The Broadcast Knowledge

Video: Layer 4 in the CDN

Posted on 19th October 2020 by Russell Trafford-Jones

Caching is a critical element of the streaming video delivery infrastructure, but with the proliferation of streaming services, managing caching is complex and problematic. Open Caching is an initiative by the Streaming Video Alliance to bring this under control allowing ISPs and service providers a standard way to operate.

By caching objects as close to the viewer as possible, you can reduce round-trip times which helps reduce latency and can improve playback but, more importantly, moving the point at which content is distributed closer to the customer allows you to reduce your bandwidth costs, and create a more efficient delivery chain.

This video sees Disney Streaming Services, ViaSat and Stackpath discussing Open Caching with Jason Thibeault, Executive Director of the Streaming Video Alliance. Eric Klein from Disney explains that one driver for Open Caching is from content producers which find it hard to scale, to deliver content in a consistent manner across many different networks. Standardising the interfaces will help remove this barrier of scale. Alongside a drive from content producers, are the needs of the network operators who are interested in moving caching on to their network which reduces the back and forth traffic and can help cope with peaks.

Dan Newman from Viasat builds on these points looking at the edge storage project. This is a project to move caching to the edge of the networks which is an extension of the original open caching concept. The idea stretches to putting caching directly into the home. One use of this, he explains, can be used to cache UHD content which otherwise would be too big to be downloaded down lower bandwidth links.

Josh Chesarek from StackPath says that their interest in being involved in the Open Caching initiative is to get consistency and interoperability between CDNs. The Open Caching group is looking at creating these standard APIs for capacity, configuration etc. Also, Eric underlines the interest in interoperability by the close work they are doing with the IETF to find better standards on which to base their work.

Looking at the test results, the average bitrate increases by 10% when using open caching, but also a 20-40% improvement in connection use rebuffer ratio which shows viewers are seeing an improved experience. Viasat have used multicast ABR plus open caching. This shows there’s certainly promise behind the work that’s ongoing. The panel finishes by looking towards what’s next in terms of the project and CDN optimisation.

Watch now!
Speakers

	Eric Klein Director, CDN Technology, Disney+
	Dan Newman Product Manager, Viasat
	Josh Chesarek VP, Sales Engineering & Support Stackpath.com
	Jason Thibeault Executive Director, Streaming Video Alliance

Video: HTTP over QUIC is the next generation

Posted on 16th October 2020 by Russell Trafford-Jones

There’s a lot to like about HTTP/3 from encryption as standard, faster set-up time, better compression and promises better throughput by removing head-of-line blocking. A new protocol making its way through the IETF and based on QUIC, this could have a real impact on anyone involved in streaming.

wolfSSL’s Daniel Stenberg and cURL maintainer, talks to us about HTTP/3 but starts at the beginning with HTTP 1 and 1/1. He outlines some of the issues we had in 1997 such as head-of-line blocking and ephemeral TCP connections. Zooming forward to 2005, HTTP/2 comes on the scene with a single HTTP connection, thus removing the significant overhead of ephemeral TCP connections. HTTP/2 went with a ‘streamed’ connection and could have multiple such streams but one thing that wasn’t solved was head-of-line blocking.

Before moving beyond HTTP/2, Daniel describes the problems that have set in due to ‘ossification’, that is to say, that the routers that time forgot which are still on very old, and often buggy TCP implementations. Innovating is very difficult if replacing the TCP within even a subset of boxes would mean I wasn’t able to send my website globally.

Addressing this ‘ossification’ issue, QUIC has stepped in. Developed on UDP instead of TCP QUIC solves a number of problems. First off, moving from TCP to UDP allows the protocol to live in userspace making it easier to update. Working on UDP instead of TCP means that the protocol regains control of the retransmissions allowing for something more efficient than TCP’s strict acknowledgement rules.

So QUIC becomes the transport layer of HTTP/3. Freeing ourselves from TCP, Daniel explains, allows us to remove the TCP head-of-line blocking problem. HTTP/3 on QUIC brings with it faster handshakes and a connection ID. This connection ID allows you to change IP addresses and still maintain your connection which is a significant improvement on what has gone before. Daniel continues by explaining more benefits of QUICK and HTTP/3 such as its encryption and the ability to have multiple streams.

Daniel finishes up outlining eight challenges for HTTP/3. These include the fact that up to 7% of QUICK attempts fail, dealing with ‘fall back’ algorithms, UDP having seen historically low usage and are less optimised as well as the downsides of userland protocol stacks being that it’s harder to get a standard.

Watch now!
Download the presentation
Speakers

Daniel Stenberg
curl master, wolfSSL
main author,

Video: RIST Unfiltered – Q&A Session

Posted on 15th October 2020 by Russell Trafford-Jones

RIST is a protocol which allows for reliable streaming over lossy networks like the internet. Whilst many people know that much, they may not know more and may have questions. Today’s video aims to answer the most common questions. For a technical presentation of RIST, look no further than this talk and this article

Kieran Kunhya deals out the questions to the panel from the RIST Forum, RIST members and AWS. Asking:
Does RIST need 3rd party equipment?
Is there an open-source implementation of RIST?
Whether there are any RIST learning courses?
as well as why companies should use RIST over SRT.
RIST, we hear is based on RTP which is a very widely deployed technology for real-time media transport and is widely used for SMPTE 2022-2 and 6 streams, SMPTE 2110, AES67 and other audio protocols. So not only is it proven, but it’s also based on RFCs along with much of RIST. SRT, the panel says, is based on the UDT file transfer protocol which is not an RFC and wasn’t designed for live media transport although SRT does perform very well for live media.

“Why are there so many competitors in RIST?” is another common question which is answered by talking about the need for interoperability. Fostering widespread interoperability will grow the market for these products much more than it would with many smaller protocols. “What new traction is RIST getting?” is answered by David Griggs from AWS who says they are committed to the protocol and find that customers like the openness of the protocol and are thus willing to invest their time in creating workflows based on it. Adi Rozenberg lists many examples of customers who are using the technology today. You can hear David Griggs explain RIST from his perspective in this talk.

Other questions handled are the licence that RIST is available under and the open-source implementations, the latency involved in using RIST and whether it can carry NDI. Sergio explains that NDI is a TCP-based protocol so you can transmit it by extracting UDP out of it, using multicast or using a VizRT-tool for extracting the media without recompressing. Finally, the panel looks at how to join the RIST Activity Group in the VSF and the RIST Forum. They talk about the origin of RIST being in an open request to the industry from ESPN and what is coming in the upcoming Advanced Profile.

Watch now!
Speakers

	Rick Ackermans RIST AG Chair, Director of RF & Transmission Engineering, CBS Television
	David Griggs Senior Product Manager, Media Services, AWS Elemental
	Sergio Ammirata RIST AG Member, Chief Science Officer, SipRadius
	Adi Rozenberg RIST Forum Director AG Member, Co-Founder & CTO, VideoFlow
	Ciro Noronha RIST Forum President and AG Member EVP of Engineering, Cobalt Digital
	Paul Atwell RIST Forum Director, President, Media Transport Solutions
	Wes Simpson RIST AG Co-Chair, President & Founder, LearnIPvideo.com
	Kieran Kunhya RIST Forum Director Founder & CEO, Open Broadcast Systems

Video: Optimal Design of Encoding Profiles for Web Streaming

Posted on 14th October 2020 by Russell Trafford-Jones

With us since 1998, ABR (Adaptive Bitrate) has been allowing streaming players to select a stream appropriate for their computer and bandwidth. But in this video, we hear that over 20 years on, we’re still developing ways to understand and optimise the performance of ABRs for delivery, finding the best balance of size and quality.

Brightcove’s Yuriy Reznik takes us deep into the theory, but start at the basics of what ABR is and why we. use it. He covers how it delivers a whole series os separate streams at different resolutions and bitrates. Whilst that works well, he quickly starts to show the downsides of ‘static’ ABR profiles. These are where a provider decides that all assets will be encoded at the same set bitrate of 6 or 7 bitrates even though some titles such as cartoons will require less bandwidth than sports programmes. This is where per-title and other encoding techniques come in.

Netflix coined the term ‘per-title encoding’ which has since been called content-aware encoding. This takes in to consideration the content itself when determining the bitrate to encode at. Using automatic processes to determine objective quality of a sample encode, it is able to determine the optimum bitrate.

Content & network-aware encoding takes into account the network delivery as part of the optimisation as well as the quality of the final video itself. It’s able to estimate the likelihood of a stream being selected for playback based upon its bitrate. The trick is combining these two factors simultaneously to find the optimum bitrate vs quality.

The last element to add in order to make this ABR optimisation as realistic as practical is to take into account the way people actually view the content. Looking at a real example from the US open, we see how on PCs, the viewing window can be many different sizes and you can calculate the probability of the different sizes being used. Furthermore we know there is some intelligence in the players where they won’t take in a stream with a resolution which is much bigger than the browser viewport.

Yuriy brings starts the final section of his talk by explaining that he brought in another quality metric from Westerink & Roufs which allows him to estimate how people see video which has been encoded at a certain resolution which is then scaled to a fixed interim resolution for decoding and then to the correct size for the browser windows.

The result of adding in this further check shows that fewer points on the ladder tend to be better, giving an overall higher quality value. Going much beyond 3 is typically not useful for the website. Shows only a few resolutions needed to get good average quality. Adding more isn’t so useful.

Yuriy finishes by introducing SSIM modeling of the noise of an encoder at different bitrates. Bringing together all of these factors, modelled as equations, allows him to suggest optimal ABR ladders.

Watch now!
Speaker

Yuriy Reznik
Technology Fellow and Head of Research,
Brightcove

Subscribe to get daily updates