QoE of YouTube Video Streaming for Current Internet Transport Protocols

  • Tobias Hoßfeld
  • Raimund Schatz
  • Udo R. Krieger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8376)


Video streaming currently dominates global Internet traffic and will be of even increasing importance in the future. In this paper we assess the impact of the underlying transport protocol on the user perceived quality for video streaming using YouTube as example. In particular, we investigate whether UDP or TCP fits better for Video-on-Demand delivery from the end user’s perspective, when the video is transmitted over a bottleneck link. For UDP based streaming, the bottleneck link results in spatial and temporal video artifacts, decreasing the video quality. In contrast, in the case of TCP based streaming, the displayed content itself is not disturbed but playback suffers from stalling due to rebuffering. The results of subjective user studies for both scenarios are analyzed in order to assess the transport protocol influences on Quality of Experience of YouTube. To this end, application-level measurements are conducted for YouTube streaming over a network bottleneck in order to develop models for realistic stalling patterns. Furthermore, mapping functions are derived that accurately describe the relationship between network-level impairments and QoE for both protocols.


YouTube Quality of Experience Stalling TCP Loss UDP 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cisco Systems Inc.: Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2009-2014 (June 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shiels, M.: YouTube at five- 2 bn views a day (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoßfeld, T., Schatz, R., Seufert, M., Hirth, M., Zinner, T., Tran-Gia, P.: Quantification of YouTube QoE via Crowdsourcing. In: IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Quality of Experience - Modeling, Evaluation, and Directions (MQoE 2011), Dana Point, CA, USA (December 2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Simone, F., Tagliasacchi, M., Naccari, M., Tubaro, S., Ebrahimi, T.: H.264/AVC video database for the evaluation of quality metrics. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alcock, S., Nelson, R.: Application flow control in youtube video streams. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 41 (April 2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nygren, E., Sitaraman, R.K., Sun, J.: The akamai network: a platform for high-performance internet applications. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 44 (August 2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mori, T., Kawahara, R., Hasegawa, H., Shimogawa, S.: Characterizing traffic flows originating from large-scale video sharing services. In: Ricciato, F., Mellia, M., Biersack, E. (eds.) TMA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6003, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adhikari, V., Jain, S., Zhang, Z.: Where do you tube? uncovering youtube server selection strategy. In: IEEE ICCCN 2011 (July 2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoßfeld, T., Zinner, T., Schatz, R., Seufert, M., Tran-Gia, P.: Transport Protocol Influences on YouTube QoE. Technical Report 482, Uni. Würzburg (July 2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoßfeld, T., Schatz, R., Biersack, E., Plissonneau, L.: 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’s Computer Communications and Networks series (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hirth, M., Hoßfeld, T., Tran-Gia, P.: Anatomy of a Crowdsourcing Platform - Using the Example of In: Workshop on Future Internet and Next Generation Networks (FINGNet), Seoul, Korea (June 2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, K., Chang, C., Wu, C., Chang, Y., Lei, C., Sinica, C.: Quadrant of Euphoria: A Crowdsourcing Platform for QoE Assessment. IEEE Network 24(2) (March 2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hirth, M., Hoßfeld, T., Tran-Gia, P.: Cost-Optimal Validation Mechanisms and Cheat-Detection for Crowdsourcing Platforms. In: Workshop on Future Internet and Next Generation Networks, Seoul, Korea (June 2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoßfeld, T., Keimel, C., Hirth, M., Gardlo, B., Habigt, J., Diepold, K., Tran-Gia, P.: CrowdTesting: A Novel Methodology for Subjective User Studies and QoE Evaluation. Technical Report 486, University of Würzburg (February 2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ITU-T Rec. P.800.1: Mean opinion score (mos) terminology (February 2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fiedler, M., Hoßfeld, T., Tran-Gia, P.: A Generic Quantitative Relationship between Quality of Experience and Quality of Service. IEEE Network Special Issue on Improving QoE for Network Services (June 2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Simone, F., Naccari, M., Tagliasacchi, M., Dufaux, F., Tubaro, S., Ebrahimi, T.: Subjective assessment of H.264/AVC video sequences transmitted over a noisy channel. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience, QoMEX 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Padhye, J., Firoiu, V., Towsley, D., Kurose, J.: Modeling tcp throughput: a simple model and its empirical validation. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 28 (October 1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koponen, T., et al.: Architecting for innovation. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 41 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sieber, C., Hoßfeld, T., Zinner, T., Tran-Gia, P., Timmerer, C.: Implementation and User-centric Comparison of a Novel Adaptation Logic for DASH with SVC. In: IFIP/IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Experience Centric Management (QCMan), Ghent, Belgium (May 2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Hoßfeld
    • 1
  • Raimund Schatz
    • 2
  • Udo R. Krieger
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Telecommunications Research Center Vienna - FTWViennaAustria
  3. 3.Otto-Friedrich University BambergBambergGermany

Personalised recommendations