The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for the immediate display of multicast IPTV over a bandwidth constrained network.
Internet Protocol (IP) defines a standard by which data is transmitted over networks in the form of packets which are then routed to the intended recipients. In the past, IP data was limited to text, numbers, or simple pictures due to the constraints imposed by relatively slow and unsophisticated networks. However, as networks and routers become faster and more powerful, it has now gotten to the point where service providers are starting to offer real-time voice-over-IP (VoIP telephony) and digital television (IPTV) in addition to their standard IP-based web/Internet services. This “triple play” option of providing VoIP, IPTV, and IP Internet services over a single DSL, fiber optic, or cable line has proven to be quite popular with subscribers. Subscribers can make telephone calls, watch television, and surf the web without having to deal with a number of different companies. Presumably, the triple play option is cheaper for the consumer than if they had to subscribe to each of the services separately. And for service providers, triple play confers an opportunity to capture revenue from all three sources.
Aside from convenience and cost savings, triple play offers subscribers new features. For example, IPTV has several advantages over that of traditional TV. IPTV's point-to-point distribution scheme enables efficient stream control. Subscribers can pause, wind/re-wind, playback, skip, fast-forward, one-click recording, etc., all from the set-top box. In addition, IPTV inherently has the ability for two-way communication. This enables subscribers to select which movie they want to watch at any given time. Video on demand (VOD) is very popular with subscribers and is a growing source of revenue for service providers.
Unfortunately, video content contains a great amount of data. This is problematic because the “last mile” to/from a residence or office is typically bandwidth constrained. In other words, the last mile of twisted pair copper wires, fiber, cable, or wireless connection is physically limited to handling a maximum number of IP packets which may be transmitted over a given amount of time. IPTV can strain the capacity of the last mile, especially if other users are simultaneously surfing the web or making telephone calls or watching TV in another room.
One commonly used approach for minimizing the bandwidth requirements associated with transmitting video entails compressing the video through a video compression scheme, transmitting the smaller compressed video data, and then decompressing the video data before being displayed. A widely adopted video compression standard is set forth by the Moving Pictures Expert Group (MPEG). For instance, the MPEG-2 standard converts a video stream into I, P and B frames. The I frame is an intra-frame which contains all the data required to display the frame. An I frame is followed by a series of P and B frames. The P frame is a predictive frame which contains only the data that has changed from the preceding I frame. P frames rely on I frames to fill in most of its data. The B frame is a bidirectional frame which contains data that have changed from the preceding frame or are different from the data in the very next frame. By converting the frames of the original video stream into much smaller I, P, and B frames, the video stream comprised of I, P and B frames can be transmitted at a fraction of the bandwidth compared to non-compressed video streams. Once received, the I, P, and B frames are then used to reconstruct the original video stream for playback.
There is, however, one drawback to MPEG-2 and equivalent video compression schemes. When a subscriber switches channels, there can be a significant delay incurred in acquiring and displaying the selected new channel on the television screen. If the subscriber happens to switch channels right after an I frame was just transmitted for the new channel, the TV cannot display any video until the next I frame is received. Although a series of P and B frames are received, they are useless because a corresponding previous I frame is needed as a reference. Essentially, the viewer can occasionally experience a momentary blank or black screen right after switching channels. This can be quite disconcerting to viewers who are accustomed to traditional TV whereby switching channels instantaneously brings up the new channel for viewing.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and form a part of this specification, illustrate embodiments discussed below, and, together with the description, serve to explain the principles of the invention:
A method and apparatus for the immediate display of multicast IPTV over a bandwidth constrained network is described. Embodiments of the present invention significantly reduce the inherent non-deterministic delays associated with channel changing in today's packet based multicast networks where clients tune into different live broadcast channels by selectively joining multicast groups. A significant part of the delay associated with joining a new stream is the time it takes the client to receive program specific information and the initial I frame. In one embodiment, the previous I, P and B frames are temporarily stored in a cache memory. Each multicast broadcast stream has an associated cache memory upon which is stored the previous set of I, P, and B frames for that respective stream. When a viewer changes channels, the client issues a request to join the new multicast broadcast. The previous I frame corresponding to that particular stream is immediately read from the cache memory. This eliminates the need to wait for the next I frame. Because the I frame is readily available from the cache memory, the set-top box can generate a video image for immediate display on the television set. The P and B frames can also be fetched from the cache memory for generating the display of the video. Since the cached frames are burst at a rate higher than the broadcast stream being received, eventually, the live stream will synchronize with the stream being read out from the cache memory. In the case of limited network bandwidth, certain P and B frames can selectively be dropped in order to facilitate the synchronization process within a deterministic amount of time. A general discussion of IPTV and video compression is described below followed by a detailed description of the various embodiments of the present invention.
Today, most carriers are delivering MPEG2 compressed video to subscribers. In general, for MPEG2 and equivalent video compression schemes, the original video and audio are encoded via separate encoders into Elementary Streams (ES). These elementary streams are packetized into PES packets (Packetized Elementary Stream) that have variable packet sizes. These PES packets are then fragmented into 188 byte Transport stream (TS) packets and multiplexed together (VideoTS and AudioTS) before being encapsulated into an IP frame. Typically 7 TS packets would go into an IP frame (either UDP or RTP).
More specifically, MPEG2 encodes video into I, P and B frames or elementary streams. I frames are intra-coded only. An I frame serves as a reference frame for future predictions. Moderate compression (on order of 10:1), limits the propagation of transmission of errors, supports random access and fast forward/fast reverse. P frames are forward prediction from either previous I frames or previous P frames. P frames serve as reference for future P or B frames. P frames give good compression savings (20:1). B Frames are bi-directional interpolated prediction from two sources. B frames serve as previous reference I or P frames (forward prediction) or as future reference I or P frames (backwards prediction). B frames confer the highest compression (50:1).
Referring to
This format offers great flexibility as to how the delivery of video can be structured. First, the frame rate can be variable; it can start from as low as 10 frames-per-second (fps). The typical frame rate for NTSC is 30 fps, and the typical rate for PAL is 24 fps The number of I frames sent is also variable and since I frames contain the most amount of data, they also incur the heaviest bandwidth requirements. For video with a lot of motion, more I frames should be sent to get the best effect. Also, the higher number of I frames sent, the faster the decoder can start displaying the picture (i.e., faster channel change time from a user perspective), since the decoder needs an I frame to initially sync to; again this has to be weighed against increase in bandwidth to send more I frames.
A GOP or Group of pictures is defined as the number of I, P, B frames that are sent prior to the next I frame. A typical Group of Pictures (GOP) that contains I, P and B frames sent is shown in
The frame size given the amount of information carried in each is I>>P>>B
Typical bandwidth allocation per frame is I=9, P=2, and B=1. This results in approximately an equal amount of time for transmission of each type of frame:
When the user decides to change channels (i.e., join a different multicast group), he or she has no idea which frame is currently being sourced by the edge device (i.e., I, P or B). The set top box, which includes the decoder, on the other hand, needs an I frame to start to display video from the new channel. It can be seen that with a GOP size of 15 in an NTSC environment, there could be at a minimum 0.5 second variance between best and worst case channel changes and this does not take into account other associated delays.
In one embodiment, the delay is substantially reduced by implementing a Video/Audio Acceleration Mechanism (VAM) that allows clients connected to packet based multicast networks to have fast and deterministic startup delays. Ideally, the VAM should reside at the edge concentrator of the network (e.g., Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer “DSLAM” that support xDSL network, Optical Line Termination “OLT” that support Passive Optical Network or Edge Quadruple Amplitude Modulation card “QAM” that support cable network). However, this VAM function can also reside in the aggregation edge device that sits upstream from the access concentrator. In addition to supporting faster startup delays, the VAM will adaptively adjust the video/audio stream to maintain that the maximum bandwidth that can supported by the last mile access is not violated. This will be described in detail below.
Inherently, client devices have delays associated with various startup mechanisms built in them that vary from set top box vendor to vendor. Delays include local processor reset delays, Phased Lock Loop (PLL) delays etc. Embodiments of the invention addresses the PLL delay and mitigation, but the focus will be on removal of client buffering delay by burst transmission of frames within the bandwidth limitations imposed by the client last-mile loop.
In process block 506, the VAM catches up and synchronizes to the multicast stream within the bandwidth constraints imposed by the last mile. The VAM does this by selectively dropping P and B frames as needed to allow for catching up and by selectively adding Blank frames to make sure that the bandwidth for that frame rate does not exceed the maximum specified. As an example, assume that a 4 Mbps MPEG2 stream can be allowed to burst at 33% higher rate during the catch-up window. Looking at the traditional (30 fps) GOP is: I B B P B B P B B P B B P B B. If one drops every B frame, the result is: I P P P P I P P P P I P P P P. With the bandwidth allocation for each frame given in the overview section, one ends up with a total bandwidth for the case were all B frames were dropped
which in essence represents that the bandwidth has doubled to send the 15 frame GOP without B frames in 500 ms (30 fps). Now if one selectively adds Blank frames indicated by Bl, one ends up with the following: I P Bl P Bl P Bl P I P Bl P Bl P P. The calculation is now=2*⅙ bw+8* 1/24 bw=⅔ bw×2GOP/sec which is exactly 30% over the burst period required (i.e., one can safely burst this GOP at 30 fps and meet, and yet not exceed, the stipulated 33% higher bandwidth requirement). The effect of the VAM bursting GOP(s) like this on the viewer is a perception of the channel being fast forwarded for the period the GOP is being sent.
Proceeding to process block 507, the VAM now drops all B frames from the first GOP that it has already pre-buffered and possibly even P frames depending on how much higher bandwidth is allocated for catching-up. This is done based on last-mile bandwidth constraints. Blank frames can and will be added to make sure the burst stream meets bandwidth limits. The higher the bandwidth available to burst, the less frames that need to be dropped and the faster one can reach SPT (i.e., the join point back to the broadcast stream). Next, the VAM, in process block 508, adjusts through the second GOP still being received by selectively dropping B and P frames and inserting Blank frames (for bandwidth reasons) so that it can reach the SPT prior to the next I frame. Taking the example given above, and a worst case channel change at point 405, by the time the burst streaming from StrmBuf reaches Point 405, (1*165 ms) for 1 frame+(4*41 ms) for P frames+(5×0 ms) for Bl frames=329 ms will have elapsed and 329 ms worth of incoming multicast data will now be contained in the second GOP of StrmBuf. This is equivalent to: I B B P B B P B. The Burst algorithm in VAM can now again selectively drop the B and/or P frames and insert Blank frames as needed to reach the SPT in an iterative process. In the best case where the channel change is received at point 404, the last B frame, all frames except the I's, can be dropped to help catch up the fastest. As a result:
Since the VAM will be adjusting the Transport Stream on the fly, it will have to inspect into the packet and modify the video timestamps and PCR timing contained within the Transport Stream. This is shown by process block 509. Once the SPT has been hit, the mux select changes so that the multicast stream can now be streamed directly to PBUF, as shown by process block 510.
In other embodiments, whereas the choices for which frames to drop may seem quite endless, if one plans on keeping the user experience viewable with an impression of fast forward during the catch-up period, the choices of which frames to drop narrows quickly. For example from the above description of I, P, B frames, it has been realized that not all the P frames in a GOP can be dropped because then the B frames have no reference. Consequently, groups of P and B frames have to be selectively dropped as illustrated below:
As an example for embodiment 4, if the max BW defined is 1.3 bw i.e. 30% over the existing stream bandwidth, one needs to insert Blank frames to get from 1.85 bw to 1.3 bw and hence one needs to modify the GOP to:
It should be noted that although the subject matter above relating to a method and apparatus for the immediate display of broadcast video delivered over a bandwidth constrained IP network has been disclosed in a language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims.
The features and methodological acts described above can also be applied to other advanced video compression technologies (e.g., advanced video coding—AVC (MPEG4-Part 10), Windows Media (VC1 etc), and all video compression technologies utilizing reference and predictive frames.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/364,152 filed Feb. 27, 2006, titled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMMEDIATE DISPLAY OF MULTICAST IPTV OVER A BANDWIDTH CONSTRAINED NETWORK”, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3840862 | Ready | Oct 1974 | A |
4291196 | Spaniol et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
4426682 | Riffe et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
4802085 | Levy et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4811203 | Hamstra | Mar 1989 | A |
5155824 | Edenfield et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5307477 | Taylor et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5444718 | Ejzak et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5483587 | Hogan et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5524235 | Larson et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5551001 | Cohen et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5600366 | Schulman | Feb 1997 | A |
5600663 | Ayanoglu et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5636354 | Lear | Jun 1997 | A |
5673253 | Shaffer | Sep 1997 | A |
5729687 | Rothrock et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5734861 | Cohn et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5784362 | Turina | Jul 1998 | A |
5828844 | Civanlar | Oct 1998 | A |
5870763 | Lomet | Feb 1999 | A |
5914757 | Dean et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5926227 | Schoner et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933195 | Florencio | Aug 1999 | A |
5933593 | Arun et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5963217 | Grayson et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974028 | Ramakrishnan | Oct 1999 | A |
6003116 | Morita et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6031818 | Lo et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6034746 | Desai et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6065050 | DeMoney | May 2000 | A |
6119205 | Wicki et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6137834 | Wine et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141324 | Abbott et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6151636 | Schuster et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6236854 | Bradshaw | May 2001 | B1 |
6278716 | Rubenstein | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289054 | Rhee | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301249 | Mansfield et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6332153 | Cohen | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6445717 | Gibson et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6501739 | Cohen | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6516435 | Tsunoda | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6532562 | Chou et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6567929 | Bhagavath et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6570926 | Agrawal et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6594798 | Chou et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6608820 | Bradshaw | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6608841 | Koodii | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6624841 | Buchner et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6643496 | Shimoyama et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6650652 | Valencia | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6671262 | Kung et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675216 | Quatrano et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6677864 | Khayrallah | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6711128 | Ramakrishnan | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6721290 | Kondylis et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6735572 | Landesmann | May 2004 | B2 |
6744785 | Robinett et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6766418 | Alexander | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6771644 | Brassil et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775247 | Shaffer et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6782490 | Maxemchuk et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6792047 | Bixby et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6804244 | Anandakumar et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816469 | Kung et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6823470 | Smith et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6839325 | Schmidl et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6865157 | Scott et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6865540 | Faber et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6876734 | Summers et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6909718 | Aramaki et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6910148 | Ho et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6925068 | Stanwood et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6931001 | Deng | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6931113 | Ortel | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6937569 | Sarkar et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6947417 | Laursen et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6956828 | Simard et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6959075 | Cutaia et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6976055 | Shaffer et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6989856 | Firestone et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6996097 | Chou et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7003086 | Shaffer et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7007098 | Smyth et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7024609 | Wolfgang et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7084898 | Firestone et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7114002 | Okumura et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7127487 | Wang et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7164680 | Loguinov | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7180896 | Okumura | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7224702 | Lee | May 2007 | B2 |
7234079 | Cheng et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7257664 | Zhang | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7263075 | Roh et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7296205 | Curcio et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7324527 | Fraas et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7333439 | Itoh et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7366172 | Chou et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7373413 | Bich | May 2008 | B1 |
7376880 | Ichiki et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7379653 | Yap et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7392424 | Ho et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7397759 | Tan et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7532621 | Birman et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7562277 | Park et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7599363 | Jang et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7676591 | Chan et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7681101 | Oran et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7697514 | Chou et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7707303 | Albers | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7711938 | Wise | May 2010 | B2 |
7747921 | DaCosta | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7801146 | Aramaki et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7870590 | Jagadeesan et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7877660 | VerSteeg | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7886073 | Gahm | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7889654 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7921347 | Kim et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7937531 | Mitra | May 2011 | B2 |
7940644 | Oran | May 2011 | B2 |
7940777 | Asati | May 2011 | B2 |
7965771 | Wu | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8031701 | Oran | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8218654 | Cheng et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8245264 | Toebes et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
20010000540 | Cooper et al. | Apr 2001 | A1 |
20020004841 | Sawatari | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020006137 | Rabenko et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010938 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020087976 | Kaplan et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020114332 | Apostolopoulos et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020126711 | Robinett et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020163918 | Cline | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030025786 | Norsworthy | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030025832 | Swart et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030076850 | Jason, Jr. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030101408 | Martinian et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030158899 | Hughes | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030198195 | Li | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030231863 | Eerenberg et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236903 | Piotrowski | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040057449 | Black | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040071128 | Jang et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078624 | Maxemchuk et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040100937 | Chen | May 2004 | A1 |
20040114576 | Itoh et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040143672 | Padmanabham et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040165527 | Gu et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040165710 | DelHoyo et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040196849 | Aksu et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199659 | Ishikawa et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040213152 | Matuoka et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040244058 | Carlucci et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255328 | Baldwin et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050058131 | Samuels et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050069102 | Chang | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050074007 | Samuels et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050078171 | Firestone et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050078698 | Araya et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050081244 | Barrett et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050099499 | Braunstein | May 2005 | A1 |
20050138372 | Kajihara et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050169174 | Apostolopoulos et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050198367 | Ettikan | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050204242 | Chou et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050207406 | Reme | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050244137 | Takashima et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050249231 | Khan | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050259803 | Khartabil | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050265346 | Ho et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289623 | Midani et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060020995 | Opie et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060048193 | Jacobs et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060072596 | Spilo et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075084 | Lyon | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075443 | Eckert | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060083263 | Jagadeesan et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085551 | Xie et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060104458 | Kenoyer et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060120378 | Usuki et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060126667 | Smith et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143669 | Cohen | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060159093 | Joo et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060187914 | Gumaste et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060188025 | Hannuksela | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060189337 | Farrill et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060200842 | Chapman et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060242240 | Parker et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242669 | Wogsberg | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060259755 | Kenoyer | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060279437 | Luby | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070008934 | Balasubramanian et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070009235 | Walters et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070044130 | Skoog | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070076703 | Yoneda et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070098079 | Boyce et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070110029 | Gilmore, II et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070123284 | Schliwa-Bertling et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070133435 | Eneroth et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070200949 | Walker et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070204320 | Wu et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070214490 | Cheng et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070268899 | Cankaya | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070277219 | Toebes et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080062990 | Oran | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080189489 | Mitra | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080192839 | Gahm et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080225850 | Oran | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080253369 | Oran et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080256409 | Oran et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080267078 | Farinacci | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080310435 | Cagenius et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090034627 | Rodriguez et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090034633 | Rodirguez | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090049361 | Koren et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055540 | Foti et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090119722 | VerSteeg | May 2009 | A1 |
20090150715 | Pickens | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090201803 | Filsfils | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090201805 | Begen et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090213726 | Asati | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090217318 | VerSteeg et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100005360 | Begen | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100036962 | Gahm | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20110161765 | Oran | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120189007 | Oran et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1490976 | Apr 2004 | CN |
1643857 | Jul 2005 | CN |
1947399 | Apr 2007 | CN |
1271953 | Jan 2003 | EP |
1553735 | Jul 2005 | EP |
1581005 | Sep 2005 | EP |
1608116 | Dec 2005 | EP |
1670252 | Jun 2006 | EP |
2008728919 | Feb 2008 | EP |
7814245.2 | May 2009 | EP |
2007814246 | Jun 2009 | EP |
8731381.3 | Nov 2009 | EP |
2220845 | Aug 2010 | EP |
9718637 | May 1997 | WO |
0019693 | Apr 2000 | WO |
0035201 | Jun 2000 | WO |
0076113 | Dec 2000 | WO |
0161909 | Aug 2001 | WO |
2005048519 | May 2005 | WO |
2006031925 | Mar 2006 | WO |
2006057606 | Jun 2006 | WO |
2006107424 | Oct 2006 | WO |
2008000289 | Jan 2008 | WO |
2008033644 | Mar 2008 | WO |
2008033645 | Mar 2008 | WO |
2008100725 | Aug 2008 | WO |
2008112465 | Sep 2008 | WO |
2009058645 | May 2009 | WO |
2009099847 | Aug 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Begen, Ali C., Enhancing the Multimedia Experience in Emerging Network, A Thesis Presented to the Academic Faculty; Dec. 2006; available at http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-11062006-002415/; Dec. 2006. |
Rosenberg, J., et al., “Registration of parityfec MME types,” RFC 3009, Nov. 2000, 11 pgs. |
Luby M., et al., “Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Block”, RFC 3452, Dec. 2002, 16 pgs. |
Schulzrinne, H., “RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,” RFC 3550, Jul. 2003, 89 pgs. |
Luby M., et al., “Compact Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes,” RFC 3695, Feb. 2004, 14 pgs. |
Ott, J., et al., “Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)”, draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback-11, Aug. 10, 2004, 52 pgs. |
Watson, M., “Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes,” draft-ietf-nmt-bb-fec-basic-schemes-revised-02, Mar. 3, 2006, 17 pgs. |
Chesterfield, J., et al., “RTCP Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions,” draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-11, Mar. 6, 2006, 67 pgs. |
Rey, J., et al., “RTP Retransmission Payload Format,” RFC 4588, Jul. 2006, 24 pgs. |
Pendleton et al., “Session Initiation Package for Voice Quality Reporting Event,” Sipping Working Group, 2006, pp. 1-24. |
Duffy, “Riverstone Recasts Multicast Video,” 2 pgs., Aug. 5, 2002, Network World, Inc., www.networkworld.com/edge/news/2002/0805edge.html. |
Lehman et al., Active Reliable Multicast (ARM), 1998, IEEE, pp. 581-589. |
Liang et al., Feedback suppression in reliable multicast protocol, 2000, IEEE, pp. 1436-1439. |
Adamson et al., Negative-Acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Building Blocks (RFC 3941), Nov. 2004, RFC 3941 (IETF, ORG), pp. 1-37. |
Nguyen, Thinh & Avideh, Protocols for Distributed Video Streaming, Image Processing, 2002, Proceedings, 2002 Int, Dec. 10, 2002, vol. 3, 185-188, ISBN: 0-7803-7622-6. |
Degalahal et al., “Analyzing Soft Errors in Leakage Optimized SRAM Design,” Article, Jan. 2003, pp. 1-7, 16th International Conference on VLSI Design. |
Zhang, Computing Cache Vulnerability to Ransietn Errors and it's Implication, Article, Oct. 2005, pp. 1-9, IEEE Computer Society. |
Weaver et al., Reducing the Soft-Error Rate of a High-Performance Microprocessor, Article, 2004, pp. 30-37, IEEE Computer Society. |
Li et al., Soft Error and Energy Consumption Interactions: A Data Cache Perspective, Article, Aug. 9, 2004, pp. 1-6, ISLPED '04. |
Rey et al., “RTP Retransmission Payload Form—RFC 4588”, Jul. 1, 2006, 29 pgs. |
Handley M. et al., “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” RFC 2543, Mar. 1999. |
T. Friedman, “RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR),” RFC 3611, Nov. 2003. |
Ott, “Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)” draft ieft-av-rtcp-feedback-01-txt., Nov. 21, 2001. |
Approach, Inc., “Streaming Media Technical Analysis,” Nov. 2000. |
Turner, Jonathan S., “WDM Burst Switching,” www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/4j/4j—3.htm., 1999. |
GossamerThreads, “Channel Change Speed,” www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post—view—flat;post=13776, Sep. 12, 2003. |
Nguyen, Thinh et al., Protocols for Distributed Video Streaming, IEEE ICIP 2002. |
Byers, John W. et al., “Accessing Multiple Mirror Sites in Parallel: Using Tornado Codes to Speed Up Downloads,” IEEE, 1999. |
Cisco Systems, Cisco Visual Quality Experience: Product Overview, www.cisco.com/en/US/partners/prod/collateral/video/ps7191/ps7126/product—data—sheet0900aecd8057f446.htm, 2009. |
Cisco Systems, Converge IP and DWDM Layers in the Core Network, http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/prod—white—paper0900aecd80395e03.html, 2007. |
Silver Peak Systems, Inc., “Data Center Class WAN Optimization: Latency & Loss Mitigation,” www.silver-peak.com/Technology/latency—loss—mitigation.htm., 2010. |
P.A. Chou and Z. Miao, “Rate-distortion optimized streaming of packetized media,” Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2001-35, Feb. 2001. |
Rajamoni, Ramakrishnan, R. Bhagavathula, & R. Pendse, “Timing analysis of block replacement algorithms on disk caches,” 43rd IEEE Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Proceedings, Aug. 8-11, 2000. |
Lee, Jung-Hoon, J.S. Lee, & S.D. Kim, “A selective temporal and aggressive spatial cache system based on time interval,” 2000 International Conference on Computer Design (IEEE), Proceedings, Sep. 17-20, 2000. |
International Search Report for PCT/US08/55837 mailed Jul. 3, 2008. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US08/55837 mailed Jul. 3, 2008. |
U.S. PCT Office, International Search Report, Jul. 7, 2008, 3 pgs. |
U.S. PCT Office, International Search Report, Jul. 7, 2008, 3 pgs.—Different. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US08/52907 mailed Jul. 7, 2008. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US07/76264 mailed Jul. 7, 2008. |
International Search Report for PCT/US07/76265 mailed Aug. 20, 2008. |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US07/76265 mailed Aug. 20, 2008. |
International Search Report for PCT/US09/032305 mailed Oct. 5, 2009 (0599woul). |
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US09/032305 mailed Oct. 5, 2009 (0599woul). |
Supplementary European Search Report for EP08731381, Mar. 26, 2010, 7 pgs. |
Chinese Third Office Action dated Dec. 3, 2012 Appl. No. 200780022360.X, 8 pgs. |
Brassil, Jack, et al., “Structuring Internet Media Streams with Cueing Protocols,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, IEEE/ACM New York, NY, vol. 10, No. 4, Aug. 2002, XP011077174; Abstract Only. |
Castro H., et al., “Monitoring Emerging IPv6 Wireless Access Networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, vol. 12, No. 1, Feb. 2005, XP011127719. |
International Search Report for PCT/US08/80882 dated Mar. 30, 2009, 3 pgs. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability (1 pg.) and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority (6 pgs.) for PCT/US08/80882 dated May 4, 2010. |
U.S. Final Office Action dated Jan. 7, 2013, U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, 26 pgs. |
Schulzrinne et al., RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications, Network Working Group, 2002, pp. 1-92. |
Chinese First Office Action dated Aug. 3, 2010 in Appl. No. 200880004738.8, 16 pgs. |
European Search Report for EP08728919, Aug. 19, 2010, 11 pgs. |
Chinese Second Office Action dated May 20, 2011 in Appl. No. 200880004738.8, 11 pgs. |
Chinese First Office Action dated Jul. 4, 2011 for Appl. No. 200780022360.X. |
European Office Action dated Oct. 27, 2011 in Appl. No. 08 728 919.5 6 pgs. |
Chinese Third Office Action dated Oct. 28, 2011 in Appl. No. 200880004738.8, 9 pgs. |
Chinese Fourth Office Action dated Feb. 22, 2012 in Appl. No. 200880004738.8, 7 pgs. |
Chinese Second Office Action dated Jul. 2, 2012 for Appl. No. 200780022360.X, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, 30 pgs. |
U.S. Final Office Action dated Dec. 21, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, 23 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/674,093, 38 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Oct. 27, 2009 in Appl. No. 12/101,796, 45 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Jul. 26, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/101,796, 41 pgs. |
U.S. Final Office Action dated Feb. 17, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/101,796, 36 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Sep. 27, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/168,772, 17 pgs. (not M&G case). |
U.S. Final Office Action dated Jan. 10, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/168,772, 15 pgs. (not M&G case). |
U.S. Office Action dated Oct. 24, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/435,431, 25 pgs. |
U.S. Office Action dated Oct. 31, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/043,437, 37 pgs. |
European Search Report dated Mar. 7, 2013 cited in Appl. No. 07814246.0, 9 pgs. |
Wonyong Yoon et al., “A Combined Group/Tree Approach for Scalable Many-to-many Reliable Multicast,” Proceedings IEEE Infocom., vol. 3, Jun. 23, 2002, pp. 1336-1345. |
Victor O.K. Li et al., “Internet Multicast Routing and Transport Control Protocols,” Proceedings of IEEE, vol. 90, No. 3, Mar. 1, 2002, pp. 360-391. |
Hrishikesh Gossain et al., “Multicast: Wired to Wireless,” IEEE Communications Magazine, IEEE Service Center, vol. 40, No. 6, Jun. 1, 2002, pp. 116-123. |
A. Erramilli et al., “A Performance Analysis of Protocols for Multicast Communication in Broadband Packet Networks,” XP010077385, Jun. 13, 1988, pp. 222-226. |
Chinese Fourth Office Action dated Mar. 25, 2013 cited in Appl. No. 200780022360.X, 7 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110131622 A1 | Jun 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11364152 | Feb 2006 | US |
Child | 13016773 | US |