Internet-based Video Content Distribution Anirban Mahanti Principal Researcher Networks Research Group, NICTA anirban.mahanti@nicta.com.au

Is video the next big thing on the Internet? Flashback to the 1990s Is video the next big thing on the Internet? Yes, video-on-demand and live streaming applications will generate large amounts of traffic. What architectural support do we need to support Internet video application? Best effort, point-to-point, Internet not suitable for video Need point-to-multipoint (multicast) with quality-of-service support in the network

Early Video-related Research … Integrated & differentiated services Control/signaling protocols Native IP multicast Application-layer multicast Video scheduling protocols Rate control protocols Layered video coding Peer-to-peer systems …

Early Video-on-Demand Trials E.g., Cambridge trial, Time Warner Trial (1994)

Request Aggregation Protocols (1994-2002) Serve multiple client requests together, either partially or entirely Network transmissions may be multicast (save both server and network resources) or unicast (save only server resources such as disk bandwidth) Consider on-demand streaming of a hot file. We want to minimize: “server bandwidth” usage for the file Maximum start-up delay for the file

A (Simple) Batching Example Playback rate = 1 Mbps, duration = 90 minutes Group requests in non-overlapping intervals of 30 minutes: Max. startup delay = 30 minutes Bandwidth required = 3 channels = 3 Mbps Bandwidth increases linearly with decrease in startup delay 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Time (minutes) Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3

Periodic Broadcast Example Partition the media file into 2 segments with relative sizes {1, 2}. For a 90 min. movie: Segment 1 = 30 min, Segment 2 = 60 min Max. startup delay = 30 min Bandwidth required = 2 channels = 2 Mbps Disadvantage: requires increased client capabilities Time (minutes) 1 2 30 60 90 120 150 180 Channel 1 Channel 2

Lower Bound for Periodic Broadcast

Optimized Periodic Broadcast (2001) r = segment transmission rate, s = max. # streams client listens to concurrently b = client data rate = s x r Our performance is better than SB. Performance appears to improve with increasing “s”, ie, as the streaming rate on the channels decreases. Why? We investigate this next. “Scalable On-demand Media Streaming with Packet Loss Recovery”, In Proc of ACM SIGCOMM 2001.

Video Landscape (1990s, Early 2000s) Lack of compelling content Lack of broadband penetration Videos played using media players Web browser, media player integration?

February 2005: Arrival of YouTube Start of the Video era … Ordinary Web users become content publishers (democratization of the Web) 65,000 new videos uploaded and 100 million videos viewed per day (in July 2006) 48 hours of new video uploaded each minute (May 2010)

2005/06: Social Media Revolution Content publishing democratized Online social networks allow users to share content Contexts: friends, family, work Conversation is ubiquitous Twitter, Facebook, Discussion forums, ‘Comments’ on traditional media articles, Fan fiction

Time Magazine Person of the Year (2006)

BBC iPlayer (2007): Internet TV Service The original iPlayer release used peer-to-peer technology.

Today We Have …

What were the enabler? Technology Business models Broadband penetration Hardware, software Media player & browser integration Business models Availability of content (UGC + others) Advertisement Premium content Tapping new audience

Video Traffic Today Source: Sandvine (2011)

The Future of Video Traffic Video will account for an even larger share of Internet traffic More video traffic on cellular networks Integration of TV, social media, and smart devices

“Elephants” and “Mice” of the Internet “YouTube Workload Characterization: A View from the Edge”, In Proc of ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2007

Long-Tail and Content Distribution “YouTube Workload Characterization: A View from the Edge”, In Proc of ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2007

Churn in Video Popularity “Characterizing Web-based Video Sharing Services”, ACM Trans on Web, 2010.

The Future of Video Traffic Video will account for an even larger share of Internet traffic More video traffic on cellular networks Integration of TV, social media, and smart devices

Increase of Video in Mobile Networks

Consequences www.nytimes.com wwwsmh.com.au

The Future of Video Traffic Video will account for an even larger share of Internet traffic More video traffic on cellular networks Integration of TV, social media, and smart devices

The NICTA Social TV Project Contact Sebastien Ardon (sebastien.ardon@ nicta.com)

The Good Old Television … “Lounge room Entertainment” has traditionally been a social/ family affair People experience media together by sharing physical space

Social TV: Social Media meets TV Blur between Broadcast, User-Generated, Online In the Lounge and on Devices Devices interactions TV still king: the largest viewing surface in the house Personalization is pervasive Contextual-dependent: person, time, space, who’s there. The ‘Conversation’ is restored to the lounge room Real-time and non real-time interactions Social aspect is restored, but not necessarily through sharing physical space, -> sharing virtual space. Plethora of media offering means better personalization technology is needed (e.g. Recommendations, collaborative filtering)

Services Examples Broadcast TV + Twitter in remote with automatic hash tag TV auto-join Facebook fan page when starting to watch a show. Live conversation takes place on fan page. Personalized group television: commonly liked shows, from common friends Smartphone remote & User Input: Check-in a TV show using your phone as remote

Social TV: What are the barriers? On-Demand TV: cost of network bandwidth for Content Providers From the broadcast to the on-demand model Recommendation Systems Live TV Catch-up TV Technical Hurdles Multi-device interactions, lack of standards

Video workload differs significantly from traditional (Web) workloads Concluding Remarks Video and social media likely to be a significant driver for next-generation services and applications Video workload differs significantly from traditional (Web) workloads Scalability/cost, quality of experience guarantees Support for multi-device interactions Standards New imaginative applications