1

Mobile Real-time Video Surveillance

Ksenia Coffman, Firetide

IWCE 2010: Wireless Killer Apps

March 12, 2010

Users of Wireless Video Surveillance

IndustrialTransportationPublic Safety Municipalities

2

Federal/MilitaryUtilities Service Providers

Wireless Options

3

Point to Point

� Pros

4

� Dedicated connection

� Highest bandwidth for backhaul

� Cons

� Does not scale; no flexibility

� Single point of failure

Point to Multi-Point

� Pros

5

� Pros

� Simplicity of design

� Cost effective when tall assets are available

� Cons

� Limited scalability: bandwidth divided by # of subscribers

� LOS required to each subscriber unit

� Base station creates a single point of failure

Multi-Point to Multi-Point (Mesh)

� Pros

6

� Pros

� Reach & scalability with multi-hop connections

� Flexibility – can be deployed a PtP, PtMP or mesh

� Distributed intelligence vs command-and-control approach of PtMP

� Cons

� Variable performance from different vendors

� More complex design vs PtP or PtMP

Mobile Real-time Video –

Killer App Enabled by Mesh

7

Killer App Enabled by Mesh

Mobile Video: Real-time Visibility

8

Wireless-enabled Campus

9

Cal State Long Beach PD

� 37 cameras

� How used

� Overt surveillance

� Integrated with

dispatch

10

dispatch

� Wireless offload for

ALPR cameras

� Funding

� PD budget

Outfitting Patrol with Mobile Video

11

Transit Security

12

Video Streaming: Seoul Subway

� World’s first subway installation of this kind

� Real-time video from trains @ 50 mph

� Extremely harsh conditions

13

Wireless ‘Look-in’: MBTA, Boston

• 500 busses, 8 cameras each

• Mobile-to-mobile surveillance

• Passenger and operator safety; liability protection

14

Critical Infrastructure & Industrial Ops

15

Open Pit Mining

16

� Diagnostics & weight data

� Video surveillance – operator safety

& location

Key Requirements for Mobile Video

� Fixed and/or mobile infrastructure

� High throughput

� Low latency < 1.5 ms per hop

� Low packet jitter (variation in latency)

� Zero packet loss & end-to-end QoS

17

� Zero packet loss & end-to-end QoS

� Specialized infrastructure required

� APs not suitable for real-time, high-bandwidth mobile video

surveillance

Wireless Saves Time, Money

Buffalo, NYRockford, IL Denver / DNC ‘08

LA County Sheriff’s Dept.

18

Buffalo, NY

Dallas, TX

Downtown Chicago

Rockford, IL

NASA Dryden

Denver / DNC ‘08

Yuma Intl Airport

Thank You!

For a copy of the presentation, please contact:

Ksenia Coffman, Firetide

kcoffman@firetide.com

19

See more case studies at:

www.firetide.com/video2

Follow Firetide on twitter:

http://twitter.com/firetide