A comparison of heterogeneous video multicast schemes: Layered encoding or stream replication

Authors:
Taehyun Kim;M. H. Ammar
Affiliations:
Mobile Syst. Group, Freescale Semicond., Austin, TX, USA;-
Venue:
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia
Year:
2005

Citing 0
Cited 7

On the complexity of the bandwidth management problem for scalable coding video streaming on a public-shared network

IEEE Communications Letters
An efficient and locality-aware resource management scheme for SVC-based video streaming system on public-shared network

APCC'09 Proceedings of the 15th Asia-Pacific conference on Communications
Heteregeneous intelligent filtering in tactical wireless mobile networks

MILCOM'09 Proceedings of the 28th IEEE conference on Military communications
A survey of QoE assurance in converged networks

Computer Networks: The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking
Review: A survey of schemes for Internet-based video delivery

Journal of Network and Computer Applications
A quantization theoretic perspective on simulcast and layered multicast optimization

IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON)
Effective distributed service architecture for ubiquitous video surveillance

Information Systems Frontiers

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The heterogeneity of the Internet's transmission resources and end system capability makes it difficult to agree on acceptable traffic characteristics among the multiple receivers of a multicast video stream. Three basic approaches have been proposed to deal with this problem: 1) multicasting the replicated video streams at different rates; 2) multicasting the video encoded in cumulative layers; and 3) multicasting the video encoded in noncumulative layers. Even though there is a common belief that the layering approach is better than the replicated stream approach, there have been no studies that compare these schemes. This paper is devoted to such a systematic comparison. Our starting point is an observation (substantiated by results in the literature) that a bandwidth overhead is incurred by encoding a video stream in layers. We argue that a fair comparison of these schemes needs to take into account this overhead, as well as the specifics of the encoding used in each scheme, protocol complexity, and the topological placement of the video source and the receivers relative to each other. Our results show that the believed superiority of layered multicast transmission relative to replicated stream multicasting is not as clear cut as is widely believed and that there are indeed scenarios where replicated stream multicasting is the preferred approach.