A User Study of Netflix Streaming

  • France JacksonEmail author
  • Rahul Amin
  • Yunhui Fu
  • Juan E. Gilbert
  • James Martin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9186)


Netflix and Hulu are examples of HTTP-based Adaptive Streaming (HAS). HAS is unique because it attempts to manage the user’s perceived quality by adapting video quality. Current HAS research fails to address whether adaptations actually make a difference? The main challenge in answering this is the lack of consideration for the end user’s perceived quality. The research community is converging on an accepted set of ‘component metrics’ for HAS. However, determining an objective Quality of Experience (QoE) estimate is an open issue. A between-subject user study of Netflix was conducted to shed light on the user’s perception of quality. We found that users prefer to receive lower video quality levels first with marginal improvements made over time. Currently, content providers switch between the highest and lowest level of quality. This paper seeks to explain a better method that led to higher user satisfaction based on Mean opinion score values (MOS).


Perceived video quality Internet video streaming HTTP-based adaptive streaming Simulation modeling Home network Video performance assessment User-Experience assessment 



This material is based upon work supported by CableLabs, Inc. Opinions or points of views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of, or a position endorsed by CableLabs, Inc.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    GPP TS 26.247 version 10.1.0 Release 10: Transparent end-to-end packet switched streaming service (PSS); progressive download and dynamic adaptive service over HTTP, 3GPP, January 2012Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC: Information technology — MPEG systems technologies — part 6: dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH), Jan 2011Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dobrian, F., Awan, A., Joseph, D., Ganjamm, A., Zhan, J., Sekar, V., Stoica, I., Zhang, H.: Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. In: Proceedings of SIGCOMM 2011, August 2011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cranley, N., Perry, P., Murphy, L.: User perception of adapting video quality. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64(8), 637–647 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muller, C., Timmerer, C.: A testbed for the dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP featuring session mobility. In: Proceedings of ACM MMSys, February 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiang, J., Sekar, V., Zhang, H.: Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in HTTP-based adaptive video streaming with festive. In: Proceedings of CoNEXT 2012, December 2012Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mok, R., Luo, X., Chan, E., Chang, R.: QDASH: a QoE-aware DASH system. In: Proceedings of the ACM MMSys, December 2012Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang, T., Handigol, N., Heller, B., McKeown, N., Johari, R.: Confused, timid, and unstable: picking a video streaming rate is hard. In: Proceedings of the IMC 2012, November 2012Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin, J., Fu, Y., et al.: Characterizing netflix bandwidth consumption. In: Proceedings of the IEEE CCNC, January 2013Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin, J., Fu, Y., Hong, G.: On the efficacy of the dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) protocol – extended version. Technical report (2013).
  12. 12.
    Balachandran, A., Sekar, V., Akella, A., Seshan, S., Stoica, I., Zhang, H.: A quest for an internet video quality-of-experience metric. In: Proceedings of the ACM HotNets 2012, October 2012Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oyman, O., Singh, S.: Quality of experience for HTTP adaptive streaming services. IEEE Communications Magazine, April 2012Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akhshabi, S., Begen, A., Dovrolis, C.: An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptation algorithms in adaptive streaming over HTTP. In: Proceedings of ACM MMSys, February 2011Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, C., Bouazizi, I., Gabbouj, M.: Rate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. In: Proceedings of ACM MMSys, February 2011Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lederer, S., Muller, C., Timmerer, C.: Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP dataset. In: Proceedings of ACM MMSys, February 2012Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akhshabi, S., Anantakrishnan, L., Dovrolis, C., Begen, A.: What happens when HTTP adaptive streaming players compete for bandwidth. In: Proceedings of ACM NOSSDAV 2012, June 2012Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muller, C., Lederer, S., Timmerer, C.: An evaluation of dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in vehicular environments. In: Proceedings of ACM MoVid 2012, February 2012Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A., Sheikh, H., et al.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structure similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 14(12), 2117–2128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xia, J., Shi, Y., Teunissen, K., Heynderickx, I.: Perceivable artifacts in compressed video and their relation to video quality. Signal Process. Image Commun. 24, 548–556 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Agboma, F., Liotta, A.: Addressing user expectations in mobile content delivery. Mob. Inf. Syst. 3(3), 1 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • France Jackson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rahul Amin
    • 2
  • Yunhui Fu
    • 2
  • Juan E. Gilbert
    • 1
  • James Martin
    • 2
  1. 1.CISE DepartmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.School of ComputingClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations