Evolution of Mobile Video Delivery in the USJeff Van DykeDirector of TechnologyOffice of the CTODialogic, Inc.

3

Agenda

• Video Quality Factors• Characteristics of Video Services• Video Delivery Methods

– 3G-324M– Video over IP– Broadcast Video

• Where are We Headed?

4

Video Quality Factors• Video quality is determined by:

– Display resolution and size– Codec and level of compression– Frame rate– Network quality of service (QOS)

• Given a specific codec improving the video quality requires more network bandwidth and better QOS

• High quality video delivery requires high bandwidth and high QOS from the network.

– None of today’s networks were originally designed for video• PSTN – low bandwidth, high QOS for voice• Cellular – low bandwidth, low/medium QOS for voice and low bit rate

data (SMS)• Internet – medium bandwidth, low inherent QOS for telnet, SMTP and

FTP

5

Display Considerations• Common screen resolutions

• What can today’s devices support?

– iPhone - 480 x 320 pixels– LG Dare - 400 x 240 pixels

• Standard YouTube videos are QVGA scaled to 480 x 360 pixels

Size Width Height

QCIF 176 144

QVGA 320 240

CIF 352 288

VGA 640 480

6

Frame Rate

• The perception of smooth motion requires approximately 18 frames per second

– In practice mobile video is delivered at 10 – 15 FPS

7

Characteristics of Video Services• Interactive communication (e.g. video call)

– Low complexity– Usually small display sizes (QCIF) with low frame rates (~10)– Compared by users to dedicated video phones or soft phones– Lowest user expectations for quality– Camera placement on handsets is problematic for this application– Bandwidth: < 64 Kb/s

• User and content provider generated streaming video (e.g. YouTube)– Low to medium complexity– Larger display sizes (CIF or QVGA) and medium frame rates (15 – 20)– User expectation set by YouTube and similar sites– Bandwidth: 128 Kb/s – 300 Kb/s

• Entertainment video (e.g. broadcast TV shows)– Medium to high complexity (e.g. sports broadcasts)– Larger displays (>= CIF and QVGA) and high frame rates (>= 20)– High user expectation based on movie and TV viewing– Bandwidth: > 300 Kb/s

8

Video Delivery - 3G-324M

• Multiplex of control, audio and video in a single 64 Kb/s channel

– Video bandwidth limited to about 45 Kb/s

• Advantages– Proven, deployed technology– Low, deterministic transport delay– Infrastructure available

• Disadvantages– Limited bandwidth makes it difficult to deliver a

compelling user experience

9

3G-324M Protocol Diagram3G-324M protocol(3G TS 26.111)

3G-324M protocol(3G TS 26.111)

CCSRL

Video Codec:

H.263MPEG-4H.264

H.245Call Control

NetworkInterface

Audio Codec:

AMR-NB*G.723.1

AMR-WB*

Data Codec

V.14LAPM

H.223Multiplexer/

Demultiplexer

H.223 Annex AH.223 Annex BH.223 Annex CH.223 Annex D

NSRP

Video I/OEquipment

SystemControl

Audio I/OEquipment

User Data

Call Control (via ISUP, ISDN, BICC)--3G TS 26.112--

10

Video Delivery - IP• Purely packet based

– Call control via SIP– Media transport via RTP

• Advantages– Sufficient bandwidth for delivering video that meets user

expectations– Flexibility to support various video services

• Disadvantages– Infrastructure issues

• IMS networks not fully in place• Quality of service for video transport• IP address limitations (IPv4 vs. IPv6)• Confusion and competition among transport technologies (e.g. HSPA,

WIMAX, LTE)

11

Video Delivery - Broadcast• Separate network for broadcast TV content

– MediaFLO, DVB-H

• Advantages– Doesn’t saturate current voice/data spectrum with video– Can deliver good quality (high frame rates and good QOS)

• Disadvantages– Completely separate infrastructure– Can’t be used for interactive communications or user generated

web content

• Do mobile users really want broadcast content?– Streaming model gives users more control and flexibility

12

Where are We Heading?• 3G-324M not sufficient to deliver rich video services• Video over IP breaks through the bandwidth limitation of 3G-

324M but:– There are technical issues (e.g. QOS)– There are economic issues (e.g. infrastructure costs)– There are many transport alternatives currently in competition with

each other (e.g. HSPA, WIMAX, LTE)

• Lots of noise around broadcast TV but will consumers want it?

• Opinion: Video over IP will win eventually but it will be a bumpy ride

– “May you live in interesting times.” – reputed ancient Chinese curse