Quality Evaluation in Peer-to-Peer IPTV Services

  • Mu Mu
  • William Knowles
  • Panagiotis Georgopoulos
  • Steven Simpson
  • Eduardo Cerqueira
  • Nicholas Race
  • Andreas Mauthe
  • David Hutchison
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7754)

Abstract

Modern IPTV services are comprised of multiple comprehensive service elements in the entire content delivery chain to maximise the efficiency in networking. Audio-visual content may experience various types of impairments during content ingest, processing, distribution and reception. While some impairments do not cause noticeable distortions to the delivered content, many others such as the network transmission loss can be highly detrimental to the user experience in content consumption. In order to optimise service quality and to provide a benchmarking platform to evaluate the designs for future audio-visual content distribution system, a quality evaluation framework is essential. We introduce such an evaluation framework to assess video service with respect of user perception, while supporting service diagnosis to identify root-causes of any detected quality degradation. Compared with existing QoE frameworks, our solution offers an advanced but practical design for the real-time analysis of IPTV services in multiple service layers.

Keywords

Quality of Experience IPTV Peer-to-Peer Living Lab 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Application layer reliability solutions for IPTV services. ITU-T FG Working document IPTV-ID-0097, ITU (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perceptual evaluation of video quality. Technical report, OPTICOM (2007), http://www.opticom.de/download/SpecSheet_PEVQ_08-03-13.pdf (accessed on July 20, 2011)
  3. 3.
    Final report of VQEG’s Multimedia phase I validation test. Video Quality Experts Group (2008), http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/vqeg/
  4. 4.
    Quality of experience requirements for IPTV services. ITU-T FG IPTV Recommendation G.1080, ITU (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alvarez, A., Cabrero, S., Paneda, X.G., Garcia, R., Melendi, D., Orea, R.: A flexible QoE framework for video streaming services. In: Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM Workshops (GC Wkshps), pp. 1226–1230 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gardikis, G., Boula, L., Xilouris, G., Kourtis, A., Pallis, E., Sidibe, M., Negru, D.: Cross-layer monitoring in IPTV networks 50(7), 76–84 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klaue, J., Rathke, B., Wolisz, A.: Evalvid - A framework for video transmission and quality evaluation. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Modelling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation, Urbana, Illinois, USA, pp. 255–272 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mol, J., Pouwelse, J., Meulpolder, M., Epema, D., Sips, H.: Give-to-get: Free-riding-resilient video-on-demand in P2P systems. In: Proceeding of the 15th SPIE/ACM Multimedia Computing and Networking, MMCN 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mu, M., Cerqueira, E., Boavida, F., Mauthe, A.: Quality of experience management framework for real-time multimedia applications. International Journal of Internet Protocol Technology 4(1), 54–64 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mu, M., Gostner, R., Mauthe, A., Garcia, F., Tyson, G.: Visibility of individual packet loss on H.264 encoded video stream: A user study on the impact of packet loss on perceived video quality. In: Proceedings of Sixteenth Annual Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN 2009), San Jose, California, USA, ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mu, M., Ishmael, J., Mitchell, K., Race, N.: Multimodal qoe evaluation in p2p-based iptv systems. ACM Multimedia (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mu, M., Mauthe, A., Haley, R., Garcia, F.: Discrete quality assessment in IPTV content distribution networks. Elsevier Journal of Signal Processing: Image Communication (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mu, M., Romaniak, P., Mauthe, A., Leszczuk, M., Janowski, L., Cerqueira, E.: Framework for the integrated video quality assessment. Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp. 1–31, 10.1007/s11042-011-0946-3Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pinson, M., Wolf, S.: Comparing subjective video quality testing methodologies. In: Proceedings of SPIE Video Communications and Image Processing Conference, Lugano, Switzerland. SPIE (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rahrer, T., Fiandra, R., Wright, S.: Triple-play services quality of experience (QoE) requirements and mechanisms - For architecture and transport. Technical Report TR-126, Architecture & Transport Working Group, Broadband Forum (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seferidis, V., Ghanbari, M., Pearson, D.E.: Forgiveness effect in subjective assessment of packet video. IET Journal of Electronics Letters 28(21), 2013–2014 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ur Rehman Laghari, K., Pham, T.T., Nguyen, H., Crespi, N.: Qom: A new quality of experience framework for multimedia services. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. Computers and Communications (ISCC), pp. 000851–000856 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, Z., Sheikh, H.R., Bovik, A.C.: No-reference perceptual quality assessment of JPEG compressed images. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Image Processing. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolf, S., Pinson, M.H.: Spatial-temporal distortion metrics for in-service quality monitoring of any digital video system. In: Proc. SPIE International Symposium on Voice, Video, and Data Communications, vol. 3845, pp. 266–277. SPIE (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    You, F., Zhang, W., Xiao, J.: Packet loss pattern and parametric video quality model for IPTV. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Eigth IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science, pp. 824–828. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mu Mu
    • 1
  • William Knowles
    • 1
  • Panagiotis Georgopoulos
    • 1
  • Steven Simpson
    • 1
  • Eduardo Cerqueira
    • 2
  • Nicholas Race
    • 1
  • Andreas Mauthe
    • 1
  • David Hutchison
    • 1
  1. 1.Lancaster UniversityLancasterUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.University of ParáBelémBrazil

Personalised recommendations