Advertisement

QoE awareness in progressive caching and DASH-based D2D video streaming in cellular networks

  • Ala’a Al-HabashnaEmail author
  • Gabriel Wainer
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we present an architecture to improve video streaming quality of experience (QoE) in cellular networks with high user equipment (UE) density. In the proposed architecture, video segments are progressively cached, as requested, in selected UEs called storage members (SMs). Video segments are strategically cached to be available to requesting users in the cell. Furthermore, the base-station controls the device-to-device communication between the UEs to provide collaborative peer-to-peer transmission of video segments. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP is also employed to adapt the quality of video segments to network conditions. We study the improvements achieved by the proposed architecture in terms of many video streaming QoE metrics. Thereafter, we improve the operation of the proposed architecture by introducing QoE awareness to both caching and distribution of video segments. We employ QoE awareness in three aspects of the proposed architecture; cellular resource allocation, caching of video segments, and SM-assignment optimization. We analyze the improvements achieved by the prospered QoE-awareness techniques in terms of video streaming QoE metrics.

Keywords

5G Collaborative D2D communication QoE awareness Adaptive video streaming 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Stenio Fernandes from the Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil, for his valuable assistance during this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Ooyala (2018) Ooyala’s Q4 2017 Global Video Index. http://go.ooyala.com/wf-video-index-q4-2017. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
  2. 2.
    Sandvine (2016) 2016 Global internet phenomena: Latin America and North America. Technical report.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunnström, K., Beker, S. A., De, K., et al. (2014). Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience. European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003), Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seufert, M., Egger, S., Slanina, M., et al. (2015). A survey on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 17, 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ITU. (2016). Vocabulary for performance and quality of service. ITU-T Recommendation P.10, Amendment 5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    El, Essaili A., Schroeder, D., Steinbach, E., et al. (2015). QoE-based rraffic and resource management for adaptive HTTP video delivery in LTE. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 25, 988–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cicalo, S., Changuel, N., Tralli, V., et al. (2016). Improving QoE and fairness in HTTP adaptive streaming over LTE network. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 26, 2284–2298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, T.-Y., Johari, R., McKeown, N., et al. (2014). A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: Evidence from a large video streaming service. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCOMM (pp. 187–198). New York, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Cicco, L., & Mascolo, S. (2014). An adaptive video streaming control system: Modeling, validation, and performance evaluation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 22, 526–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keller, L., Le, A., Cici, B., et al. (2012). MicroCast: Cooperative video streaming on smartphones. In the 10th international conference on mobile systems, applications, and services (pp 57–70). New York, USA.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Detti, A., Ricci, B., & Blefari-Melazzi, N. (2015). Mobile peer-to-peer video streaming over information-centric networks. Computer Networks, 81, 272–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Al-Habashna, A., Wainer, G., & Fernandes, S. (2017). Improving video streaming over cellular networks with DASH-based device-to-device streaming. In 2017 international symposium on performance evaluation of computer and telecommunication systems (pp. 468–475). Seattle, USA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Habashna, A., Wainer, G., Boudreau, G., & Casselman, R. (2015). Improving wireless video transmission in cellular networks using D2D communication.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Habashna, A., Wainer, G., Boudreau, G., & Casselman, R. (2016). Distributed cached and segmented video download for video transmission in cellular networks. In 2016 international symposium on performance evaluation of computer and telecommunication systems (pp. 473–480). Montreal, Canada: IEEE.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al-Habashna, A., & Wainer, G. (2017). Improving video transmission in cellular networks with cached and segmented video download algorithms. Mobile Networks and Applications, 23, 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, B., Wang, Z., Liu, J., & Zhu, W. (2013). Two decades of internet video streaming. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 9, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stockhammer, T. (2011). Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP: Standards and design principles. In Proceedings of the 2nd annual ACM conference on multimedia systems (pp. 133–144). New York, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    DASH Industry Forum. (2013). Guidelines for implementation: DASH-AVC/264 interoperability points. http://dashif.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DASH-AVC-264-base-v1.03.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2018.
  19. 19.
    Tian, G., Liu, Y. (2012). Towards agile and smooth video adaptation in dynamic HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on emerging networking experiments and technologies (pp. 109–120). Nice, France: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Cicco, L., Caldaralo, V., Palmisano, V., & Mascolo, S. (2013). ELASTIC: A client-side controller for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH). In 20th international packet video workshop (pp. 1–8). San Jose, USA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Conviva. (2013). Conviva releases viewer experience report. https://www.conviva.com/press-releases/conviva-releases-viewer-experience-report/. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  22. 22.
    Mok, R. K. P., Chan, E. W. W., Luo, X., & Chang, R. K. C. (2011). Inferring the QoE of HTTP video streaming from user-viewing activities. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCOMM workshop on measurements up the stack (pp. 31–36). Toronto, Canada: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hossfeld, T., Egger, S., Schatz, R., et al. (2012). Initial delay vs. interruptions: Between the devil and the deep blue sea. In 4th international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (pp. 1–6.). Yarra Valley, Australia: IEEE.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qi, Y., & Dai, M. (2006). The effect of frame freezing and frame skipping on video quality. In 2006 international conference on intelligent information hiding and multimedia (pp. 423–426). Pasadena, USA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sackl, A., Egger, S., & Schatz, R. (2013). Where’s the music? Comparing the QoE impact of temporal impairments between music and video streaming. In 5th international workshop on quality of multimedia experience (pp. 64–69). Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria: IEEE.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    3GPP. (2015). Evolved universal terrestrial radio access: Physical channels and modulation. Technical report TS 36.211.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Agiwal, M., Roy, A., & Saxena, N. (2016). Next generation 5G wireless networks: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 18, 1617–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Asadi, A., Wang, Q., & Mancuso, V. (2014). A survey on device-to-device communication in cellular networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 16, 1801–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaufman, B., & Aazhang, B. (2008). Cellular networks with an overlaid device to device network. In the 42nd Asilomar conference on signals, systems and computers (pp. 1537–1541). Pacific Grove, USA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Doppler, K., Rinne, M. P., Janis, P., et al. (2009). Device-to-device communications; functional prospects for LTE-advanced networks. In IEEE international conference on communications workshops (pp. 1–6). Dresden, Germany: IEEE.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Duan, L., Gao, L., & Huang, J. (2014). Cooperative spectrum sharing: A contract-based approach. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 13, 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang, Y., Song, L., Saad, W., et al. (2015). Contract-based incentive mechanisms for device-to-device communications in cellular networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 33, 2144–2155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Le, A., Keller, L., Seferoglu, H., et al. (2016). MicroCast: Cooperative video streaming using cellular and local connections. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 24, 2983–2999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eittenberger, P. M., Herbst, M., & Krieger, U. R. (2012). RapidStream: P2P streaming on android. In 2012 19th international packet video workshop (pp. 125–130). Munich, Germany: IEEE.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Duong, T. Q., Vo, N.-S., Nguyen, T.-H., et al. (2015). Energy-aware rate and description allocation optimized video streaming for mobile D2D communications. In 2015 IEEE international conference on communications (pp. 6791–6796). London, UK: IEEE.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim, J., Caire, G., & Molisch, A. F. (2016). Quality-aware streaming and scheduling for device-to-device video delivery. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 24, 2319–2331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhu, H., Cao, Y., Wang, W., et al. (2015). QoE-aware resource allocation for adaptive device-to-device video streaming. IEEE Network, 29, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ghalut, T., Larijani, H., & Shahrabi, A. (2016). QoE-aware optimization of video stream downlink scheduling over LTE networks using RNNs and genetic algorithm. Procedia Computer Science, 94, 232–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee, G., Kim, H., Cho, Y., & Lee, S.-H. (2014). QoE-aware scheduling for sigmoid optimization in wireless networks. IEEE Communications Letters, 18, 1995–1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kolding, T. (2006). QoS-aware proportional fair packet scheduling with required activity detection. In 64th IEEE vehicular technology conference (pp. 1–5). Montreal, Canada: IEEE.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fodor, G., Dahlman, E., Mildh, G., et al. (2012). Design aspects of network assisted device-to-device communications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 50, 170–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gurobi Optimization. (2018). Gurobi optimization—The state-of-the-art mathematical programming solver. http://www.gurobi.com/index. Accessed 29 May 2018.
  43. 43.
    Wainer, G. A. (2009). Discrete-event modeling and simulation: A practitioner’s approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    3GPP. (2015). Evolved universal terrestrial radio access; RF system scenarios. Technical report TR36.942.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Al-Hourani, A., Chandrasekharan, S., & Kandeepan, S. (2014). Path loss study for millimeter wave device-to-device communications in urban environment. In 2014 IEEE international conference on communications workshops (pp. 102–107). Sydney, Australia: IEEE.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dahlman, E., Parkvall, S., & Sköld, J. (2014). 4G LTE/LTE-advanced for mobile broadband (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kilinc, C., Ericson, M., Rugeland, P., et al. (2017). 5G multi-RAT integration evaluations using a common PDCP layer. In IEEE 85th vehicular technology conference (pp. 1–5). Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    3GPP. (2016). Study on new radio access technology: Radio access architecture and interfaces. Technical report 38.801.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cha, M., Kwak, H., Rodriguez, P., et al. (2007). I tube, you tube, everybody tubes. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement (pp 1–14). New York, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    ITU-T. (2012). Infrastructure of audiovisual servicescoding of moving video. ITU-T Recommendation H.264.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ahsan, S., Singh, V., & Ott, J. (2014). Characterizing internet video for large-scale active measurements. arXiv preprint arXiv:14085777v1.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Systems and Computer EngineeringCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations