Advertisement

The Impact of Packet Loss and Google Congestion Control on QoE for WebRTC-Based Mobile Multiparty Audiovisual Telemeetings

  • Dunja VucicEmail author
  • Lea Skorin-Kapov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11295)

Abstract

While previous expensive and complex desktop video conferencing solutions had a restricted reach, the emergence of the WebRTC (Web Real-Time Communication) open framework has provided an opportunity to redefine the video conferencing communication landscape. In particular, technological advances in terms of high resolution displays, cameras, and high speed wireless access networks have set the ground for emerging multiparty video telemeeting solutions realized via mobile devices. However, deploying multiparty video communication solutions on smart phones calls for the need to optimize video encoding parameters due to limited device processing power and dynamic wireless network conditions. In this paper, we report on a subjective user study involving 30 participants taking part in three-party audiovisual telemeetings on mobile devices. We conduct an experimental investigation of the Google Congestion Control (GCC) Algorithm in light of packet loss and under various video codec configurations, with the aim being to observe the impact on end user Quality of Experience (QoE). Results provide insights related to QoE-driven video encoding adaptation (in terms of bit rate, resolution, and frame rate), and show that in certain cases, adaptation invoked by GCC leads to video interruption. In majority of other cases, we observed that it took approximately 25 s for the video stream to recover to an acceptable quality level after the temporary occurrence of network packet loss.

Keywords

QoE Audiovisual telemeeting Multiparty Mobile GCC 

References

  1. 1.
    Skowronek, J.: Quality of experience of multiparty conferencing and telemeeting systems. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Berlin (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vučić, D., Skorin-Kapov, L., Sužnjević, M.: The impact of bandwidth limitations and video resolution size on QoE for WebRTC-based mobile multi-party video conferencing. In: Proceedings of the 5th ISCA/DEGA Workshop on Perceptual Quality of Systems, PQS, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlucci, G., et al.: Congestion control for web real-time communication. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking (TON) 25(5), 2629–2642 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holmer, S., Lundin, H., Carlucci, G., De Cicco, L., Mascolo, S.: A google congestion control algorithm for real-time communication, IETF draft (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alvestrand, H.: Overview: real time protocols for browser-based applications (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlucci, G., De Cicco, L., Holmer, S., Mascolo, S.: Analysis and design of the google congestion control for web real-time communication (WebRTC). In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Multimedia Systems, p. 13. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ITU-T. Recommendation P.1301: Subjective quality evaluation of audio and audiovisual telemeetings. International Standard. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmitt, M., Redi, J., Cesar, P., Bulterman, D.: 1Mbps is enough: video quality and individual idiosyncrasies in multiparty HD video-conferencing. In: Eighth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schmitt, M., Redi, J., Cesar, P.: Towards context-aware interactive Quality of Experience evaluation for audiovisual multiparty conferencing. In: Proceedings of the 5th PQS, Berlin, pp. 64–68 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmitt, M., Redi, J., Bulterman, D., Cesar, P.S.: Towards individual QoE for multiparty videoconferencing. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 20(7), 1781–1795 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jansen, B., Goodwin, T., Gupta, V., Kuipers, F., Zussman, G.: Performance evaluation of WebRTC-based video conferencing. ACM SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 45(2), 56–68 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu, C., Xu, Y., Liu, B., Liu, Y.: “Can you SEE me now?” A measurement study of mobile video calls. In: 2014 Proceedings of IEEE, INFOCOM, pp. 1456–1464 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmitt, M., Gunkel, S., Cesar, P., Bulterman, D.: The influence of interactivity patterns on the Quality of Experience in multi-party video-mediated conversations under symmetric delay conditions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Socially-aware Multimedia, pp. 13–16 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xu, J., Wah, B.W.: Exploiting just-noticeable difference of delays for improving quality of experience in video conferencing. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, pp. 238–248. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fouladi, S., Emmons, J., Orbay, E., Wu, C., Wahby, R.S., Winstein, K.: Salsify: low-latency network video through tighter integration between a video codec and a transport protocol. In: 15th (USENIX) Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ammar, D., De Moor, K., Xie, M., Fiedler, M., Heegaard, P.: Video QoE killer and performance statistics in WebRTC-based video communication. In: Sixth International Conference on Communications and Electronics (ICCE), pp. 429–436. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Moor, K., Arndt, S., Ammar, D., Voigt-Antons, J.N., Perkis, A., Heegaard, P.E.: Exploring diverse measures for evaluating QoE in the context of WebRTC. In: 2017 Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pp. 1–3. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ericsson Nikola Tesla d.d.ZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Faculty of Electrical Engineering and ComputingUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations