Defining Quality of Experience for Video Delivered over Mobile Networks

Abstract: Improving the quality of a viewers video experience in a mobile network is often considered a onedimensional problem of increasing the frame rate of the delivered video. This one-dimensional approach, however, insufficiently accounts for the highly variable and unpredictable nature of wireless networks. A multidimensional approach to the viewers quality of experience (QoE) is needed to make mobile video a viable application in the marketplace.

Copyright 2004-2007 Ortiva Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved.

Challenge
With the great success of Internet video and rapid growth of wireless data networks, mobile network operators (MNOs) and content producers (CPs) are looking to mobile video as a significant revenue generator. Unfortunately, mobile video offerings are currently hampered by the use of Internet technologies, in the highly unique wireless environment. The result has been a lower quality of viewing experience (QoE) that could threaten the viability of mobile video. Video quality is often viewed as a onedimensional issue of frame rate, based on the belief that the perceived smoothness of motion is paramount. Naturally, video QoE is then seen as primarily a bandwidth allocation and management issue.

we should be focused on instead is maximizing QOE. Mobile video QoE is, in fact, a multidimensional issue, encompassing how to optimize the smoothness affected by frame rate, clarity, a/v synchronization, and audio quality over low bandwidth, highly variable wireless networks.

Solutions Today
Since mobile video grew out of the success of wired Internet video, it is not surprising that mobile video solutions rely on Internet technology. While the use of Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) or Internet streaming video servers are effective for wired networks, they are unable to cope with the variability and unpredictability of wireless delivery. Recently, some vendors have begun adapting

However, the intrinsic nature of wireless networks belies this one-dimensional approach. Not only do wireless networks have significantly less bandwidth, but they are also highly variable. Bandwidth availability can

wired

products

to

fit

into

the

wireless

environment, but they still tend to focus solely on the frame rate dimension. For example: Bitrate Capping Device-centric products query device databases to stream video at a bitrate that matches the capabilities of the handset and the network. Unfortunately, this is a approach and lowest-common-denominator QoE. Bitrate Switching Some streaming servers include the capability to switch streams between different bitrate levels based on network feedback. While this approach better allocates bitrate to available bandwidth, it is a gross manipulation that can only switch between pre-encoded levels and suffers from detrimental time lags. Closed-loop Solutions Other vendors have invented new network protocols or rely on

change dramatically and unpredictably from second to second. Increasing bandwidth can actually exacerbate the issue, since the peaks and valleys are more severe. In addition, noise conditions not found in the wired world are an inherent part of wireless, resulting in packet drops and frame losses. Users moving in and out of coverage and between towers add to the unpredictability of the network. As a result, theres fundamentally no such thing as wireless network Quality of Service (QoS). Unless network operators are able to drop or block users from services, they cannot divide up the available spectrum in a way that guarantees a specific applications QoS. What

while enabling more devices, does little for

Copyright 2004-2007 Ortiva Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved.

Defining Quality of Experience for Video Delivered over Mobile Networks

proprietary increase

compression rate and

techniques increase

to error

frame

resiliency, but these require a client on the handset. Developing client software to run on disparate handsets is difficult, consumes the limited handset resources and puts at risk the device ubiquity carriers rely on to accelerate video adoption.

New Approach
The one highly factor variable of video nature quality, is of a wireless multiThe networks dictates that instead of looking at dimensional approach warranted.

correct measure to further user adoption and retention of mobile video services is the viewers QoE. To measure QoE, we need to account for the network variability and noise conditions in addition to bandwidth The content type and the subjectivity of the target user contribute to the weight of the various factors in terms of overall perception of quality. Some of these measures are mutually exclusive in the narrow bandwidth of the cellular environment. A given level of throughput may accommodate a higher frame rate, but with a lower clarity of picture, and vice versa. video A sports video, for example, may over picture clarity. maintain a higher QoE in a stream that favors smoothness Alternatively, a news clip may deliver a higher QoE with a stream focused on lower Video quality Frames per second should not be ignored as an important metric. The human eye will in fact perceive a small difference between 25 fps and 15 fps on a small screen. However, the overall quality of each frame will contribute greatly to the users perception of picture clarity. Moreover, excessive stalls will be perceived as jerky, with a similar impact as a low frame rate. Audio quality Audio quality and fidelity can also impact perceptions of video quality. frame rate, but higher sound quality and picture clarity. It is important, therefore, that service delivery be flexible in modifying each of the quality factors to meet the goals of the service provider in maximizing the users satisfaction. In addition, each of the factors is subject to the bandwidth variability and noise conditions in the transmission. Therefore, mobile video streaming platforms must monitor the network conditions, take this variability into
Page 3

constraints. And to do that we need to clearly understand the various quality factors: Session quality: This top layer metric concerns itself with the users overall experience in viewing the video. Initial buffering time the time it takes the video to load and begin playing and re-buffering during the playback are important factors in overall video experience. Synchronization between audio and video is also an important component

Copyright 2004-2007 Ortiva Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved.

account, and shape the stream in real time to adapt to these rapidly changing conditions.

to

maximize

the

viewers

quality

of

experience.

Conclusion
As weve seen, mobile video quality is not a uni-dimensional problem solved by higher frame rates. A number of factors contribute to the users perception of QoE, including initial latency, frame quality, stalling, re-buffering, and audio quality. These factors are difficult to manage under the best of conditions, but are more acute in the highly dynamic, bandwidth-starved transmission path offered by wireless networks. While excess bandwidth, static bitrate connections, and the prevalence of PC clients may ameliorate these issues inherent to video on the wired Internet, such is not the case on wireless networks. In order to maximize user QoE and therefore mobile video adoption video streaming systems must be architected for the low bandwidth, highly variable nature of wireless networks. The system must be able to shape each viewers video stream, with respect to session, video, and audio quality factors, in response to the current network condition. Only then will Mobile Network operators realize the financial benefits of mobile video.

About Ortiva
Ortiva WirelessTM is a software and services company video to that provides technology and that optimizes the end user experience of mobile wireless audio, operators richest content providers. Ortiva delivers the smoothest video, clearest and multimedia Only experience to mobile users under highly variable wireless network conditions. Ortivas Media Streamer platform shapes video across multiple dimensions in real time,

Page 4

Defining Quality of Experience for Video Delivered over Mobile Networks