Analysis of Experience Quality Parameters of Cloud Video Conferencing Systems under Interference Conditions
https://doi.org/10.31854/1813-324X-2023-9-1-59-73
Abstract
The article deals with the testing of popular domestic and foreign cloud videoconferencing systems. A methodology for testing and comparing qualitative parameters of videoconferencing applications based on international experience is proposed. Assessment and comparison of videoconferencing services is based on the calculation of Hurst data flows, formed by the investigated cloud videoconferencing systems. Various applications of foreign and domestic videoconferencing systems have been tested in different operation modes with different channel quality parameters.
About the Authors
R. Kirichek
The Bonch-Bruevich Saint-Petersburg State University of Telecommunications
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
A. Berezkin
The Bonch-Bruevich Saint-Petersburg State University of Telecommunications
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
D. Kukunin
The Bonch-Bruevich Saint-Petersburg State University of Telecommunications
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
A. Kolesnikov
Association of Internet of Things Market Participants
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow, Russian Federation
References
1. Rec. ITU-T Q.3949. Real-time multimedia service testing framework at the user-to-network interface of next generation networks. December 2012.
2. Gracheva M.A., Bozhkovaa V.P., Kazakovaa A.A. Rozhkovaa G.I. Subjective image and video quality assessment: methodology review. Sensornye seti. 2019; 33(4):287‒304. (in Russ.)
3. Ahmed M.S. Achieving QoS in media streaming for peer to peer networks. 2016 International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT). Chennai, India; 2016. pp. 3694–3698. DOI:10.1109/ICEEOT.2016. 7755399.
4. Bao Y., Lei W., Zhang W., Song J. HD streaming media QoE quantitative evaluation model for multipath transmission. 2016 11th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), Nagoya, Japan. 2016. pp. 658–665. DOI:10.1109/ICCSE.2016.7581658.
5. Fowdur T.P., Narrainen L. Enhanced video streaming using dynamic quality control with bandwidth prediction IEEE EUROCON 2015 ‒International Conference on Computer as a Tool (EUROCON), Salamanca, Spain. 2015. pp. 1–6. DOI:10.1109/ EUROCON.2015.7313675.
6. Taraghi B., Nguyen M., Amirpour H., Timmerer C. Intense: In-Depth Studies on Stall Events and Quality Switches and Their Impact on the Quality of Experience in HTTP Adaptive Streaming. IEEE. 2021. vol. 9. pp. 118087–118098. DOI:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3107619
7. Yeganeh H., Qassemi F., Rabiee H.R. Joint effect of stalling and presentation quality on the quality-of-experience of streaming videos. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Beijing, China. 2017. pp. 310–314. DOI:10.1109/ICIP.2017.8296293
8. Seufert A., Wamser F., Yarish D., Macdonald H., Hoßfeld T. QoE Models in the Wild: Comparing Video QoE Models Using a Crowdsourced Data Set. 2021 13th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Montreal, QC, Canada. 2021. pp. 55–60. DOI:10.1109/QoMEX51781.2021.9465422
9. Hoßfeld T., Heegaard P.E., Skorin-Kapov L., Varela M. No silver bullet: QoE metrics, QoE fairness, and user diversity in the context of QoE management. 2017 Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Erfurt, Germany. 2017. pp. 1–6. DOI:10.1109/QoMEX.2017.7965671
10. Mardian R.D., Suryanegara M., Ramli K. Measuring Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of Experience (QoE) on 5G Technology: A Review. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Innovative Research and Development (ICIRD), Jakarta, Indonesia. 2019. pp. 1–6. DOI:10.1109/ICIRD47319.2019.9074681
11. Hewage C.T.E.R., Ahmad A., Mallikarachchi T., Barman N., Martini M.G. Measuring, Modeling and Integrating Time-Varying Video Quality in End-to-End Multimedia Service Delivery: A Review and Open Challenges. IEEE, 2022. vol. 10. pp. 60267–60293. DOI:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3180491
12. Rec. ITU-T G.107. International Telephone Connections and Circuits – Transmission Planning and the E-Model. June 2015.
13. Koucheryavy A., Paramonov A., Koucheryavy E. Public Communication Networks. Development Trends and Calculation Methods. Moscow: Central Research Institute of Communication Publ.; 2008. (in Russ.)
14. Rec. ITU-T G.1011. Reference guide to quality of experience assessment methodologies. June 2016.
15. Shelukhin O.I., Osin A.V., Smolsky S.M. Self-Similarity and Fractals. Telecommunication Applications. Moscow: Fizmatlit Publ.; 2008. (in Russ.)
16. Janevski T., Vanevski Z. Statistical Analysis of Multicast versus Instant Channel Changing Unicast IPTV Provisioning. Proceedings of the 16th Telecommunications Forum, TELFOR, 25‒27 November 2008, Belgrade, Serbia. 2008. p.96‒99.
17. Paramonov P., Tarasov D., Koucheryavy A. The Video Streaming Monitoring in the Next Generation Network. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Next Generation Wired/Wireless Networking, NEW2AN 2009, and Second Conference on on Internet of Things and Smart Spaces, ruSMART 2009, 15‒18 September 2009, St. Petersburg, Russia. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.5764. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. p.191–205. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-04190-7_18
18. Rezaul K.M., Pakstas A., Gilchrist R., Chen T.M. HEAF: A Novel Estimator for Long-Range Dependent Self-similar Network Traffic. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Next Generation Teletraffic and Wired/Wireless Advanced Networking, NEW2AN 2006, 29 May‒2 June 2006, St. Petersburg, Russia. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.4003. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2006. p.34–45. DOI:10.1007/11759355_6
19. Makolkina M.A. The Relationship between Subjective Assessments of the Quality of Video Perception and the Values of the Hurst Parameter. Sistemy upravleniia i informatsionnye tekhnologii. 2014;1-1(55):169‒172. (in Russ.)
20. Makolkina M. Parameter Values Hurst in Subjective Evaluations of the Quality of the Relationship of Perception and Video. Informatsionnye tekhnologii modelirovaniia i upravleniia. 2016;99(3):197‒204. (in Russ.)
21. Makolkina M.A. Analysis of the Model for an Objective Assessment of the Quality of Video Transmission in IP Networks. Electrosvyaz. 2011;12:20‒23. (in Russ.)
22. Kulikov S. Software Testing. Basic Course. EPAM systems; 2015‒2022. (in Russ.) URL: https://svyatoslav.biz/software_ testing_book_download [Accessed 9th February 2023]
23. Rec. ITU-T Y.1541. Network performance objectives for IP-based services. Amendment 1: New Appendix XII – Considerations for low speed access networks. December 2013.
24. Zoom. Zoom Patents. URL: https://explore.zoom.us/en/trust/patents [Accessed 9th February 2023]
Review
For citations:
Kirichek R., Berezkin A., Kukunin D., Kolesnikov A. Analysis of Experience Quality Parameters of Cloud Video Conferencing Systems under Interference Conditions. Proceedings of Telecommunication Universities. 2023;9(1):59-73. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31854/1813-324X-2023-9-1-59-73
Views:
10144
Email this article 