Measurement Study of Multi-party Video Conferencing

  • Yue Lu
  • Yong Zhao
  • Fernando Kuipers
  • Piet Van Mieghem
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6091)


More and more free multi-party video conferencing applications are readily available over the Internet and both Server-to-Client (S/C) or Peer-to-Peer (P2P) technologies are used. Investigating their mechanisms, analyzing their system performance, and measuring their quality are important objectives for researchers, developers and end users. In this paper, we take four representative video conferencing applications and reveal their characteristics and different aspects of Quality of Experience. Based on our observations and analysis, we recommend to incorporate the following aspects when designing video conferencing applications: 1) Traffic load control/balancing algorithms to better use the limited bandwidth resources and to have a stable conversation; 2) Use traffic shaping policy or adaptively re-encode streams in real time to limit the overall traffic.

This work is, to our knowledge, the first measurement work to study and compare mechanisms and performance of existing free multi-party video conferencing systems.


Video Quality Mean Opinion Score Video Conferencing Super Node Upload Bandwidth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Baset, S.A., Schulzrinne, H.: An Analysis of the Skype Peer-to-Peer Internet Telephony Protocol. In: INFOCOM ’06, Barcelona, Spain (April 2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Cicco, L., Mascolo, S., Palmisano, V.: Skype Video Responsiveness to Bandwidth Variations. In: NOSSDAV ’08, Braunschweig, Germany (May 2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spiers, R., Ventura, N.: An Evaluation of Architectures for IMS Based Video Conferencing, Technical Report of University of Cape Town (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Silver, M.S.: Browser-based applications: popular but flawed? Information Systems and E-Business Management 4(4) (October 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trueb, G., Lammers, S., Calyam, P.: High Definition Videoconferencing: Codec Performance, Security, and Collaboration Tools, REU Report, Ohio Supercomputer Center, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rix, A.W.: A new PESQ-LQ scale to assist comparison between P.862 PESQ score and subjective MOS, ITU-T SG12 COM12-D86 (May 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pinson, M.H., Wolf, S.: A New Standardized Method for Objectively Measuring Video Quality. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 50(3), 312–322 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ITU-T Rec. P.800, Methods for Subjective Determination of Transmission Quality (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lu, Y., Fallica, B., Kuipers, F., Kooij, R., Van Mieghem, P.: Assessing the Quality of Experience of SopCast. International Journal of Internet Protocol Technology 4(1), 11–23 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ITU BT.1359-1, Relative timing of sound and vision for broadcasting (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lias, J.L.: HDMI’s Lip Sync and audio-video synchronization for broadcast and home video, Simplay Labs, LLC (August 2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bartoli, I., Iacovoni, G., Ubaldi, F.: A synchronization control scheme for Videoconferencing services. Journal of multimedia 2(4) (August 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yue Lu
    • 1
  • Yong Zhao
    • 1
  • Fernando Kuipers
    • 1
  • Piet Van Mieghem
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations