P. 1

|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by Yamini Mishra

More info:

Published by: Yamini Mishra on Feb 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





End-to-End QoS for Video Delivery Over Wireless Internet


Providing end-to-end quality of service (QoS) support is essential for video delivery over the next-generation wireless Internet. In this paper, we address several key elements in the end-to-end QoS support, including scalable video representation, network-aware end system, and network QoS provisioning. There are generally two approaches in QoS support: the network-centric and the end-system centric solutions. The fundamental problem in a network-centric solution is how to map QoS criterion at different layers respectively, and optimize total quality across these layers. In this paper, we first present the general framework of a cross-layer network-centric solution, and then describe the recent advances in network modeling, QoS mapping, and QoS adaptation. The key targets in end-system centric approach are network adaptation and media adaptation. In this paper, we present a general framework of the end-system centric solution and investigate the recent developments. Specifically, for network adaptation, we review the available bandwidth estimation and efficient video transport protocol; for media adaptation, we describe the advances in error control, power control, and corresponding bit allocation. Finally, we highlight several advanced research directions. Keywords—Cross-layer, end-system centric, end-to-end QoS, network-centric, video delivery, wireless Internet.

I. INTRODUCTION With the rapid growth of wireless networks and great success of Internet video, wireless video services are expected to be widely deployed in the near future. As different types of wireless networks are converging into all IP networks, i.e., the Internet, it is important to study video delivery over the wireless Internet. The current trends in the development of real-time Internet applications and the rapid growth of mobile systems indicate that the future Internet architecture will need to support various applications with different

Manuscript received January 16, 2004; revised July 20, 2004. The authors are with the Beijing Sigma Center, Microsoft Research Asia, Beijing 100080, China (e-mail: qianz@microsoft.com; wwzhu@ microsoft.com; yzhang@microsoft.com). Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JPROC.2004.839603

quality of service (QoS)1 requirements [1]. QoS support is a multidisciplinary topic involving several areas, ranging from applications, terminals, networking architectures to network management, business models, and finally the main target, end users. Enabling QoS in Internet is difficult, and becomes more challenging when introducing QoS in an environment involving mobile hosts under different wireless access technologies, since available resources (e.g., bandwidth, battery life, etc.) in wireless networks are scarce and dynamically change over time. For wireless networks, since the capacity of a wireless channel varies randomly with time, providing deterministic QoS (i.e., zero QoS violation probability) will likely result in extremely conservative guarantees and waste of resources, which is hardly useful. Thus, in this paper, we only consider statistical QoS [3]. To support end-to-end QoS for video delivery over wireless Internet, there are several fundamental challenges. 1) QoS support encompasses a wide range of technological aspects. To be specific, many technologies, including video coding, high-performance physical and link layers support, efficient packet delivery, congestion control, error control, and power control, all affect the overall QoS. 2) Different applications have very diverse QoS requirements in terms of data rates, delay bounds, and packet loss probabilities. For example, unlike nonreal-time data packets, video services are very sensitive to packet delivery delay but can tolerate some frame losses and transmission errors. 3) Different types of networks inherently have different characteristics. This is also referred to as network heterogeneity. It is well known that Internet is based on Internet Protocol (IP), which basically only offers the
1Note that the definition of QoS in itself may be somewhat confusing and has different implications. We adopt the definition “the ability to ensure the quality of the end user experience” [2] in this paper.

0018-9219/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE



When network condition changes. Moreover. the end-to-end packet loss in wireless Internet can be caused by either congestion loss occurred due to buffer overflow or the erroneous loss occurred in the wireless link due to channel error. 93. NO. is widely used to overcome the varying wireless channel errors. scalable video presentation from applications. Power control is performed collectively from the group point of view by controlling transmission power and spreading gain for a group of users so as to reduce interference [9]. The enhancement layers can only be decoded together with the base layer and they further refine the video quality. The base layer can be independently decoded and it provides basic video quality. An important characteristic of wireless networks in the future is that there are mixtures of heterogeneous wireless access technologies co-existed such as wireless local area network (WLAN) access. Fundamental components for end-to-end QoS support. or/and base stations/access points in the networks provide prioritized QoS support to satisfy data rate. such as bandwidth. 1. delay bound. which include QoS provisioning from networks. Power control. In scalable coding. • QoS provisioning from networks. Specifically. the signal is separated into multiple layers of different visual importance. End users have different requirements in terms of latency.11 have total different mechanisms for QoS support. congestion control. one should support the QoS requirement in all components of the video delivery system from end to end. network conditions. Scalable video representation provides fast adaptation to bandwidth variations as well as inherent error resilience and complexity scalability properties that are essential for efficient transmission over error prone wireless networks. There have been two approaches in providing the end-to-end QoS support: the first one is network-centric QoS provisioning. Enhancements on layered scalable coding have proposed to provide further fine granularity scalability [7]. and Bluetooth. power. and error control are three main mechanisms to support quality of services for robust video delivery over wireless Internet. [11]. and network adaptive congestion/error/power control in end systems. processing capabilities. packet loss ratio. To address the above challenges.Fig. 4) There is dramatic heterogeneity among end users. The most well-known mechanisms are the Integrated Services (IntServ) [4] and the Differentiated Services (DiffServ) [5]. QoS is measured by the mean squared error (MSE) and/or peak-signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR). 124 • Multilayered scalable video coding from applications. [95]. Fig. General Packet Radio Service (GPRS)/Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) and IEEE 802. JANUARY 2005 . video visual quality. 1 illustrates key components for end-to-end QoS support. at the video application layer. one of the key issues for end-to-end QoS provisioning using network-centric solution is the effective QoS mapping across different layer. However. in which routers/switches. such as automatic repeat request (ARQ). QoS is expressed in terms of probability of buffer overflow and/or the probability of delay violation at the link layer. 2. VOL. This will further increase the dramatic variation of bandwidth and delay in wireless networks. 1. Congestion control and error control are conducted from the individual user’s point of view to effectively combat the congestions and errors occurred during transmission by adjusting the transmission rate and allocating bits between source and channel coding [10]. delay. one needs to consider how to model the varying network and coordinate effective adaptation of PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. More specifically. [8]. vary from time to time. and bandwidth. the end systems can employ adaptive control mechanisms to minimize the impact on user perceived quality. Bit-error rate (BER) in a wireless network is much higher than that in a wireline network. and packet loss requirements by different applications. To make things even more complicated. It is thus a challenge to design a delivery mechanism that not only achieves efficiency in network bandwidth but also meets the heterogeneous requirements of the end users. and delay jitter.5G/3G cellular access. The best-effort nature of Internet has promoted the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) community to seek for QoS support through network layer mechanisms. • Network adaptive congestion/error/power control in end systems. best-effort services. In the prioritized transmission. Thus. The approaches to providing QoS in wireless networks are quite different from their Internet counterparts. link layer error control scheme.

adaptive network modeling. The main challenge. The second type of approach to provide end-to-end QoS support is solely end-system centric. have been proposed in recent years. different layers (e. IntServ and reservation protocols. and power control. QoS adaptation. which include congestion control. application layer and link/network layer) have different metrics to measure quality of service. is how to design efficient power/congestion/error control mechanisms. The Internet research community has been proposing and investigating different approaches to achieve differentiated services. The advantage of end system control is that there are minimum changes required in the core network. QoS parameters at video application layer and prioritized transmission system at link layer. General framework of end-to-end QoS support for video over wireless Internet with network-centric solution. Diffserv networks provide QoS assurance on a per-aggregate basis. provided a comprehensive survey on a 125 ZHANG et al. DiffServ was proposed to provide a scalable and manageable network with service differentiation capability. Two different approaches have been introduced in IETF. respectively. This solution considers an end-to-end delivery system for a video source from the sender to the receiver. [13]. we will present a framework that targets at minimizing the end-to-end distortion or power consumption. and video decoder/output modules. Elegant theories.. have also been developed. [17]. however. channel modeling. [15] and queue management algorithms [16]. Specifically. error control. the key is how to provide an effective cross-layer QoS mapping and an efficient adaptation mechanism. II. have failed to become a practical end-to-end QoS solution for lack of scalability and difficulty in that all elements in the network have to be RSVP enable. In Section III.g. IntServ was introduced in IP networks in order to provide guaranteed and controlled services in addition to the existing best-effort service. which brings challenge for end-to-end QoS provisioning. significant efforts have been devoted to achieve service differentiation in terms of queuing delay and packet loss [12]. cross-layer QoS mapping and adaptation.: END-TO-END QoS FOR VIDEO DELIVERY OVER WIRELESS INTERNET . A. which are IntServ [4] and DiffServ [5]. prioritized transmission control. both of which are of primary concern for multimedia applications.Fig. Fig. we will describe a general framework of a cross-layer architecture of a network-centric end-to-end QoS support solution and then review recent developments in individual components including network QoS support. In contrast to the per-flow-based QoS guarantee in the Intserv. Many QoS control mechanisms. In particular. NETWORK-CENTRIC CROSS-LAYER END-TO-END QoS SUPPORT As stated above. 2 shows the general block diagram of end-to-end QoS support for video delivery in the network-centric cross-layer solution. which includes source video encoding. especially in the areas of packet scheduling [14]. and QoS mapping. such as network calculus [18] and effective bandwidths [19]. In particular. the end systems employ various control techniques. Firoiu et al. and then review the recent studies on various mechanisms. In Section II. To support end-to-end QoS with network-centric approach. to maximize the application-layer video quality without any QoS support from the underlying network. such as ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP). Network QoS Provisioning for Wireless Internet QoS provisioning for the Internet has been a very active area of research for many years. 2. to offer a good compromise between video quality and available transmission resource. a dynamic QoS management system is needed in order for video applications to interact with underlying prioritized transmission system to handle service degradation and resource constraint in time-varying wireless Internet.

In general.e. NO. number of recent advances in Internet QoS provisioning in [20]. WME uses four priority levels in negotiating communication between wireless access points and client devices. a group of vendors have proposed Wireless Multimedia Enhancements (WME) to provide an interim QoS solution for 802. it is very complex to characterize the relationship between the control parameters and the calculated QoS measures. from physical-layer to link-layer [25]. delay.11 networks [21].Fig.e. Modem-layer channel can be modeled by a finite-state Markov chain [23]. the original IEEE 802. In [25]. scattering) for specific paths. Different channel models. 2) prioritized transmission control scheme that can derive and adjust the rate constraint of a prioritized transmission system. the difficulty in analyzing linklevel performances. [26]. attempts have been made to move the channel model up in the protocol stack. Cross-Layer QoS Support for Video Delivery Over Wireless Internet An efficient QoS mapping scheme that addresses cross-layer QoS issues for video delivery over wireless Internet includes the following important building blocks: 1) wireless network modeling that can effectively model 2www. modem-layer channel. 3). The 802. A codec-layer channel can also be modeled by a finite-state Markov chain. or a symbol being error-free/in-error. Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) and Point Coordination Function (PCF). interactive. There have also been many studies related to QoS provision in wireless networks. physical layer and link-layer (see Fig. Small-scale fading models describe the characteristics of generic radio paths in a statistical fashion. Large-scale path loss models characterize the underlying physical mechanisms (i. The model captures the effect PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)2 is the main standard body that defines and standardizes a common QoS framework for data services. 3.11e standard will be ratified at the end of this year. i. and 3) QoS mapping and adaptation mechanism that can optimally map video application classes to statistical QoS guarantees of a prioritized transmission system so as to provide the best tradeoff between the video application quality and the transmission capability under time-varying wireless networks. JANUARY 2005 126 . such as data rate. radio-layer channel models can be classified into large-scale path loss and small-scale fading [22]. particularly IP-based services. and codec-layer channel. IEEE is proposing enhancements in 802. diffraction. reflection.. whose states can be characterized by different data-rates. Among them. Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF) is proposed. EDCF establishes a probabilistic priority mechanism to allocate bandwidth based on traffic categories. from radio access network (RAN) through core network to gateway node (to the external packet data network) within a UMTS network [6].11 communication modes. The polling grants each station a specific start time and a maximum transmit duration. Aiming to extend the polling mechanism of PCF. streaming. This is because the physical-layer channel models do not explicitly characterize the wireless channel in terms of the link-level QoS metrics.11e to both coordination modes to facilitate QoS support [21]. In wireless local area networks.. 93. i. namely.. 1) Wireless Network Modeling: One can model a communication channel at different layers. VOL. B. an effective capacity (EC) channel model was proposed.e. 3GPP has defined a comprehensive framework for end-to-end QoS covering all subsystems. Zorzi et al. 3GPP has also defined four different UMTS QoS classes according to delay sensitivity: conversational. [24] demonstrated that Markov model is an approximation on block transmission over a slowly fading wireless channel.3GPP. A hybrid controller polls stations during a contention-free period. 1. the concept of traffic categories is introduced. Physical layer channel can be further classified into radio-layer channel. or a channel being good/bad [24]. whose states are characterized by different BERs. and background classes.org the time-varying and nonstationary behavior of the wireless networks. In Enhanced Distribution Coordination Function (EDCF). and delay violation probability. In the mean time. Recognizing that the limitation of physical-layer channel models in QoS support. based on existing physical-layer channel models. do not differentiate traffic types.

In particular. were considered by Martin [31] and Sehgal et al. packet loss/delay probability). There have been many studies on the cross-layer design for efficient multimedia delivery with QoS assurance over wired and wireless networks in recent years [13]. The general diagram for end-system centric QoS provisioning is illustrated in Fig. In [33]. Unlike the adaptive channel modeling module and prioritized transmission control module. Kumwilaisak et al. In [26]. in which the application was given the flexibility to adapt to the level of QoS provided by the network. the QoS mapping and QoS adaptation are application-specific. This adaptation consists of network adaptation and media adaptation..e. Consequently. Other types of multimedia delivery over DiffServ network. thus can be a critical tool for designing efficient QoS provisioning mechanisms. 4. [26]–[29]. [13] proposed to prioritize each video packet based on its error propagation effect if it is lost. END-SYSTEM CENTRIC QoS SUPPORT To provide end-to-end QoS with end-system solution. find the optimal mapping policy from priority classes such that one GOP (group of picture) to the distortion of this GOP is minimized. The rate constraint of multiple priority classes under a time-varying service rate channel can be derived according to the guaranteed packet loss probabilities and different buffer sizes of each priority class [26]. in [26].g. whose objective is to find the QoS tradeoff. Then. Tan et al. In [32]. [33] introduced a cross-layer design with adaptive QoS assurance for multimedia transmission where absolute QoS was considered. Servetto et al. Second. Shin et al. studied the rate-delay tradeoff curve offered from the lower-layer protocol to the applications. To address network adaptation. The common approach is to partition multimedia data into smaller units and then map these units to different classes for prioritized transmission. derived the rate constraint of substreams under a simplest strict (nonpreemptive) priority scheduling policy. [27]. an end-to-end video transport protocol is needed to 127 ZHANG et al. such as prioritized speech and audio packets.g. The objective is to minimize the expected distortion of the variable bit rate source. bandwidth and battery power) a video application should utilize for its video content. The video application layer QoS and link-layer QoS are allowed to interact with each other and adapt to the wireless channel condition. a class-based buffering and scheduling mechanism is needed in the prioritized transmission control module. Video packets were mapped differently to transmission priority classes with the objective of maximizing the end-to-end video quality under the cost and/or price constraint. the video applications should be aware of and adaptive to the variation of network condition in wireless Internet. The network adaptation refers to how many network resources (e. the QoS mapping and adaptation for wireless network was addressed in the following two steps. 2) Prioritized Transmission Control: To achieve differentiated services. QoS priority classes are maintained with each class of traffic being maintained in separate buffers. Considering the stochastic behavior of wireless networks. find a set of QoS parameters for the priority network. Since the QoS measure at the video application layer (e. to design an adaptive media transport protocol for video delivery. which simultaneously provides a desired video service of the end users with available transmission resources. These curves are allowed to be changed as the wireless network environment changes. [30] proposed an optimization framework to segment a variable bit rate source to several substreams that are transmitted in multiple priority classes. First. Priority scheduling policy is employed to serve packets of the classes. at the video application layer. distortion and uninterrupted video service perceived by end-users) is not directly related to QoS metrics at the link layer (e. Specifically. such that the expected video distortion is minimized. each QoS priority class can obtain a certain level of statistical QoS guarantees in terms of probability of packet loss and packet delay. video substreams can be classified into classes and bandwidth can be allocated accordingly for each class. these video packets are classified and optimally mapped to the classes of link transmission module under the rate constraint. The focus has been on the utilization of the differentiated service architecture to convey multimedia data.of channel fading for the link queueing behavior using a computationally simple yet accurate model. a mapping and adaptation mechanism must be in place to more precisely match the QoS criterion across different layers.g. each video packet is characterized based on its loss and delay properties. Then. i. III. Then. it investigated the dynamic QoS framework to adaptively adjust QoS parameters of the wireless network to match with time-varying wireless channel condition. which contributes to the end-to-end video quality and service. [32]. The partitioned multimedia units are prioritized based on its contribution to the expected quality at the end user while the prioritized transmission system provides different QoS guarantees depending on its corresponding service priority. the application layer selected the operating point from this curve as a guaranteed QoS parameter for transmission.. 3) QoS Mapping and QoS Adaptation: QoS mapping and QoS adaptation are the key components to achieve cross-layer QoS support in this video delivery architecture. The media adaptation controls the bit rate of the video stream based on the estimated available bandwidth and adjusts error and power control behaviors according to the varying wireless Internet conditions. The statistical QoS guarantee of each priority class is provided in terms of packet loss probability based on the effective service capacity theory. Under this class-based buffering and priority scheduling mechanism.. The calculated rate constraints in turn specify the maximum data rate that can be transmitted reliably with statistical QoS guarantee over the time-varying wireless channel. [28] examined the same problem as that formulated in [13] with different approaches for video prioritization.: END-TO-END QoS FOR VIDEO DELIVERY OVER WIRELESS INTERNET . Targeting at scalable video codec and considering the interaction between layers to obtain the operating QoS tradeoff points.. the next step is to translate the statistical QoS guarantees of multiple priority classes into rate constraints based on the effective capacity theory [25]. Xiao et al.

General framework for end-to-end QoS provisioning for video over wireless Internet with end-system-centric solution. Since a dominant portion of today’s Internet traffic is TCP-based. Thus. Model-based flow control [40]. which may potentially degrade the overall performance. the Adaptive Network Monitor deals with probing and estimating the dynamic network conditions. for conferencing and streaming video. For media adaptation. Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) [36]. [44] treat any lost packet as a signal of network congestion and adjust its transmission rate accordingly. this rate reduction is unnecessary if the packet loss is due to the error occurred in wireless link. NO. several protocols are involved and some of them were proprietary solutions. VOL. In wireless Internet. on the other hand. Those protocols include the Real Time Transport Protocol (RTP) and Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) [34]. To deliver media content. considering that different parts of compressed scalable video bitstream have different importance level. it is possible that future network architectures (in which TCP is either no longer the predominant transport protocol or has a very bad performance) will allow or require different definitions of fairness. Typically. the end-to-end packet loss can be caused by either congestion loss due to buffer overflow or the erroneous loss occurred in the wireless link. several issues related to network condition estimation should be considered. The second issue is the round trip time (RTT) estimation. Network Adaptive Congestion Control Bursty loss and excessive delay have a devastating effect on perceived video quality. For example. R-D Based Bit Allocation module performs media adaptation control with two different targets. One issue that should be considered for this type of approach is that the estimated packet loss ratio is not for the next time interval so as to affect the accuracy of the throughput calculation. Designing a transport protocol for video transmission over wireless Internet. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [37]. it is very important for multimedia streams to be “TCP-friendly.Fig. A. 93. This approach usually requires the receiver to send frequent feedback to detect congestion indications. 4. The transmission rate is increased in a step-like fashion in the absence of packet loss and reduced multiplicatively when congestion is detected. Sender-based rate adjustment [10]. congestion control takes the form of rate control. Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [38] and Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP). and these are usually caused by network congestion. Network-aware Unequal Error Protection (UEP) module protects different layers of scalable video against congestive packet losses and erroneous losses according to their importance and network status.” by which it means a media flow generates similar throughput as a typical TCP flow along the same 128 path under the same condition with lower latency. distortionminimization and power consumption-minimization. which represents the throughput of a TCP sender as a function of packet loss ratio and round trip time (RTT). The most important one is the estimation of congestion loss ratio. The Congestion Control module adjusts sending rate based on the feedback information. More specifically. i. congestion-control mechanism at end systems is necessary to reduce packet loss and delay. handle congestion control in wireless Internet. Network-aware Transmission Power Adjustment module adjusts the transmission power of the end-system to affect the wireless channel conditions. [39] performs additive increase and multiplicative decrease (AIMD) rate control in the sender as in TCP. There are two existing types of TCP-friendly flow-control protocols for multimedia delivery applications: sender-based rate adjustment and model-based flow control. Rate control attempts to minimize the possibility of network congestion by matching the rate of the video stream to the available network bandwidth. 1. While TCP-friendliness is a useful fairness criterion in today’s Internet. Traditional TCP and TCP-friendly media transport protocols [43]. uses a stochastic TCP model [42].e. Session Description Protocol (SDP) [35]. which in turn causes bad performance for end-to-end delivery quality. fairness definition for wireless networks is still subject to research since TCP performance in wireless networks is still need to be improved. However. There is large variation in end-to-end delay in PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. JANUARY 2005 . [41]..

Effective error concealment strategies become vital for ensuring a high quality of the video sequences in the presence of errors/losses. B. [42] proposed a formula to calculate the network throughput that has been widely adopted [40]. Padhye et al. Hybrid ARQ scheme proposed in [57] can achieve both delay bound and rate effectiveness by limiting the number of retransmissions. a hybrid ARQ algorithm that efficiently combines FEC and ARQ was proposed. proposed a different mechanism in [51] to use the combined link layer and sequence number information to differentiate the wireless erroneous loss and congestive loss. For the unicast scenario.: END-TO-END QoS FOR VIDEO DELIVERY OVER WIRELESS INTERNET . In [70]. The most recognized scheme in this category is TCP-Westwood [54]. The arrival time of the erroneous packets is used to derive the distribution of lost packets among the erroneous packets between two back-to-back correctly received packets. Depending on the loss cause. following the idea of TCP-Westwood. Current and estimated round trip time is used at sender side to determine the maximum number of retransmission based on delay constraint. While their focus is on cellular networks. presented a survey of the different video-optimized error resilience techniques that are necessary to accommodate the compressed video bitstreams [63]. Considering that the traffic pattern in the Internet itself is a complicated research topic. Van der Schaar and Radha discussed the combination of MPEG-4 FGS with scalable FEC for unicast and multicast applications. and returns to the (short term) bandwidth share that the TCP sender is getting from the network. However. an agent is needed at every base station in the entire wireless communication system. 1) End-to-End Packet Loss Differentiation and Estimation: As stated above. The second type of approach calculates the available bandwidth using the Receiver Based Packet Pair (RBPP) method [53]. Shan and Zakhor presented an integrated application-layer packetization. namely. FEC has been commonly suggested for real-time applications due to their strict delay requirements. The third issue is the available bandwidth estimation. proposed recently. RBPP requires the use of two consecutively sent packets to determine a bandwidth share sample. More specifically. Several media transport protocols. the key issue of designing an efficient media transport protocol is to correctly detect whether the network is in congestion or not. 2) Available Bandwidth Estimation: There are two types of approaches for available bandwidth estimation in media transport protocols. addressed the problem of resilient real-time video streaming over IEEE 802. Girod and Färber reviewed on the existing solutions for combating wireless transmission errors in [61]. a network adaptive application-level error control scheme using hybrid UEP and delay constrained ARQ was proposed for scalable video delivery. There are many studies on available bandwidth estimation in Internet. finding a good pattern to predict the behaviors of packets in wireless Internet still requires some fundamental research. Various channel/network errors can result in considerable damage to or loss of compressed video information during transmission. which adds excessive complexity in the actual deployment. Yang et al. called Rate Estimator (RE). along with a method to identify the predominant cause of packet loss. For the multicast case. Majumdar et al. For scalable video. filters the samples. A review of the existing error concealment mechanisms was given by Wang and Zhu in [64]. In [65]. progressive video coding based on MPEG-4 Fine Granularity Scalability (FGS) was combined with FEC. In [71]. called Bandwidth Estimator (BE). Cote et al. Studying how to add FEC to scalable video coding has gained great interest recently. [52]. and protection strategies for wireless transmission of nonscalable coded video. [47]. Generally there are two types of methods to distinguish the network status [45]. the appropriate estimator is “adaptively” selected. It is known that a specific behavior of a packet in the network reflects the joint effect of several factors. RE tends to estimate the (relatively longer term) rate that the connection has recently experienced. ARQ has been shown to be more effective than FEC. Sending only a single acknowledgment to measure the RTT during a predefined period of time may be inaccurate and fluctuate greatly. Specifically. 129 ZHANG et al. which maintains two estimators. The other estimator. In the split connection method. it requires an agent at the edge of wired and wireless network to measure the conditions of two types of networks separately [46]. [67] and wireless communication [68]–[70] has been proposed. One estimator. Joint work on scalable video coding with UEP for wired network [66]. ARQ and FEC. The first type of approach calculates the available bandwidth based on the estimated RTT and packet loss ratio. [54].11b WLANs for both unicast and multicast transmission. and how to apply those schemes for transport protocol design in wireless networks are now attracting much attention [44]. In [62]. one way to efficiently combat channel errors is to employ unequal error protection (UEP) for information of different importance. such as SMCC [55] and VTP [56]. Adaptive Error Control There are two basic error correction mechanisms. scheduling. Scalable video has received lots of attention in recent years due to its fast adaptation characteristic. considers each ACK pair separately to obtain a bandwidth sample. and a new unequal error protection strategy referred to as Fine Grained Loss Protection (FGLP) was introduced. strong channel-coding protection is applied to the base layer data stream while weaker channel-coding protection is applied to the enhancement layer parts.wireless Internet [52]. which are split connection and end-to-end method. Other hybrid FEC and delay-constrained ARQ schemes were discussed in [58]–[60]. The end-to-end method focuses on differentiating the congestive loss from the erroneous packet loss by adopting some heuristic methods such as interarrival time or packet pair [48]–[50]. This type of solution expects a packet to exhibit a certain behavior under wireless Internet. most presented protection strategies can also be applied to the transmission of video over other types of wireless networks. measures the amount of data acknowledged during the latest interval .

[76]. D. some studies on allocating available bits for source and channel coders are aiming at minimizing the total processing power consumption under a given bandwidth constraint. consists of source distorpower consumption and channel distortion . the lower the source coding rate . and hence a joint cross-layer consideration is desirable in order to provide an optimal overall performance for the transmission of video. Here. From the group user point of view. the global minimization of power consumption must be investigated from the group point of view. Specifically. under a given fixed bandwidth capacity so as to achieve the minimal expected end-to-end distortion or minimal expected end-to-end power consumption [67]. From video coding point of view. More generally. It is well known that channel bandwidth capacity is highly limited in wireless Internet. It has been shown that under general wireless environments. [78]. 5. [78] and Zhang et al. 5. Case According to the rate-distortion theory (Fig. it can be denoted as . and the distortion caused by the power constraint (Fig. Therefore. The key observation Eisenberg et al. a video Case bitstream is transmitted over wireless links and a limited power with a given BER 130 constraint . respectively. and power consumption. 1. Rate-Distortion Based Bit Allocation For video delivery over wired or wireless network. and the transmission power for data delivery . 5. be represented as When video compression is performed with Case a given power constraint . processing power on the channel coding . More generally. 93. NO. More generally. A vertical system integration. JANUARY 2005 . its interference to other users varies accordingly. C. to decrease transmission power and maintain a desired video quality. It is also referred to as resource management based on the power control technique discussed in [9]. distortion. there exists tradeoff between maintaining good quality of video application and reducing average power consumption. ). Illustration of rate-distortion with/without considering power constraint and transmission error. ). and then in turn deviate from the optimal state of their power consumptions. Thus. This interference variation will alter other users’ receiving SIRs and may result in that their video quality requirements cannot be achieved. the distortion caused by the channel errors. More specifically. 5. including processing power and transmission power at end-systems. The channel distortion occurs when the packet loss due to network congestion or wireless link error happened during consists of processing power on the the transmission. where it is formulated as a constrained optimization problem to minimize the total transmission power or maximize the total rate subject to the SIR and bandwidth requirements. more complex compression algorithms and more powerful channel coding schemes can be applied to source coding and channel coding. the larger the distortion . From network point of view. developed a cross-layer protection strategy for maximizing the received video quality by dynamically selecting the optimal combination of application-layer FEC and MAC retransmission based on the channel conditions [73]. the focus has been on adjusting transmission powers to maintain a required signal-tointerference ratio (SIR) for each network link using the least possible power. the most common metrics used to evaluate video quality are the expected end-to-end distortion and expected end-to-end . it can . [77]. A power-optimized joint source-channel coding (JSCC) approach for video communication over wireless channel was proposed in [75]. the end-to-end distortion is composed of the distortion by the source rate control. different protection strategies exist at the various layers of the protocol stack. be denoted as From the individual user point of view.” was introduced in [72] that enabled the joint optimization of the various protection strategies existing in the protocol stack. source coding . the power-constrained distortion includes both the distortion by the source rate control and the distortion ). it can . power control adjusts a group of users’ transmission powers to maintain their video quality requirements. Recently. due to the multiple access interference. Xu et al. referred to as “cross-layer protection. it is very important to efficiently allocate the bits among the source coding and the channel coding. VOL. a lowpower communication system for image transmission was investigated in [74]. the resource allocation problem can be formulated as follows: PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. Joint Power Control and Error Control In general. [79] made independently is that when the transmission power of one user is changed to achieve its minimal power consumption. The source distortion is tion caused by source coding such as quantization and rate control.Fig. caused by the power constraint (Fig. The motivation of jointly considering power control and error control for video communication comes from the following observations on the relationship among rate. Considering a more specific scenario. multipath fading and multiple access interference (MAI) in wireless network necessitate the use of high transmission power.

” in Comet Group Seminar. Wroclawski. vol. Or and where is the end-to-end distortion budget. Service Overlay Networks [91] purchases bandwidth with certain QoS guarantees from individual network domains via bilateral service level agreement (SLA) to build a logical end-to-end service delivery infrastructure on top of existing data transport networks. 12. pp. As discussed earlier. Rejaie. What Is It? How do we Get It?. to show that path diversity provides an effective way to combat transmission error in ad hoc networks.” IEEE Trans. Liebeherr. REFERENCES [1] D. “End-to-end QoS in the user’s point of view. [4] J. 332–344. [7] W. in which many issues need further examination. In [92]. Web content distribution networks. Sampath. Wu. L. D. S. 1855–1877. 2001. 2003. and Y. Video Technol. in which the channel distortion is caused by two parts: one is caused during the transmission over wired-line part of the connec. 3. this paper is primarily focused on QoS support in a unicast scenario. and Y. Thus. no. interference. and S. no. 3GPP TS 23. Sept. channel fading. is not always able to provide good quality routes between domains. Efficient end-to-end QoS support for multicast video transmission systems [81]–[84] is an area that still requires considerable work. error control. Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). 2003. 1999. and – based bit allocation schemes were addressed. 189–200. 1–3. Wang et al. 2) adaptive retransmission. [6] Quality of Service (QoS) concept and architecture. 11. Dec. IEEE. [3] J. power control. IEEE PIMRC. Examples of overlay networks include application-layer multicast [85]–[88]. Columbia University. Mar. CONCLUSION In this paper. 414–423. Apr. [2] P. 3. and the lack of infrastructure. over the wireless channel. we described the framework that includes network adaptation and media adaptation and reviewed several key components in this framework. “Overview of fine granularity scalability in MPEG-4 video standard. Wu. no. Extending the cross-layer framework to exploit the video delivery over ad hoc networks is also a quite interesting research direction. and J. [9] A. Li. 21–25. and resilient overlay networks (RONs) [89]. vol. 1997. IV. Handley. the erroneous losses and the congestive losses are treated the same and only one type of packet loss is considered. pp. Hou. This architecture enables one to perform QoS mapping between statistical QoS guarantees at the network level to a corresponding priority class with different video quality requirements. there have been proposals to establish application-level overlay networks for multimedia applications. Grossman. while budget. More specifically. [8] F. which in turn have different loss patterns in wireless and wired network parts. Cross-layer design of heterogeneous wireless Internet video systems is a relatively new and active field of research. 1. several components such as: 1) adaptive modulation and channel coding. QoS routing [93] and QoS aware MAC [94] are two types of approaches to provide QoS for ad hoc networks from networking point of view. 301–317. “New terminology and clarifications for DiffServ. research for QoS provisioning in application layer overlay has been pursued in an ad hoc manner. Circuits Syst. “A framework for analyzing networks with deterministic and statistical QoS.” Proc. pp. presented a loss differentiated – based bit allocation scheme [51]. and D. [10] R.” RFC 2210. there is considerable room for improvement.. [11] L. “Transporting real-time video over the Internet: Challenges and approaches.” RFC 3260. Unlike the work on network-based QoS. S. In all the schemes mentioned above. and the other is caused during the transmission tion. Moreover. Since it has been recognized that the Internet interdomain routing algorithm. “A framework for efficient progressive fine granularity scalable video coding. [5] D. 11.107.” IEEE Trans. Holtzman. OverQoS [90] aimed to provide architecture to offer QoS using overlay network. Kumar. “The use of RSVP with IETF integrated services.” in ITU Workshop on End-to-End Quality of Service. Enabling video transport over ad hoc networks is another challenging task. T. Circuits Syst. Oct. The wireless links in an ad hoc network are highly error prone and can go down frequently because of node mobility. Li from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology for proofreading this manuscript. In the end-system centric approach. IEEE DCC. Zhang. Video Technol. To solve the cross-layer optimization problems for video transmission. Li. Yang et al. Sep. 88.where is the total bandwidth assigned to source coding is the total bandwidth and channel protection. Y. pp. “Power control and resource management for a multimedia CDMA wireless system. there has been investigation on providing QoS support mechanism in overlay networks similar to the one in the Internet.-Q. M. ZHANG et al. Switzerland. Jones. New York. pp. Geneva. we presented the general cross-layer QoS support architecture for video delivery over wireless Internet. pp. and 3) adaptive source rate control need to be jointly optimized to achieve better performance.” in Proc..” in Proc. Optimally allocating resources in this heterogeneous setting presents many challenges and opportunities. K. we reviewed recent advances in providing end-to-end QoS support for video delivery over wireless Internet from both network-centric and end-system centric perspectives. 2002. Ramchandran. vol. P. Hébert. Considering that different loss patterns lead to different perceived QoS at application level [80]. Zhang. 2000. B. 2001. 1999.: END-TO-END QoS FOR VIDEO DELIVERY OVER WIRELESS INTERNET 131 .-Y. more recently. “Quality adaptation for congestion controlled video playback over the Internet. Estrin. 1995. In the network-centric solution. 2000. especially in considering the video delivery requirement. Recently.” in ACM SIGCOMM. “A general joint source-channel matching method for wireless video transmission. Appadwedula. Mar. M. . proposed to combine multistream coding with multipath transport. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Dr. recent developments in congestion control. vol. Qian. in wireless Internet the packet losses consist of both congestive losses and erroneous losses.-Q.

K. May/Jun. H. New York: Marcel Dekker. Schult.” RFC 2757. Apr. 1999. pp. D. [55] N. Y. no. VOL. M. [32] L.. Areas Commun. S. “Channel-adaptive resource allocation for scalable video transmission over 3G wireless network. 1374–1396.” in Proc. Lanphier. Dec. D. [35] M. [51] F. no. W.” RFC 2327. 1565–1591. vol. no. to be published. and G. pp. Multimedia. France. and A. 2002..aciri. and Signal Processing. Conf. [49] D. Zhang and S. [28] W. Santa Barbara. Englewood Cliffs. and C. W. Multimedia. 47. “Finite-state Markov model for Rayleigh fading channels. [62] Y. Jan. Y. ACM SIGCOMM. 1984–1997. Valla. Sept. “Effectiveness of loss labeling in improving TCP performance in wired/wireless network. [45] G. vol. pp. pp. R. Mag. Barman and I. [60] Q. [54] M. Le Boudec. [33] M. Zhu. vol. pp. 136–143. vol. Badrinath. 1.-L.” RFC 2543.-C. Farber.. and R. Shao. 6.” in Proc. Intel Corp. 2002.” lecture. vol. 3. Oct. [34] H. J. and A. and J. Select. pp. Misra. Handley. 17. Jun. vol.. Firoiu. H. “Cross layer techniques for adaptive video streaming over wireless networks. [16] V. [18] J. 1. [61] B. Negi. and Y. Eleftheriadis. 1468–1477. Yoshimura. pp. Commun. Apr. [29] J. [13] J. 1091–1100.-L. Zakhor. S. “SCTP: State of the art in research. Zhang. “TCP Westwood with adaptive bandwidth estimation to improve efficiency/friendliness tradeoffs. Johansson. V. [30] S. “Modeling TCP throughput: A simple model and its empirical validation. Circuits Syst. K. 2001. Girod and N. 1995. Magret.” submitted for publication. no. Tan and A. Shan and A. W. Hou. “The loss-delay based adjustment algorithm: A TCP-friendly adaptation scheme. [22] T. 5–8. D. Kuo. 2001.” in Proc. Nahrstedt. [57] Q. vol. B. Application-Specific Systems and Software Engineering and Technology. Zhang. 1995. [59] D. 857–860. Hou. Mar. pp. 2002.-R. 211–222. 2002. vol. A. and Y. and D.” Proc. 2001. 1999. Liu. [26] W. J. R. 15th Int. ACM SIGCOMM. 1998. 2001. Mirhakkak. [15] Z. Q. 10th IEEE ICNP. Y. Zhang and S. “End-to-end differentiation of congestion and wireless loss. [42] J. Ramanathan. 89. 10. A. vol. 2684–2695. Schulzrinne. May 1998. IEEE Symp. pp. [48] S. 2002. CA. Nov. 1998. PA.” IEEE Trans. “Effective bandwidth in high-speed digital networks. [27] A. 6–20. and J. Conf. Apr. [53] K. Rao. no. Biaz and N. Aug. Conf. “Error statistics in data transmission over fading channels. Jay Kuo. “A proxy-assisted adaptation framework for object video multicasting. Dawkins. Hou. 2001. IEEE Int.. Video Technol. T. Speech.-S. 12. San Diego.-Q. Zhakor. “Source-driven packet marking for speech transmission over differentiated-service networks. vol. “Nettimer: A tool for measuring Bottleneck link bandwidth. [58] R. NO. Pittsburgh. “Streaming video using TCP flow control and dynamic rate shaping. July 2003. Dec. 10. Conf. 2003. IFIP/IEEE Int. Boudec. Towsley. Circuits Syst. Aug. 1998. B. M.[12] C.” IEEE J. Widmer. Gerla. and Y. Kassam. Sep. 2004. S. Commun.” Proc. Jan. Wu and R. Stiliadis. Zhu. Image Processing. [21] D. 2001. Dec.. Cheung and T. [19] C. CA. Commun. M.” in Proc. IEEE Int. Ramchandran.” IEEE Trans. 3. 303–314. S. M.-Y. Zhang. 10–17. 11. pp. Tan and A. Kim. “Dynamic bandwidth management and adaptive applications for a variable bandwidth wireless environment. 3.” IEEE Commun.-Q. A. and D. July 1998.” IEEE J. Theory. [43] Equation based congestion control for unicast applications. Y.” in Proc.” Proc. Nov. Dovrolis.-Y. “Real-time Internet video using error resilient scalable compression and TCP-friendly transport protocol. vol. [36] H. 2001. pp.” in Proc. H. and A.. Firoiu. Zhang.” in Proc. Chou. Zhu. “Service disciplines for guaranteed performance service in packet switching networks. [47] G.” IEEE J. “Discriminating congestion losses from wireless losses using inter-arrival times at the receiver. Zhang. Bakre and B. Select. R. Zhang. Management of Multimedia Networks and Services. Mar. Sehgal and P. 151–160. E. “Analysis and design of an adaptive virtual queue algorithm for active queue management. Y. Aboobaker. vol. IEEE ICME. no. Handley. Nov. 10. Gerla. 15.org/tfrc [44] J. Widmer. products. “End-to-end TCPfriendly streaming protocol and bit allocation for scalable video over wireless Internet. R. [20] V. Jacobs and A. IEEE.” IEEE/ACM Trans.” J. Vaidya. Goldsmith. pp.” Proc. Visual Commun. 867–880. and M. 2. Thomson. pp. and M.” IEEE Trans. IEEE ICME. 3. 21. pp. “Application of network calculus to guaranteed service networks. 1998. Paris. to be published. and Y. Wang. 28–37.” IEEE Trans. Select Areas Commun. Available: http://www.-Q. vol. [41] D. no.. Ortega. Zhang.-C. “Fluid-based analysis of a network of AQM routers supporting TCP flows with an application to RED. 93. Floyd. and Y. 1999. Matta.. 132 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. 1998. Jan.. Kojo. May 2001. Sep.” in Proc.” IEEE Trans. Casner. Canada.” IEEE Trans. pp. Hindi. Padhye. de Martin. Kyongju.” RFC 2326. “Joint source channel coding with hybrid ARQ/FEC for robust video transmission. to be published.-Q. “SIP: Session initiation protocol. Vancouver. Schulzrinne. W. Li. Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). Servetto. 3. Disalem and H. “Streaming agent: A network proxy for media streaming in 3G wireless networks. Rao.Wireless Commun. 9. pp. 2001. no.-Q. “Resource allocation for multimedia streaming over the Internet. 2000. Paris. “Real time streaming protocol (RTSP). 1688–1692. Handley and V. 10. and Y. Wu. Q. Gerla. 13. Gong. 1685–1698. Internet Technologies and Systems. Thomas. no. and J. Kassam. [40] W. pp.-Q. [46] A. “SDP: Session description protocol. 4. pp.. Sanadidi. Kurose.” IEEE Trans. 83. 2. M. Video Technol. Select. CA.” in Proc. pp.” in Compressed Video Over Networks. “Quality-of-service mapping mechanism for packet video in differentiated services network. Yang. JANUARY 2005 . N. Schulzrinne. Voelker. IEEE. Apr. Sansadidi. pp.” RFC 3550. Zhu. Frederick. 2–11. Sanadidi. Schulzrinne.” IEEE Trans. pp. USENIX Symp. Aug. 219–231. Zhang. Richardson. Atiguzzaman. 5. “Packet classification schemes for streaming MPEG video over delay and loss differentiated networks. “Using adaptive rate estimation to provide enhanced and robust transport over heterogeneous networks. “Proportional differentiated services: Delay differentiation and packet scheduling. pp. B. and M. Baker. no. Ortega. 2000.” in IEEE Multimedia Signal Processing Workshop. Select Areas Commun. Shin. TX. “A cross-layer quality of service mapping architecture for video delivery in wireless networks. to be published. pp. ACM Multimedia Computing and Networking. W. 44. to be published. 2002. 1998. Lai and M.” in Proc. Milstein. NJ: Prentice-Hall. BC. [17] S. 753–756. Wireless Communications: Principles & Practice. Zhang. vol. Jun. 2000..” IEEE J. Puri. 1999. May 1999. 10th IEEE ICNP. France. M. A. [39] S. Apr. “Long thin networks. Zhang. Zhang.11 MAC protocol & quality of service. Towsley. Acoustics. [56] R. Oct. Feb. and P. no. no. CA. May 30–Jun. [23] Q. T. “I-TCP: Indirect TCP for mobile hosts. [24] M. no. 2002. 1087–1096. Rosenberg. Boyd. and V. Areas Commun. 64–76. 12–26. 46. 2002. and L. [37] S. Jacobson. 2001. no. J. C. 1–15. K. C. Aug. Montenegro.. Wang. Cen. Schooler. 9. vol. D. “Optimal segmentation of a VBR source for its parallel transmission over multiple ATM connections. and technical challenges. Zhang. pp. and R. Select. 3. pp. Networking. W. Rappaport. San Jose. S. M. Kitchin. F. K. Kunniyur and R.. A. IEEE Packet Video Workshop. “Hybrid ARQ with selective combining for fading channels.” in Proc. [31] J. Kumwilaisak. Areas Commun. Korea. Mauve. IEEE. Areas Commun. D.” in Workshop NOSSDAV. 2002. “Virtual time reference system: A unifying scheduling framework for scalable support of guaranteed services. “RTP: A transport protocol for real-time applications. Redondo Beach. and Z. 19. “Scalable video coding and transport over broad-band wireless networks. ACM SIGCOMM.” IEEE Network. Vaidya. Towsley. “Streaming media congestion control using bandwidth estimation. and N. 12–15. Jacobson. Chang and J. M. “The 802.” in Proc. vol. J. Padhye. Srikant.” IEEE J. pp. Z. “Cost-distortion optimized streaming media over DiffServ networks. [52] Q. 1. Oct. “Joint optimization of communication rates and linear systems. [14] H. “Effective capacity: A wireless link model for support of quality of service. [25] D. Ng. V.” in IEEE Packet Video Workshop. 1. Inform. Multimedia. Chanady. 172–186. no. and Y. Cosman.. Image Rep. Fu and M. 18. no. P. vol.” in Proc. no. Zhang. 90. [Online]. Duan. vol. pp. “Wireless video. 1995. 339–355. “A survey on TCP-friendly congestion control. Ramchandran. [50] S. Denda.” IEEE Trans. 11. 42. “Theories and models for Internet quality of service. Valla. Zakhor. Xiao. [38] M. 1996. Zorzi.” IEEE J. 1997.” Proc. Nov.” Comput. Zhu.

Hou.. 1721–1737. [75] Q. M. 117–130. no. Zhang. 4. Radha. 12. “Adaptive motion compensation fine-granular-scalability (AMC-FGS) for wireless video. G. Asia. vol. 5.” in Proc. [64] Y. L. S. T. pp. pp. and D. “Channel-adaptive unequal error protection for scalable video transmission over wireless channel.” in Proc. to be published. Jun. T. vol. vol. S. Jones. Ji. S. 1426–1438. 2001. Zhang. Celebi. Dec. 2001. and A. W. pp. Panwar. Theimer. 3. Multimedia. Katz. pp. Chapel Hill. no. Xu. Jun. ACM SIGCOMM. I. 6. Waldvogel. K..-Q.” in Proc.-L. no. H. “Video transport over ad hoc networks: Multistream coding with multipath transport. Her current research interest includes seamless roaming across different wireless networks. pp. N. Mao. vol. vol. [85] S. M. Jiang and H. M. Choi. “Unequal packet loss protection for layered video transmission.” Proc.” Proc.” in 7th Workshop Packet Video. 12. ZHANG et al. “Combined power control and transmission rate selection in cellular networks. and R. Areas Commun. ACM SOSP. 2001. Karp. D. V. 17.. 3.. [92] S. Lin. Circuits Syst. 974–997. [88] V.” in Proc. CA. and M. 137–140. She is also serving as Guest Editor for a special issue on wireless video in IEEE Wireless Communication Magazine. [67] G. “Allocation of layer bandwidths and FEC’s for video multicast over wired and wireless networks. Workshop on Networked Group Communication (NGC’01). no. [71] M. van der Schaar and H. Aug. N.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans. Zhang. Kossentini. and E. vol. Q. M. “Almi: An application level multicast infrastructure. [78] Y. Jun. Source and Channel Coding.-Q. and A. Video Technol. and S. Zhang is now serving as Associate Editor of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY. [72] S. IEEE. E. 2002. Mccanne.S. Zhuang. 12. Li. 2003. She is also a Member and Chair of QoSIG of the Multimedia Communication Technical Committee of the IEEE Communications Society. San Diego. Schaar. Wang. Kozintsev.” IEEE Trans.” in Packet Video Workshop. Majumdar. Kaashoek. 45. H. and S. Jun. May 1998. H.[63] G. 648–655. pp. 2. Wang. “Multicast and unicast real-time video streaming over wireless LANs. [86] D. Soleimanipour. and M. 2002. S. IEEE VTC. K. Ramchandran. vol. A. New York: Marcel Dekker. Turleeti. W. D.” IEEE Trans. Dec. Wenger. Video Technol. and X. [94] S. N. “A power-optimized joint source and channel coding for scalable video streaming over wireless channels. S. Dr. Deng. Krishnamachari. vol. 3.-Q. and A. 1994.. Munich. QoS. Circuits Syst. Internet. [65] A.” IEEE J. CA. and P. 10th Int. A. China. Castro. 2002. “A low-power multimedia communication system for indoor wireless applications. Apr. and B. Shi. Dr. Bolot. next-generation wireless networks. wireless communications and networking. 2001. Zhang. Z. Mar. A. 6. H. Sydney. “Scalable feedback control for multicast video distribution in the Internet. 398–410. 12. Zhang is a member of the Visual Signal Processing and Communication Technical Committee and the Multimedia System and Application Technical Committee of the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society. Select. 2001. Schaar. Areas Commun. [90] L. S. 1999. She has published more than 80 refereed papers in international leading journals and key conferences in the areas of wireless/Internet multimedia networking. [82] V. Jones. Zander. Circuits Syst. W. Jan. pp. 1999.” in 3rd Int. Eisenberg. Image Process. A. Rosberg. W.” IEEE Trans. J.. Z. Kermarrec. 2000. “Unequal packet loss resilience for fine-granular-scalability video. “Progressive source coding combined with regressive channel coding for varying channels. 1996. and Y. and overlay networking. 1059–1070. 12. no. SPIE VCIP. vol. Verma. Yeung. Weiss. pp.” Proc. she is the research manager of the Wireless and Networking Group. K. [73] X. degrees from Wuhan University. Stanford. [79] Q. Feb. Liu.D. M. and Y. Xu. She joined Microsoft Research. Circuits Syst. T. pp. CA. Stoica. 12. 360–371. 2004. and bandwidth provisioning. May 2001.” Proc. and G. no. “QoS routing in ad hoc wireless networks. Ratnasamy. 2002. pp. pp. “Bit allocation for joint-source channel coding of scalable video. T. Cote.” Elsevier Ad-Hoc Network J. IEEE ICME. IEEE Infocom. 7. 2003. no. Balakrishnan. China. 2000.K. 2003. 1279–1283. “Application-level multicast using content-addressable networks. I. Goel. R. Zhang and Y. van der Schaar and H. ACM SIGCOMM.. 10.” in Proc. and R. Sachs. “Adaptive error control for fine-granular-scalability video coding over IEEE 802. 2003. “Modeling and resource allocation in wireless multimedia CDMA systems. 2001.-H. Handley.S. no. vol. Zhu. pp. Beijing. Ji. “Error resilience coding. W. [70] G. pp.-W. Balakrishnan.. Aug.” IEEE Trans. [87] M. [91] Z. Ramchandran. San Jose. Jun. “Receiver-driven layered multicast.” IEEE Trans.. 43–48.11 wireless LANS. Zhang. 3rd ITG Conf. 2. in 1994. 6. NSW. Y. [89] D. Zhu. Cheung and A. 87–102. 2000. ICNP. Circuits Syst. Zhang. 86. pp. and Y. Zhang. Luna. [81] J. 2002. and Ph. “Scalable video coding for multimedia applications and robust transmission over wireless channels. and J.” in Proc. 8. Wang. 21. Shanbhag. 1996. Video Technol. 9. L. Zakhor. London. Duan.” in 3rd USENIX Symp. Liu. 340–356. C. Workshop NOSSDAV. Morris. Freeman. Lee. Jan. and I. Wang. Zhang has recently received the TR 100 (MIT Technology Review) World’s Top Young Innovator Award. Stockhammer. Zhu. M. Kim. no. R. 2002. no. [77] S. S. 1996. [93] C. Jun.” in Proc. Raghavan. Z. 6. Select. “Joint source coding and transmission power management for energy efficient wireless video communications. 524–534. Donner. Pappas. pp. “QoS-aware MAC protocols for ad-hoc wireless networks: A survey. H.. Lin and J. Australia. 2003. Wakeman. Wang and Q. Video Technol. pp. Padmanabhan. Brisbane. Vetterli. vol. U. “Modeling of packet loss and delay and their effect on real-time multimedia service quality. and Y. Multimedia. 473–482. Dr. and J. [83] T. 123–130. 6. B. Shenker. 1999. Girod. Krishnamachari1. Zhang. [80] W. Wolman.-Q. [69] J. and Y. “Video streaming over wireless LANs: A cross-layer approach. R. Mar. Schulzrinne. Xu. Appadwedula. and Y. Wang. Chou. 243–252.” in Compressed Video Over Networks. 2002. Hagenauer. Belzer. Rowstron. pp. Choi. no. Z. vol. Katsaggelos. C.” IEEE J. Chan. Now.. M. “Resilient overlay networks. “OverQoS: Offering QoS using overlays. “Power-minimized bit allocation for video communication over wireless channels. S. in July 1999. 411–424. B. [84] J. S. Queensland. San Francisco.” in Proc.” IEEE Trans. Andersen. “Error control and concealment for video communications: A review. [95] M.: END-TO-END QoS FOR VIDEO DELIVERY OVER WIRELESS INTERNET 133 . pp. respectively. Jacobson. Wuhan.” in 3rd Workshop for IPTPS. She is the inventor of about 20 pending patents.-Q. Kumar. “Supporting heterogeneity and congestion control in peer-to-peer multicast streaming. [74] M. Broadcast. Zhu. Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS). Berry. IEEE ISCAS. 1999. Horn. Australia. 381–394. vol. 1998. Zhu. H. pp.-F.-C. Germany.” in Proc. “Service overlay networks: SLA. Zhang.. vol. pp. “An end-to-end adaptation protocol for layered video multicast using optimal rate allocation. IEEE Workshop SiPS’99. and M. 49–60. 58–67. multimedia delivery over wireless. B. [68] U. pp. Pendarakis. Dec.. no. IEEE VTC.” IEEE Trans. Zhang.. and P2P network/ad hoc network. Radha. NC. Q. CA.” in Proc. and Y. “An evaluation of scalable applicationlevel multicast built using peer-to-peer overlays. Qian Zhang (Senior Member. Subramanian.” in 1st Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-I).-M. and 1999. S. S. 1653–1657. Video Technol. F. [76] M. all in computer science. 5. IEEE) received the B. [66] T. vol. pp.

China. and international standards. NJ. degree from Illinois Institute of Technology. and IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY. and a Guest Editor for the special issue on “Wireless Video” in IEEE Wireless Communication Magazine. NO. 93. including several industry technical achievement awards and IEEE awards. including the WinCE operating system.S. NJ (formerly David Sarnoff Research Center and RCA Laboratories). from 1989 to 1994. He is currently the Corporate Vice Present of the Mobile and Device Group at Microsoft Corporation. degree from Polytechnic University. WA. Prior to that. and M. Multimedia System and Application Technical Committee and Life Science Committee in IEEE Circuits and Systems Society. Washington. Sarnoff Corporation.. He also served as a Guest Editor for the special issue on “Advanced Mobility Management and QoS Protocols for Wireless Internet” in IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS. and the Ph. JANUARY 2005 . He serves on the editorial boards of seven other professional journals and over a dozen conference committees. Dr. multimedia. he was with the Graduate School. which has enabled dramatic advances in digital video compression and manipulation for broadcast and interactive television and networking applications. PocketPC. Lucent Technologies. in 1989. University of Science and Technology of China (USTC). and multimedia information technologies. Currently.D. Murray Hill. the M. as a Member of Technical Staff during 1996–1999. Prior to his current post.. and satellite communications. in 1999 as a Researcher in the Internet Media Group. and the Ph. and Chinese Academy of Sciences (Institute of Electronics). 1. commercial products. Waltham.D. he was the Director of the Multimedia Technology Laboratory. Currently he is Associate Editor for IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING. Princeton. respectively. MPEG4/VLBR. Dr. Zhang served as the Editor-In-Chief for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY from July 1997 to July 1999. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC). Brooklyn. China. He has received numerous awards.S. Prior to that. Chicago. respectively. Redmond. he was with GTE Laboratories Inc. DC. Beijing. degrees from the National University of Science and Technology. respectively. degree in electrical engineering from George Washington University.” He recently received The Outstanding Young Electrical Engineer of 1998 award.E. and M. He is inventor of more than a dozen pending patents. 134 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. IEEE) received the B.Wenwu Zhu (Senior Member. and has been granted over 40 U. He has been engaged in research and commercialization of MPEG2/DTV. he was the Managing Director of Microsoft Research Asia from 1999 to 2004. He is responsible for product development of Microsoft’s Mobile and Embedded Division. He has published over 160 refereed papers in various key journals and conferences in the areas of wireless/Internet multimedia delivery. VOL. NY. wireless communications and networking. He was named “Research Engineer of the Year” in 1998 by the Central Jersey Engineering Council for his “leadership and invention in communications technology.S. Beijing. patents in digital video. He is also the Chairman of IEEE Circuits and System Society Beijing Chapter and the Secretary of Visual Signal Processing and Communication Technical Committee. Ya-Qin Zhang (Fellow. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA. such as the CAS Jubilee Golden Medal. Zhu served as Guest Editor for the special issues on “Streaming Video” and special issue on “Wireless Video” in IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY.S. MA. all in electrical engineering. Hefei. He received the Best Paper Award in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology in 2001. He serves on the Board of Directors of five high-tech IT companies and has been a key contributor to the ISO/MPEG and ITU standardization efforts in digital video and multimedia. and other Windows Mobile platform and devices. He has authored and co-authored over 200 refereed papers in leading international conferences and journals. and now is Research Manager of Wireless and Networking Group. in 1996. he was with Bell Labs. Previously. China. he is serving as a Guest Editor for the special issue on “Advanced Video Coding and Delivery” in PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE. Internet. IEEE) received the B. wireless. and has contributed to the IETF ROHC WG draft on robust TCP/IP header compression over wireless links.E. and wireless communication and networking. From August 1988 to December 1990. Smartphone. His current research interest is in the area of wireless/Internet multimedia communication and networking. Changsha. Many of the technologies he and his team developed have become the basis for start-up ventures. in 1983 and 1985. Anhui. in 1985 and 1988. He joined Microsoft Research. and Multimedia Communication Technical Committee in IEEE Communications Society. in 1993. He was the Chairman of the Visual Signal Processing and Communications Technical Committee of the IEEE Circuits and Systems (CAS) Society. He is a member of Eta Kappa Nu.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->