skip to main content
10.1145/3304112.3325611acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Bandwidth prediction in low-latency chunked streaming

Published:21 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

HTTP adaptive streaming with chunked transfer encoding can be used to offer low-latency streaming without sacrificing the coding efficiency. While this allows a media segment to be generated and delivered at the same time, which is critical in reducing the latency, the conventional bitrate adaptation schemes make often grossly inaccurate bandwidth measurements due to the presence of idle periods between the chunks. These wrong measurements cause the streaming client to make bad adaptation decisions. To this end, we design ACTE, a new bitrate adaptation scheme that leverages the unique nature of chunk downloads. ACTE uses a sliding window to accurately measure the available bandwidth and an online linear adaptive filter to predict the bandwidth into the future. Results show that ACTE achieves 96% measurement accuracy, which translates to a 65% reduction in the number of stalls and a 49% increase in quality of experience on average compared to other schemes.

References

  1. 2018. Information technology - Multimedia application format (MPEG-A) - Part 19: Common media application format (CMAF) for segmented media. Standard ISO/IEC 23000-19:2018. International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, CH. https://www.iso.org/standard/71975.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. ACTE Demo. 2019. {Online} Available: http://bit.do/ACTEdemo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. C. Begen and Y. Syed. 2018. Are The Streaming format Wars Over?. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Expo Workshops (ICMEW). 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Bentaleb, B. Taani, A. C. Begen, C. Timmerer, and R. Zimmermann. 2019. A Survey on Bitrate Adaptation Schemes for Streaming Media over HTTP. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 21, 1 (2019), 562--585.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. N. Bouzakaria, C. Concolato, and J. Le Feuvre. 2014. Overhead and performance of low latency live streaming using MPEG-DASH. In IISA 2014, The 5th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications. 92--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. DASH Industry Forum (DASH-IF). 2019. dash.js JavaScript Reference Client. https://reference.dashif.org/dash.js/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. E. Essaili, T. Lohmar, and M. Ibrahim. 2018. Realization and Evaluation of an End-to-End Low Latency Live DASH System. In 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB). 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Simon S. Haykin. 2008. Adaptive filter theory. Pearson Education India.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. P. Houzé, E. Mory, G. Texier, and G. Simon. 2016. Applicative-layer multipath for low-latency adaptive live streaming. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Will L. {n. d.}. Ultra-Low-Latency Streaming Using Chunked-Encoded and Chunked-Transferred CMAF. Akamai White paper. https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/white-paper/low-latency-streaming-cmaf-whitepaper.pdf Online; accessed 10 January 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. R. Pantos and W. May. 2017. HTTP Live Streaming. RFC 8216. RFC Editor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. W. Robitza, S. Göring, A. Raake, D. Lindegren, G. Heikkilä, J. Gustafsson, P. List, B. Feiten, U. Wüstenhagen, M.-N. Garcia, K. Yamagishi, and S. Broom. 2018. HTTP Adaptive Streaming QoE Estimation with ITU-T Rec. P. 1203: Open Databases and Software. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys'18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 466--471.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Y. Shuai and T. Herfet. 2018. Towards reduced latency in adaptive live streaming. In 2018 15th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications Networking Conference (CCNC). 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. I. Sodagar. 2011. The MPEG-DASH Standard for Multimedia Streaming Over the Internet. IEEE MultiMedia 18, 4 (April 2011), 62--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. K. Spiteri, R. Urgaonkar, and R. K. Sitaraman. 2016. BOLA: Near-optimal bitrate adaptation for online videos. In IEEE INFOCOM 2016 - The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. V. Swaminathan and S. Wei. 2011. Low latency live video streaming using HTTP chunked encoding. In 2011 IEEE 13th International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Van Der Hooft, S. Petrangeli, T. Wauters, R. Huysegems, T. Bostoen, and F. De Turck. 2018. An HTTP/2 Push-Based Approach for Low-Latency Live Streaming with Super-Short Segments. Journal of Network and Systems Management 26, 1 (Jan. 2018), 51--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. X. Yin, A. Jindal, V. Sekar, and B. Sinopoli. 2015. A Control-Theoretic Approach for Dynamic Adaptive Video Streaming over HTTP. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 45, 4 (Aug. 2015), 325--338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Bandwidth prediction in low-latency chunked streaming

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      NOSSDAV '19: Proceedings of the 29th ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video
      June 2019
      86 pages
      ISBN:9781450362986
      DOI:10.1145/3304112

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 June 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      NOSSDAV '19 Paper Acceptance Rate12of32submissions,38%Overall Acceptance Rate118of363submissions,33%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader