D, Cosman P, Reibman A (2010) A versatile model for packet loss visibility and its application to packet prioritization. IEEE Trans Image Process 19(3):722–735

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  65. Lin X, Ma H, Luo L, Chen Y (2012) No-reference video quality assessment in the compressed domain. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 58(2):505–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Naccari M, Tagliasacchi M, Tubaro S (2009) No-reference video quality monitoring for H.264/AVC coded video. IEEE Trans Multimedia 11(5):932–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Next Generation Mobile Networks (2013) Service quality definition and measurement. White Paper. http://www.ngmn.org/uploads/media/NGMN-P-SERQU_Service_Quality_Definition_and_Measurement_-_A_Technical_Report_by_NGMN_Alliance__v1_0_4_.pdf

  68. Ninassi A, Le Meur O, Le Callet P, Barba D (2009) Considering temporal variations of spatial visual distortions in video quality assessment. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 3(2):253–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Park J, Seshadrinathan K, Lee S, Bovik A (2013) Video quality pooling adaptive to perceptual distortion severity. IEEE Trans Image Process 22(2):610–620

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  70. Pinson M, Ingram W, Webster A (2011) Audiovisual quality components. IEEE. Signal Process 28:60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Pinson M, Janowski L, Pepion R, Huynh-Thu Q, Schmidmer C, Corriveau P, Younkin A, Le Callet P, Barkowsky M, Ingram W (2012) The influence of subjects and environment on audiovisual subjective tests: an international study. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 6(6):640–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Pinson M, Wolf S (2003) Comparing subjective video quality testing methodologies. In: Proceedings of SPIE

    Google Scholar 

  73. Pinson MH, Wolf S (2004) A new standardized method for objectively measuring video quality. IEEE Trans Broadcast 50(3):312–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience-Output Version of the Dagstuhl Seminar 12181 (2012). In: Möller S, Le Callet P, Perkis A (eds) European network on quality of experience in multimedia systems and services (COST Action IC 1003), 1.1 edn, Lausanne

    Google Scholar 

  75. Raake A, Gustafsson J, Argyropoulos S, Garcia MN, Lindegren D, Heikkilä G, Pettersson M, Feiten B, List P (2011) Monitoring the quality of IP-based mobile and fixed network audiovisual media services. IEEE Signal Proces Mag 28(6):68–79

    Google Scholar 

  76. Redi J (2013) Visual quality beyond artifact visibility. In: SPIE human vision and electronic imaging XVIII

    Google Scholar 

  77. Reibman A, Kanumuri S, Vaishampayan V, Cosman P (2004) Visibility of individual packet losses in MPEG-2 video. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). 1:171–174

    Google Scholar 

  78. Reibman AR, Vaishmpayan VA, Sermadevi Y (2004) Quality monitoring of video over a packet network. IEEE Trans Multimedia 6(2):327–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Ries M, Puglia R, Tebaldi T, Nemethova O, Rupp M (20058) Audiovisual quality estimation for mobile video services. In: 2nd IEEE symposium on wireless communication systems

    Google Scholar 

  80. Seshadrinathan K, Bovik A (2011) Temporal hysteresis model of time varying subjective video quality. In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp 1153–1156

    Google Scholar 

  81. Seufert M, Slanina M, Egger S, Kottkamp M (2013) To pool or not to pool: a comparison of temporal pooling methods for http adaptive video streaming. In: International workshop on video processing and quality metrics for consumer electronics

    Google Scholar 

  82. Shi Z, Chen P, Feng C, Huang L, Xu W (2012) Research on quality assessment metric based on H.264/AVC bitstream. In: International conference on anti-counterfeiting, security and identification, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  83. Sodagar I (2011) The MPEG-DASH standard for multimedia streaming over the internet. IEEE Multimedia 18(4):62–67

    Google Scholar 

  84. Staelens N, Van den Broeck W, Pitrey Y, Vermeulen B, Demeester P (2012) Lessons learned during real-life QoE assessment. In: EuroITV–10th European conference on interactive TV

    Google Scholar 

  85. Staelens N, Moens S, Van den Broeck W, Mariën I, Vermeulen B, Lambert P, Van de Walle R, Demeester P (2010) Assessing quality of experience of IPTV and Video on Demand services in real-life environments. IEEE Trans Broadcast 56(4):458–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Staelens N, Sedano I, Barkowsky M, Janowski L, Brunnström K, Le Callet P (2011) Standardized toolchain and model development for video quality assessment–the mission of the joint effort group in VQEG. In: International workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience

    Google Scholar 

  87. Staelens N, Van Wallendael G, Crombecq K, Vercammen N, De Cock J, Vermeulen B, Van de Walle R, Dhaene T, Demeester P (2012) No-reference bitstream-based visual quality impairment detection for high definition H.264/AVC encoded video sequences. IEEE Trans Broadcast 58(2):187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Strohmeier D (2012) Open profiling of quality: a mixed methods research approach for audiovisual quality evaluations. SIG Multimedia Rec 4(4):5–6

    Google Scholar 

  89. Tao S, Apostolopoulos J, Guerin R (2008) Real-time monitoring of video quality in IP networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking 16(5):1052–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Valenzise G, Magni S, Tagliasacchi M, Tubaro S (2012) No-reference pixel video quality monitoring of channel-induced distortion. IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 22(4):605–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Verscheure O, Frossard P, Hamdi M (1999) User-oriented qos analysis in MPEG-2 video delivery. Real-Time Imaging 5(5):305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Waltl M, Timmerer C, Hellwagner H (2009) A test-bed for quality of multimedia experience evaluation of sensory effects. In: International workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience, pp 145–150

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Wang Z, Lu L, Bovik AC (2004) Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measure. Signal Process Image Commun 19(2):121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Weniger S (2010) User adoption of IPTV: a research model. In: International bled e-conference

    Google Scholar 

  96. Winkler S, Faller C (2006) Perceived audiovisual quality of low-bitrate multimedia content. IEEE Trans Multimedia 8(5):973–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Winkler S, Mohandas P (2008) The evolution of video quality measurement: from PSNR to hybrid metrics. IEEE Trans Broadcast 54(3):660–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wu HR, Rao KR (2006) Digital video image quality and perceptual coding. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  99. Xue Y, Song Y, Ou YF, Wang Y (2013) Video adaptation considering the impact of temporal variation on quantization stepsize and frame rate on perceptual quality. In: International workshop on video processing and quality metrics for consumer electronics, pp 70–74

    Google Scholar 

  100. Yamada T, Yachida S, Senda Y, Serizawa M (2010) Accurate video-quality estimation without video decoding. In: International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

    Google Scholar 

  101. Yamagishi K, Hayashi T (2008) Parametric packet-layer model for monitoring video quality of IPTV services. In: IEEE international conference on communications

    Google Scholar 

  102. Yamagishi K, Okamoto J, Hayashi T, Takahashi T (2012) No reference video-quality-assessment model for monitoring video quality of IPTV services. IEICE Trans Commun 95:435–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Yang F, Song J, Wan S, Wu H (2012) Content-adaptive packet-layer model for quality assessment of networked video services. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 6(6):672–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. You F, Zhang W, Xiao J (2009) Packet loss pattern and parametric video quality model for IPTV. In: International conference on computer and information science

    Google Scholar 

  105. You J, Reiter U, Hannuksela M, Gabbouj M, Perkis A (2010) Perceptual-based quality assessment for audio-visual services:a survey. J Signal Process Image Commun 25:482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Yuen M, Wu H (1998) A survey of hybrid MC/DPCM/DCT video coding distortions. EURASIP J Signal Process 70:247

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  107. Zieliński S, Rumsey F, Bech S (2008) On some biases encountered in modern audio quality listening testsa review. J Audio Eng Soc 56(6):427–451

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assessment of IP-based Applications, Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Marie-Neige Garcia, Savvas Argyropoulos, Miguel Rios-Quintero & Alexander Raake

  2. Department of Information Technology, Internet Based Communication Networks and Services, Ghent University—iMinds, Ghent, Belgium

    Nicolas Staelens

  3. BBC R&D, London, UK

    Matteo Naccari

Authors
  1. Marie-Neige Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Savvas Argyropoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolas Staelens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matteo Naccari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miguel Rios-Quintero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexander Raake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Neige Garcia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Quality and Usability Lab Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Möller

  2. Assessment of IP-based Applications Telekom Innovation Laboratories, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Alexander Raake

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Garcia, MN., Argyropoulos, S., Staelens, N., Naccari, M., Rios-Quintero, M., Raake, A. (2014). Video Streaming. In: Möller, S., Raake, A. (eds) Quality of Experience. T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02680-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02681-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation