Patent Grant
9136983
The present invention relates to encoding and decoding data in communications systems and more specifically to communication systems that encode and decode data to account for errors and gaps in communicated data while dealing with the needs of receivers to quickly provide data as it is received.
Transmission of files and streams between a sender and a recipient over a communications channel has been the subject of much literature. Preferably, a recipient desires to receive an exact copy of data transmitted over a channel by a sender with some level of certainty. Where the channel does not have perfect fidelity (which covers most all physically realizable systems), one concern is how to deal with data lost or garbled in transmission. Lost data (erasures) are often easier to deal with than corrupted data (errors) because the recipient cannot always tell when corrupted data is data received in error. Many error-correcting codes have been developed to correct for erasures and/or for errors.
Data transmission is straightforward when a transmitter and a receiver have all of the computing power and electrical power needed for communications and the channel between the transmitter and receiver is clean enough to allow for relatively error-free communications. The problem of data transmission becomes more difficult when the channel is in an adverse environment or the transmitter and/or receiver has limited capability.
One solution is the use of forward error correcting (FEC) techniques, wherein data is coded at the transmitter such that a receiver can recover from transmission erasures and errors. Where feasible, a reverse channel from the receiver to the transmitter allows for the receiver to communicate about errors to the transmitter, which can then adjust its transmission process accordingly. Often, however, a reverse channel is not available or feasible or is available only with limited capacity. For example, where the transmitter is transmitting to a large number of receivers, the transmitter might not be able to handle reverse channels from all those receivers. As a result, communication protocols often need to be designed without a reverse channel or with a limited capacity reverse channel and, as such, the transmitter may have to deal with widely varying channel conditions without a full view of those channel conditions.
In the case of a packet protocol used for data transport over a channel that can lose packets, a file, stream or other block of data to be transmitted over a packet network is partitioned into equal size input symbols, encoding symbols the same size as the input symbols are generated from the input symbols using an FEC code, and the encoding symbols are placed and sent in packets. The “size” of a symbol can be measured in bits, whether or not the symbol is actually broken into a bit stream, where a symbol has a size of M bits when the symbol is selected from an alphabet of 2M symbols. In such a packet-based communication system, a packet oriented erasure FEC coding scheme might be suitable. A file transmission is called reliable if it allows the intended recipient to recover an exact copy of the original file even in the face of erasures in the network. A stream transmission is called reliable if it allows the intended recipient to recover an exact copy of each part of the stream in a timely manner even in the face of erasures in the network. Both file transmission and stream transmission can also be somewhat reliable, in the sense that some parts of the file or stream are not recoverable or for streaming if some parts of the stream are not recoverable in a timely fashion. Packet loss often occurs because sporadic congestion causes the buffering mechanism in a router to reach its capacity, forcing it to drop incoming packets. Protection against erasures during transport has been the subject of much study.
In the case of a protocol used for data transmission over a noisy channel that can corrupt bits, a block of data to be transmitted over a data transmission channel is partitioned into equal size input symbols, encoding symbols of the same size are generated from the input symbols and the encoding symbols are sent over the channel. For such a noisy channel the size of a symbol is typically one bit or a few bits, whether or not a symbol is actually broken into a bit stream. In such a communication system, a bit-stream oriented error-correction FEC coding scheme might be suitable. A data transmission is called reliable if it allows the intended recipient to recover an exact copy of the original block even in the face of errors (symbol corruption, either detected or undetected in the channel). The transmission can also be somewhat reliable, in the sense that some parts of the block may remain corrupted after recovery. Symbols are often corrupted by sporadic noise, periodic noise, interference, weak signal, blockages in the channel, and a variety of other causes.
One problem with some FEC codes is that they require excessive computing power or memory to operate. Another problem is that the number of output symbols must be determined in advance of the coding process. This can lead to inefficiencies if the loss rate of packets is overestimated, and can lead to failure if the loss rate of packets is underestimated.
Chain reaction codes are FEC codes that allow for generation of an arbitrary number of output symbols from the fixed input symbols of a file or stream. Sometimes, they are referred to as fountain or rateless FEC codes, since the code does not have an a-priori fixed transmission rate and the number of possible output symbols can be independent of the number of input symbols. Novel techniques for generating, using and operating chain reaction codes are shown, for example, in Luby and Shokrollahi.
It is also known to use multi-stage chain reaction (“MSCR”) codes, such as those described in Shokrollahi and developed by Digital Fountain, Inc. under the trade name “Raptor” codes. Multi-stage chain reaction codes are used, for example, in an encoder that receives input symbols from a source file or source stream, generates intermediate symbols from the input symbols and the intermediate symbols are the source symbols for a chain reaction encoder.
For some applications, other variations of codes might be more suitable or otherwise preferred. As used herein, input symbols refer to the data received from a file or stream and source symbols refer to the symbols that are used to generate output symbols. In some cases, the source symbols include the input symbols and in some cases, the source symbols are the input symbols. However, there are cases where the input symbols are encoded and/or transformed into an intermediate set of symbols and that intermediate set is used to generate the output symbols without reference to the input symbols (directly). Thus, input symbols comprise information known to the sender which is to be communicated to the receiver, source symbols are the symbols used by at least one stage of an encoder and are derived from the input symbols, and output symbols comprise symbols that are transmitted by the sender to the receiver.
In some applications, the receiver may begin to use the data before the transmission is complete. For example, with a video-on-demand system, the receiver might start playing out a video after only a small portion of the video data is received and assume that the rest of the video data will be received before it is needed. In such systems, encoding should not be done over the entire transmission, because then some output symbols at the end of the transmission might encode for input symbols needed at the beginning of the video, in which case those output symbols are wasteful since their information is needed when it is not available and is not needed when it is available. To avoid this, the data stream is typically divided into blocks wherein the input data of the block is encoded and sent before the next block is prepared and blocks normally do not depend on input symbols outside those blocks.
For such applications, there is often a trade-off between reliability and lag time between when the transmission starts and when the data can start to be used. For example, if an entire feature length movie were encoded such that errors at the start of the transmission can be corrected using data at the end of the transmission, the receiver might wait until it receives all of the movie data before indicating to the application (or the user of the application) that the movie is available for playback. However, where the total transmission time is long, that can be an unacceptable lag time.
One solution is to encode a stream of data such that the receiver has enough information to begin playback of the movie after some smaller lag time and the receiver can expect to receive further information in time to continue the playback. Naturally, if the data near the end of the transmission provides redundancy for the data at the start of the transmission, that capability is wasted since the first part of the movie will have played back long before that later information is received. Thus, it is efficient to have the redundancy available when it is needed, typically close in time with the decoding of the data. However, if the constraints are too strict, playback might have to begin too early and raise the probability that the receiver hits a playback point in the movie where it does not yet have enough data to decode and would cause a skip or pause.
There are tradeoffs with the use of blocks: too small a block size and not enough error protection is provided, whereas too large a block size and too much delay is seen at the receiver as it waits for blocks to be completely recovered.
In embodiments of the present invention, data is streamed from a transmitter to a receiver, wherein streaming is transferring data with an assumption that the receiver will begin using the data before it is all transmitted and received. The streamed data includes forward error correction (“FEC”) and the rates of data consumption can vary. The transmitter has an input rate at which it uses up its input data and a transmit rate at which it sends that data (and FEC data as needed) and the two rates can be different and can change when FEC is involved, as there is some overhead involved with FEC coding. At the receiver, there is a reception rate (at which the receiver receives data) and a consumption rate (at which the receiver uses up data for its output). The transmitter transmits using a transmit rate higher than the consumption rate and the extra bandwidth is usable for FEC protection and buffering.
In some embodiments, the excess rate varies over a transmission period.
A further understanding of the nature and the advantages of the inventions disclosed herein may be realized by reference to the remaining portions of the specification and the attached drawings.
In embodiments of the present invention, data is streamed from a transmitter to a receiver, wherein streaming is transferring data with an assumption that the receiver will begin using the data before it is all transmitted and received. The streamed data includes forward error correction (“FEC”), which provides improvements over a retransmission-request scheme wherein retransmission of lost packets is requested by a receiver if packet loss is detected.
There are various rates involved in a streaming process. The streamed data includes forward error correction (“FEC”) and the rates of data consumption can vary. The transmitter has an input rate at which it uses up its input data and a transmit rate at which it sends that data (and FEC data as needed) and the two rates can be different and can change when FEC is involved, as there is some overhead involved with FEC coding. At the receiver, there is a reception rate (at which the receiver receives data) and a consumption rate (at which the receiver uses up data for its output). In the absence of data loss over the channel, the reception rate is the same as the transmission rate. There is a raw reception rate, which is the rate at which data is received not counting overhead due to FEC. For example, if the receiver is a video player that outputs an 11 megabits/second (MBS) video stream to a display device, the consumption rate is 11 MBS. Where the consumed data is played out, on a display, audio, processor or other player of data, the consumption rate might be referred to as the “playout” rate.
With many streams, it is desirable that the consumption be continuous such that the presentation of streamed data is not stalled or blocky, which would occur if all the data at the receiver is consumed and the reception rate is less than the consumption rate. To avoid this, receivers typically have buffers so that the reception rate can temporarily drop below the consumption rate (due to packet loss, congestion, etc.) without running out of data to consume.
Where the reception rate is exactly the consumption rate, there is no extra to be buffered. To fill the receiver buffer, a streaming system might be set up such that the transmission rate is higher than the consumption rate, or the transmission starts before the play-out begins. In either case, there is sufficient reception to at least partially fill the receiver buffer.
In any case, using FEC rather than retransmission is often the better approach. With retransmission, there needs to be enough of a receiver buffer to continue to play out data while the receiver sends a retransmission request and receives a response, otherwise the player will stall when it reaches the missing data that has yet to be replaced.
In specific embodiments, the transmitter transmits using a transmit rate higher than the consumption rate and the extra bandwidth is used in part for FEC protection and in part for buffer filling to allow for features such as a “quick start”, where playout can begin soon after reception starts with sufficient buffer fill to reduce the risk of stalling the playout.
In some embodiments, the bandwidth used for FEC protection and the amount of overhead used for buffer filling varies over time. For example, the overall transmission bit-rate might be a constant value, somewhat higher than the consumption rate, with more of the excess devoted to buffer filling at the start of the transmission and less devoted to buffer filling at later times. With a constant bit rate, the FEC protection would be less at the start of the transmission and higher at later times. A constant bit rate is not required and a constant FEC overhead rate might be used.
Overview
Protocols for FEC protection of streaming media using multi-stage chain reaction (MSCR) codes, such as those used by DF Raptor™ encoders and decoders are described below for applications including DVB-IPI applications. Examples of such multi-stage codes are described in Shokrollahi. It should be understood for the purposes of this disclosure that MSCR codes are used as just examples of multi-stage codes and the teachings of this disclosure could be used with multi-stage codes other than the those described in Shokrollahi.
The multi-stage codes could be used for FEC protection of DVB-IPI real-time applications (multicast and unicast video with both MPEG-2 Transport Stream encapsulation and direct transport of audio and video over RTP).
The FEC Building Block [3] defined by the IETF Reliable Multicast working group describes an approach to specification of protocols using FEC which separates the definition of the protocol from the specification of the FEC code itself. This allows issues of protocol design to be addressed independently from the very different issues of FEC code selection. In the language of the FEC Building Block, separate specifications are provided for “Content Delivery Protocols” and for “FEC Schemes”, the former defining the protocols and the latter defining the actual FEC codes. The FEC Building Block describes rules that both kinds of specification must follow so that they can be used together and so it provides the “glue” between Content Delivery Protocols and FEC Schemes.
Following this approach, this specification is organized as a number of modular components. These are then combined to form complete protocols suitable for the DVB-IPI applications. These components include (1) an FEC Streaming Framework, which provides an overall protocol framework for the application of FEC to media streams and is described in Section 2; (2) a number of FEC Schemes, which define protocol components suitable for various classes of application and which define how core MSCR codes are applied to streaming applications, defined in Section 3; (3) modular protocol components that can be used to support applications based on the FEC Streaming Framework and FEC Schemes defined herein, shown in Section 4; and (4) protocol specifications for multicast and unicast video with both MPEG-2 Transport Stream encapsulation and direct transport of audio and video over RTP, constructed using the building blocks described above (Section 5).
Terms and Acronyms
Encoders and Decoders
In communications system 100, an input file 101, or an input stream 105, is provided to an input symbol generator 110. Input symbol generator 110 generates a sequence of one or more input symbols (IS(0), IS(1), IS(2), . . . ) from the input file or stream, with each input symbol having a value and a position (denoted in
Static key generator 130 produces a stream of static keys S0, S1, . . . . The number of the static keys generated is generally limited and depends on the specific embodiment of encoder 115. The generation of static keys will be subsequently described in more detail. Dynamic key generator 120 generates a dynamic key for each output symbol to be generated by the encoder 115. Each dynamic key is generated so that a large fraction of the dynamic keys for the same input file are unique. For example, Luby I describes embodiments of key generators that can be used. The outputs of dynamic key generator 120 and the static key generator 130 are provided to encoder 115.
From each key I provided by dynamic key generator 120, encoder 115 generates an output symbol, with a value B(I), from the input symbols provided by the input symbol generator. The operation of encoder 115 will be described in more detail below. The value of each output symbol is generated based on its key, on some function of one or more of the input symbols, and possibly on or more redundant symbols that had been computed from the input symbols. The collection of input symbols and redundant symbols that give rise to a specific output symbol is referred to herein as the output symbol's “associated symbols” or just its “associates”. The selection of the function (the “value function”) and the associates is done according to a process described in more detail below. Typically, but not always, M is the same for input symbols and output symbols, i.e., they both code for the same number of bits.
In some embodiments, the number K of input symbols is used by the encoder 115 to select the associates. If K is not known in advance, such as where the input is a streaming file, K can be just an estimate. The value K might also be used by encoder 115 to allocate storage for input symbols and any intermediate symbols generated by encoder 115.
Encoder 115 provides output symbols to a transmit module 140. Transmit module 140 is also provided the key of each such output symbol from the dynamic key generator 120. Transmit module 140 transmits the output symbols, and depending on the keying method used, transmit module 140 might also transmit some data about the keys of the transmitted output symbols, over a channel 145 to a receive module 150. Channel 145 is assumed to be an erasure channel, but that is not a requirement for proper operation of communication system 100. Modules 140, 145 and 150 can be any suitable hardware components, software components, physical media, or any combination thereof, so long as transmit module 140 is adapted to transmit output symbols and any needed data about their keys to channel 145 and receive module 150 is adapted to receive symbols and potentially some data about their keys from channel 145. The value of K, if used to determine the associates, can be sent over channel 145, or it may be set ahead of time by agreement of encoder 115 and decoder 155.
As explained above, channel 145 can be a real-time channel, such as a path through the Internet or a broadcast link from a television transmitter to a television recipient or a telephone connection from one point to another, or channel 145 can be a storage channel, such as a CD-ROM, disk drive, Web site, or the like. Channel 145 might even be a combination of a real-time channel and a storage channel, such as a channel formed when one person transmits an input file from a personal computer to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) over a telephone line, the input file is stored on a Web server and is subsequently transmitted to a recipient over the Internet.
Because channel 145 is assumed to be an erasure channel, communications system 100 does not assume a one-to-one correspondence between the output symbols that exit receive module 150 and the output symbols that go into transmit module 140. In fact, where channel 145 comprises a packet network, communications system 100 might not even be able to assume that the relative order of any two or more packets is preserved in transit through channel 145. Therefore, the key of the output symbols is determined using one or more of the keying schemes described above, and not necessarily determined by the order in which the output symbols exit receive module 150.
Receive module 150 provides the output symbols to a decoder 155, and any data receive module 150 receives about the keys of these output symbols is provided to a dynamic key regenerator 160. Dynamic key regenerator 160 regenerates the dynamic keys for the received output symbols and provides these dynamic keys to decoder 155. Static key generator 163 regenerates the static keys S0, S1, . . . and provides them to decoder 155. The static key generator has access to random number generator 135 used both during the encoding and the decoding process. This can be in the form of access to the same physical device if the random numbers are generated on such device, or in the form of access to the same algorithm for the generation of random numbers to achieve identical behavior. Decoder 155 uses the keys provided by dynamic key regenerator 160 and static key generator 163 together with the corresponding output symbols, to recover the input symbols (again IS(0), IS(1), IS(2), . . . ). Decoder 155 provides the recovered input symbols to an input file reassembler 165, which generates a copy 170 of input file 101 or input stream 105.
Encoder 115 can encode data using techniques shown herein so that the FEC encoding has variable overhead.
2 FEC Streaming Framework
2.1 Introduction
This section defines a framework for the definition of CDPs, in the sense of the FEC Building Block, which provides for FEC protection of streamed data flows over UDP. This section does not define a complete Content Delivery Protocol, but rather defines only those aspects that are expected to be common to all Content Delivery Protocols that support streaming data over UDP.
The framework defined in this section is not specific to a single streaming application protocol. The framework provides FEC protection for application protocol flows over UDP and for combined protection of multiple such flows. For example, multiple RTP flows may be protected together with the associated RTCP flows and potentially also other related flows such as MIKEY packets. For many FEC Schemes in many loss conditions, the improvement in reliability achievable through the use of FEC with a given FEC overhead increases as the amount of data protected as a single block increases. Thus there is considerable advantage in the ability to protect multiple streams together, particularly in cases where the receiver requires all the streams in order to offer a useful service to the user.
This framework does not define how the flows to be protected are determined, nor how the details of the protected flows and the FEC streams which protect them are communicated from sender to receiver. Complete Content Delivery Protocol specifications—such as those presented in Section 5—address these signalling requirements. However, this section does specify the information which is required by the FEC Streaming Framework at sender and receiver—for example details of the flows to be FEC protected and the flow(s) that will carry the FEC protection data. We also specify SDP attributes which the Content Delivery Protocols use to communicate this information.
The architecture outlined above is illustrated in
2.2 Procedural Overview
2.2.1 General
The mechanism defined in this section comprises three components:
The mechanism does not place any restrictions on the source data which can be protected together, except that the source data is carried over UDP. The data may be from several different UDP flows that are protected jointly. In general, multiple source blocks will be constructed for a stream each constructed from different sets of source packets. For example, each source block may be constructed from those source packets related to a particular segment of the stream in time.
A receiver supporting this streaming framework should support the packet format for FEC Source packets and should also support the packet format for FEC Repair packets.
This section does not define how the sender determines which source packets are included in which source blocks. A specific Content Delivery Protocol may define this mapping or it may be left as implementation dependent at the sender. However, a CDP specification should define how a receiver determines the length of time it should wait to receive FEC repair packets for any given source block.
At the sender, the mechanism processes original UDP packets to create:
The FEC Streaming Framework uses the FEC encoder specified by the FEC Scheme in use to generate the desired quantity of repair symbols from a source block. These repair symbols are then sent using the FEC repair packet format to the receiver. The FEC Repair packets are sent to a UDP destination port different from any of the original UDP packets' destination port(s) as indicated by the FEC Streaming Configuration Information.
The receiver recovers original source packets directly from any FEC Source packets received. The receiver also uses the received FEC Source Packets to construct a stored copy of the original packets in the same source block format as constructed at the sender.
If any FEC Source packets related to a given source block have been lost, then this copy of the source block at the receiver will be incomplete. If sufficient FEC source and FEC Repair packets related to that source block have been received, the FEC Framework may use the FEC decoding algorithm defined by the FEC Scheme to recover a (hopefully, but not necessarily, complete) copy of the source block. The SPI for the missing source packets can then be extracted from the completed parts of the source block and used to reconstruct the source packets to be passed to the application.
Note that the receiver may need to buffer received source packets to allow time for the FEC Repair packets to arrive and FEC decoding to be performed before some or all of the received or recovered packets are passed to the application. If such a buffer is not provided, then the application must be able to deal with the severe re-ordering of packets that will be required. However, such buffering is Content Delivery Protocol and/or implementation-specific and is not specified here.
The receiver of FEC Source packets identifies the source block and the position within the source block occupied by the SPI derived from each packet. This information is known as FEC Source Packet Identification Information and may be communicated in several ways. The FEC Source Packet Identification Information may be encoded into a specific field within the FEC Source packet format defined in this specification, called the Source FEC Payload ID field. The exact contents and format of the Source FEC Payload ID field are defined by the FEC Scheme. Alternatively, the FEC Scheme or CDP may define how the FEC Source Packet Identification Information is derived from other fields within the source packets. This document defines the way that the Source FEC Payload ID field, if used, is appended to source packets to form FEC Source packets.
The receiver of FEC Repair packets should also be able to identify the source block and the relationship between the contained repair data and the original source block. This information is known as FEC Repair Packet Identification information. This information should be encoded into a specific field, the Repair FEC Payload ID field, the contents and format of which are defined by the FEC Scheme.
Any FEC Schemes to be used in conjunction with this specification should be a systematic FEC Scheme and should be based on source blocks. The FEC Scheme may define different FEC Payload ID field formats for FEC Source packets and FEC Repair packets.
2.2.2 Sender Operation
It is assumed that the sender has constructed or received original data packets for the session. These may be RTP, RTCP, MIKEY or other UDP packets. The following operations describe a possible way to generate compliant FEC Source packet and FEC repair packet streams:
The following describes a possible receiver algorithm, when receiving an FEC source or repair packet:
Note that the above procedure may result in a situation in which not all original source packets are recovered.
Source packets which are correctly received and those which are reconstructed may be delivered to the application out of order and in a different order from the order of arrival at the receiver. Alternatively, buffering and packet re-ordering may be required to re-order received and reconstructed source packets into the order they were placed into the source block, if that is necessary according to the application.
2.3 Protocol Specification
2.3.1 General
This section specifies the protocol elements for the FEC Streaming Framework. The protocol comprises three components which are described in the following sections:
The operation of the FEC Streaming Framework is governed by certain FEC Streaming Configuration Information. This configuration information is also defined in this section. A complete protocol specification that uses this framework should specify the means to determine and communicate this information between sender and receiver.
2.3.2 Structure of the source block
This clause defines the layout of the source block. The source block comprises a concatenation of SPI for at least one original source UDP packet.
Let
Then, the source block is constructed by concatenating SPI[i] for i=0, 2, . . . n−1. The source block size, S, is then given by sum {s[i]*T, i=0, . . . , n−1}.
Source blocks are identified by integer Source Block Numbers and symbols within a source block by integer Encoding Symbol IDs. This section does not specify how Source Block Numbers are allocated to source blocks. Symbols are numbered consecutively starting from zero within the source block. Each source packet is associated with the Encoding Symbol ID of the first symbol containing SPI for that packet. Thus, the Encoding Symbol ID value associated with the j-th source packet, ESI[j], is given by
ESI[j]=0, for j=0
ESI[j]=sum{s[i],i=0, . . . ,(j−1)}, for 0<j<n
The Source FEC Packet Identification Information comprises the identity of the source block and the Encoding Symbol ID associated with the packet.
A UDP flow is uniquely defined by an IP source and destination address and UDP source and destination port values. The assignment of UDP flow ID values to UDP flows is part of the FEC Streaming Configuration Information.
2.3.3 Packet Format for FEC Source Packets
The packet format for FEC Source packets should be used to transport the payload of an original source UDP packet. As depicted in
The IP and UDP header fields should be identical to those of the original source packet. The Original UDP Payload field should be identical to the UDP payload of the original source packet. The UDP payload of the FEC Source packet should consist of the Original UDP Payload followed by the Source FEC Payload ID field.
The Source FEC Payload ID field, if present, contains information required for the operation of the FEC algorithm, in particular for the derivation of the Source FEC Packet Identification Information. The format of the Source FEC Payload ID and the derivation of the Source FEC Packet Identification Information are defined by the FEC Scheme. Note that the FEC Scheme or CDP may define a means to derive the Source FEC Packet Identification Information from other information in the source packet (for example the RTP Sequence number). In this case the Source FEC Payload ID field described here is not appended to the packet and the Source FEC packet is identical in every way to the original Source packet.
2.3.4 Packet Format for FEC Repair Packets
The packet format for FEC Repair packets is shown in
Any number of whole repair symbols may be contained within an FEC Repair packet, subject to packet size restrictions or other restrictions defined by the FEC Scheme. The number of repair symbols within a packet can be determined from the symbol length and the packet length. Partial repair symbols should not be included in FEC repair packets.
2.3.5 FEC Streaming Configuration Information
The FEC Streaming Configuration Information is information that the FEC Streaming Framework needs in order to apply FEC protection to the UDP flows. A complete Content Delivery Protocol specification for streaming that uses the framework specified here should include details of how this information is derived and communicated between sender and receiver.
The FEC Streaming Configuration Information includes identification of a number of UDP packet flows. Each UDP packet flow is uniquely identified by a tuple {Source IP Address, Destination IP Address, Source UDP port, Destination UDP port}.
A single instance of the FEC-SF provides FEC protection for all packets of a specified set of source UDP packet flows, by means of one or more UDP packet flows containing repair packets. The FEC Streaming Configuration Information includes, for each instance of the FEC-SF:
Item (3) above is included in the FEC Object Transmission Information.
Multiple instances of the FEC-SF, with separate and independent FEC Streaming Configuration Information, may be present at a sender or receiver. A single instance of the FEC-SF protects all packets of all the source UDP packet flows identified in (2) above i.e. all packets on those flows should be FEC Source packets as defined in Section 2.3.3. A single source UDP packet flow should not be protected by more than one FEC-SF instance.
A single FEC repair flow provides repair packets for a single instance of the FEC-SF. Other packets should not be sent within this flow i.e. all packets in the FEC repair flow should be FEC repair packets as defined in Section 2.3.4 and should relate to the same FEC-SF instance.
The FEC-SF requires to be informed of the symbol size to be used for each source block. This information may be included in the FEC Streaming Configuration Information or it may be communicated by other means, for example within the FEC Repair Payload ID field. A complete Content Delivery Protocol specification should specify how this information is communicated between sender and receiver.
2.3.6 FEC Scheme Requirements
The preferred FEC scheme is systematic, is based on discrete source blocks, specifies how the Source Block Number and Encoding Symbol ID associated with a source packet are derived or communicated from sender to receiver (for example, within the Source FEC Payload ID field), and specifies how the symbol length is derived or communicated from sender to receiver (for example, as part of the FEC Object Transmission Information).
3. FEC Schemes for Streaming
3.1 MSCR FEC Scheme for Arbitrary Packet Flows
This clause defines a FEC Scheme for MSCR protection of arbitrary packet flows over UDP.
3.1.1 Formats and Codes
3.1.1.1 FEC Object Transmission Information
3.1.1.1.1 FEC Object Transmission Element
The FEC Object Transmission Element, FEC Encoding ID is set to a predetermined value.
3.1.1.1.2 Common
This Common FEC Object Transmission Information elements and their value ranges for this scheme are such that the Maximum Source Block Length is a non-negative integer less than 216, in units of symbols, and the Encoding Symbol Size is a non-negative integer less than 216, in units of bytes. The format for the encoded Common FEC Object Transmission Information elements can be a four-octet field defined in
3.1.1.2 FEC Payload ID
3.1.1.2.1 Source FEC Payload ID
The Source FEC payload ID might be as shown in
3.1.1.2.2 Repair FEC Payload ID
The structure of the Repair FEC Payload ID is defined in
3.1.2 Procedures
This FEC Scheme uses the procedures of the framework defined in Section 2 to construct a source block to which the FEC code can be applied. The sender should allocate Source Block Numbers to source blocks sequentially, wrapping around to zero after Source Block Number 216-1. The sender should not construct source blocks which are larger than the Maximum Source Block Length signaled within the FEC Object Transmission Information.
3.1.3 FEC Code Specification
The source block passed to the MSCR FEC encoder comprises the Source Block constructed according to Section 3.1.2 extended with zero or more padding symbols such that the total number of symbols in the source block is equal to the Maximum Source Block Length signaled in the FEC Object Transmission Information (see Section 3.1.1.1.2). Thus the value of K used by the FEC encoded is equal to the Maximum Source Block Length. Padding symbols can be bytes set to the value zero.
The symbol size, T, to be used for source block construction and the repair symbol construction are is equal to the Encoding Symbol Size signaled in the FEC Object Transmission Information (see Section 3.1.1.1.2). The parameter T is set such that the number of source symbols in any source block is at most KMAX=8192.
Recommended parameters are presented in section 3.1.3.3.
3.1.3.1 Encoding Packet Construction
As described in section 2.3.4, each repair packet contains the the Source Block Number (SBN), the Encoding Symbol ID (ESI), the Source Block Length (SBL), and the repair symbol(s).
The number of repair symbols contained within a repair packet is computed from the packet length. The ESI values placed into the repair packets and the repair symbol triples used to generate the repair symbols are computed as described in sub-clause C.3.2.2 of [2].
The Source Block Length field of the Repair FEC Payload ID field is set to the number of symbols included in the Source Packet Information of packets associated with the source block, i.e., before padding to the Maximum Source Block Length.
3.1.3.2 Transport
This sub-clause describes the information exchange between the MSCR encoder/decoder and any transport protocol making use of MSCR FEC for streaming.
The MSCR encoder for streaming uses the following information from the transport protocol for each source block:
The MSCR encoder supplies the transport protocol with encoding packet information comprising, for each repair packet:
The transport protocol communicates this information transparently to the MSCR decoder.
A suitable transport protocol is defined in this specification.
3.1.3.3 Example Parameters
3.1.3.3.1 Parameter Derivation Algorithm
This section provides recommendations for the derivation of the transport parameter T. This recommendation is based on the following input parameters:
A requirement on these inputs is that ceil(B/P)≦KMAX Based on the above inputs, the transport parameter T is calculated as follows:
Let,
G=min{ceil(P·KMIN/B),P/A,GMAX}−the approximate number of symbols per packet
T=floor(P/(A·G))·A
The value of T derived above should be considered as a guide to the actual value of T used. It may be advantageous to ensure that T divides into P, or it may be advantageous to set the value of T smaller to minimize wastage when full size repair symbols are used to recover partial source symbols at the end of lost source packets (as long as the maximum number of source symbols in a source block does not exceed KMAX). Furthermore, the choice of T may depend on the source packet size distribution, e.g., if all source packets are the same size then it is advantageous to choose T so that the actual payload size of a repair packet P′, where P′ is a multiple of T, is equal to (or as few bytes as possible larger than) the number of bytes each source packet occupies in the source block.
Recommended settings for the input parameters, A, KMIN and GMAX are A=16, KMIN=640, GMAX=10.
3.1.3.3.2 Examples
The above algorithm leads to transport parameters as shown in Table 3 below, assuming the recommended values for A, KMIN and GMAX and P=1424:
3.2 MSCR FEC Scheme for a Single Sequenced Packet Flow
This section defines an alternative FEC Scheme for FEC protection of a single packet flow in which source packets each carry a unique sequence number. We call such a packet flow a “sequenced flow”. A primary example would be FEC protection of an RTP flow containing an MPEG-2 Transport Stream within which all data for the service is multiplexed. In this case the RTP Sequence Numbers can be used to derive the Source FEC Packet Identification Information.
Compared to the FEC Scheme defined in Section 3.1, the primary advantage of this scheme is that it does not modify source packets in any way. As a result this FEC scheme can be used in the presence of legacy equipment which would not recognize source packets which had been modified according to the schemes defined in Section 3.1.
In this FEC Scheme, the role played by the Source FEC Payload ID in the scheme of Section 3.1 is replaced by the sequence number. The sequence numbers of packets within each flow to be protected should be incremented by one for each packet in the stream.
The size of the Source Packet Information within a given Source Block for each packet within a given sequenced flow should be the same and is derived from the size of the FEC Repair packets, which should also all be the same size for a given source block.
3.2.1 Formats and Codes
3.2.1.1 FEC Object Transmission Information
3.2.1.1.1 Mandatory
This FEC Scheme is identified by a predetermined FEC Encoding ID.
3.2.1.1.2 Common
See Section 3.1.1.1.2
3.2.1.1.3 Scheme Specific
No Scheme-specific FEC Object Transmission Information is defined by this FEC Scheme.
3.2.1.2 FEC Payload ID
3.2.1.2.1 Source FEC Payload ID
The Source FEC Payload ID field is not used by this FEC Scheme. Source packets are not modified in any way by this FEC Scheme.
3.2.1.2.2 Repair FEC Payload ID
The Repair FEC Payload ID format for this FEC Scheme is shown in
3.2.2 Procedures
This FEC Scheme uses the procedures of the framework defined in Section 2 to construct a source block to which the FEC code can be applied. In addition to the procedures defined there, the following procedures apply.
3.2.2.1 Derivation of Source FEC Packet Identification Information
The Source FEC Packet Identification Information for a source packet is derived from the sequence number of the packet and information received in the Repair FEC packets. Source blocks are identified by the sequence number of the first source packet in the block. This information is signaled in all Repair FEC packets associated with the source block in the Initial Sequence Number field.
The length of the Source Packet Information (in bytes) for source packets within a source block is equal to length of the payload containing encoding symbols of the repair packets (i.e. not including the Repair FEC Payload ID) for that block, which should all be the same. The Source Packet Information Length (SPIL) in symbols is equal to this length divided by the Encoding Symbol Size (which is signaled in the Common FEC Object Transmission Information).
The set of source packets which are included in the source block is determined from the Initial Sequence Number (ISN) and Source Block Length (SBL) as follows:
Let,
Note that if no FEC Repair packets are received, then no FEC decoding is possible and it is unnecessary for the receiver to identify the Source FEC Packet Identification Information for the source packets.
The Encoding Symbol ID for a packet is derived from the following information:
Then the Encoding Symbol ID for packet with sequence number Ns is determined by the following formula:
ESI=(Ns−I)·LP
Note that all repair packet associated to a given Source Block should contain the same Source Block Length, Source Packet Information Length and Initial Sequence Number.
3.2.2.2 Derivation of Repair Packet Encoding Symbol IDs
The Encoding Symbol ID for a repair packet indicates which repair symbols the packet contains. This is given directly by the Encoding Symbol ID field of the Repair FEC Payload ID.
3.2.2.3 Procedures for RTP Flows
n the specific case of RTP packet flows, then the RTP Sequence Number field is used as the sequence number in the procedures described above.
3.2.3 FEC Code Specification
The requirements of section 3.1.3 apply.
3.2.3.1.1 Parameter Derivation Algorithm
It is recommended that the algorithm of Section 3.1.3.3.1 is used.
In the case of RTP streams carrying MPEG-2 Transport Streams, then the maximum repair packet size should be set to
P=ceil((n·188+15)/A)·A
Where n is the nominal number of 188 byte TS packets per IP Source packet.
The maximum source block size is determined by application configuration at the sender.
3.2.3.1.2 Examples
The above algorithm leads to transport parameters for MPEG-2 Transport Streams as shown in Table 4 below, assuming the recommended values for A, KMIN and GMAX:
4 Common Protocol Elements
This section defines a number of common protocol elements which can be used in conjunction with the framework defined in Section 2 and the FEC Schemes defined in Section 3 to construct complete protocols for FEC protection of streaming media.
4.1 FEC Feedback protocol
4.1.1 General
This section specifies a simple, optional, protocol for receivers to provide feedback about the reception of FEC data in the case of unicast streams. This feedback may be used by senders to adapt the FEC parameters. Feedback is provided about the reception and decoding success or failure for groups of source blocks, known as ‘feedback groups’.
The capability to accept feedback must be advertised by the sender to the receiver, along with the IP address and destination UDP port to which the feedback should be sent and the requested size of the feedback groups on which feedback is requested.
Feedback is provided on a “best-effort” basis—senders should not rely on receiving feedback messages.
In this version of the protocol, a single Feedback Report message is provided which provides feedback on a single feedback group.
FEC Feedback Protocol messages are sent over UDP with the UDP payload formatted according to
The format of the Payload field for the Feedback report is defined in
This section defines the procedures at the device which is sending FEC protected data and receiving FEC Feedback Protocol data.
4.1.3.1.1 General
The support of the FEC Feedback Protocol at senders is optional. Senders advertise support of the FEC Feedback Protocol, the highest version supported, the IP destination address and UDP destination port that messages should be sent to and the requested size of feedback groups in the FEC Streaming Configuration Information. The mechanism used to communicate the FEC Streaming Configuration Information is Content Delivery Protocol specific.
The FEC Sender can ignore FEC Feedback Protocol packets received with an unrecognized version number and FEC Feedback Protocol packets received with a reserved message type.
In the case the FEC Feedback Protocol messages are received which are longer than expected, the Sender should discard the additional bytes and process the message as normal.
4.1.3.1.2 Receipt of Feedback Report Messages
On receipt of a Feedback Report message, the FEC Sender may adapt the FEC parameters (source block size, sending rate and arrangement etc.) for subsequent source blocks based on the information received in the Feedback Report Message.
In the case that the feedback group size is a single source block, and if
This section defines the procedures at the device which is receiving FEC protected data and sending FEC Feedback Protocol data.
4.1.3.2.1 General
The support of the FEC Feedback Protocol at receivers is optional.
If support of the FEC Feedback Protocol has not been advertised by the FEC Sender, then the FEC Receiver should not send FEC Feedback Protocol messages.
If support of the FEC Feedback Protocol has been advertised by the FEC Sender, then the FEC Receiver can use the information in the FEC Streaming Configuration Information to determine the highest version supported by the FEC Sender, the IP destination address and UDP destination port that messages should be sent to and the size of the feedback groups.
The FEC Receiver should not send FEC Feedback Protocol messages with a version number which is higher than the highest version supported by the FEC Sender.
The FEC Receiver should determine on a per FEC Streaming Framework instance basis whether the FEC Feedback Protocol will be used. A feedback group should comprise a consecutive sequence of Source Blocks except that Source Blocks for which no repair packets have been received should not be included in any feedback group. The number of source blocks in a feedback group should be equal to the requested feedback group size indicated in the FEC Streaming Configuration Information.
Each Source Block in the feedback group should be categorised either “Error Free”, “Decoding Successful” or “Decoding Unsuccessful” as described in the following sections.
The FEC receiver should send a Feedback Report message immediately that the category of all Source Blocks in the feedback group is determined.
4.1.3.2.2 “Error Free” Source Blocks
A Source Block can be considered “Error free” immediately that the FEC Receiver determines that FEC decoding will not be necessary for a source block.
4.1.3.2.3 “Decoding Successful” Source Blocks
A Source Block can be considered as “Decoding Successful” immediately on successful decoding of the Source Block.
4.1.3.2.4 “Decoding Unsuccessful” Source Blocks
A Source Block can be considered as “Decoding Unsuccessful” immediately that the FEC Receiver determines that FEC decoding for the source block is necessary but is not possible. The FEC Receiver can determine that FEC decoding for a source block is necessary but is not possible at the point when:
The FEC Receiver may determine that FEC decoding for a source block is necessary but is not possible at other times, for example if no further repair symbols have been received for the source block for some time period determined by the FEC Receiver.
4.2 FEC Sending Arrangements
The FEC Streaming Framework defined in Section 2 does not prescribe any arrangement of transmitted packets. This section described approaches that may be used by the sender to determine the sending arrangement for the FEC Source and FEC Repair packets of the stream.
4.2.1 Simple Constant Rate FEC Sending
This section describes a simple sending arrangement in which the sending rate of FEC Source Packets and FEC Repair Packets is kept constant within each source block.
For each source block, source packets are sent first, followed by repair packets. All packets of one source block are sent before any packets of the subsequent block.
The sending data rate of all data (source and repair) is constant within the source block and given by the following formula:
Where:
This sections presents a number of algorithms that may be used by the sender to determine FEC Source Block boundaries.
4.3.1 Protection Period Based
In this approach, Source Blocks are constructed based on a time period, known as a “protection period”. In general, the protection period is the same for every source block of a stream. However, it may be varied on a block by block basis.
In the case of a real-time stream, the source packets of a source block are exactly those that arrive within a period of time equal to the protection period.
In the case of pre-encoded content, the source packets of a source block are exactly those that would be sent within a period of time equal to the protection period in the normal sending arrangement for a non-FEC protected stream generated from that content.
In this approach, using the sending arrangements of Sections 4.2.1 and elsewhere packets are buffered at the receiver for a time at least equal to the longest playout time of any source block.
5 Content Delivery Protocols
This section defines several complete Content Delivery Protocols, making use of the components defined in Sections 2-4.
5.1 Multicast MPEG-2 Transport Stream
This section defines a Content Delivery Protocol for FEC protected multicast delivery of MPEG-2 Transport Streams.
5.1.1 Control Protocols
Session information include:
FEC protection of the MPEG-2 Transport Stream may be provided using
Each MPEG-2 Transport Stream should be protected independently.
5.2 Unicast MPEG-2 Transport Stream
This section defines a Content Delivery Protocol for FEC protected unicast delivery of MPEG-2 Transport Streams.
5.2.1 Control Protocols
Session information can include:
The Repair FEC flow associated with a unicast RTP flow can be sent to the destination UDP port number two higher than the destination UDP port to which the RTP flow is sent.
The Flow ID for the MPEG-2 TS flow is zero.
If FEC Feedback is requested by the sender and supported by the receiver, then FEC Feedback messages can be sent to the address/UDP port which are used as the source address/port for the FEC repair stream from server to receiver.
5.2.2 Transport Protocol
FEC protection of the MPEG-2 Transport Stream may be provided using
Each MPEG-2 Transport Stream can be protected independently.
5.3 Generic Multicast Video
This section defines a Content Delivery Protocol for FEC protected multicast delivery of arbitrary audio/video streams (for example H.264 encapsulated in RTP). This section is provided to describe how FEC can be applied to future extensions to the DVB IPI Handbook which address direct encapsulation of audio/video streams in RTP.
5.3.1 Control Protocols
Session information includes:
The audio/video stream is assumed to be carried by one or more UDP flows (probably RTP flows).
FEC protection of these UDP flows may be provided using
This section defines a Content Delivery Protocol for FEC protected unicast delivery of arbitrary audio/video streams (for example H.264 encapsulated in RTP). This section is provided to describe how FEC can be applied to future extensions to the DVB IPI Handbook which address direct encapsulation of audio/video streams in RTP.
5.4.1 Control Protocols
Session information includes:
If FEC Feedback is requested by the sender and supported by the receiver, then FEC Feedback messages can be sent to the address/UDP port which are used as the source address/port for the FEC repair stream from server to receiver.
5.4.2 Transport Protocols
The audio/video stream is assumed to be carried by one or more UDP flows (probably RTP flows).
FEC protection of these UDP flows may be provided using
This section provides some further optional recommendations for the use of the above FEC streaming protocols in the DVB environment.
6.1 Multicast
6.1.1 Layered FEC Sending (Optional)
Senders may advertise more than on IP multicast address for repair packets associated with a single source stream. Senders should send distinct repair packets on each multicast group.
Receivers may join any number of such multicast groups in order to adapt the rate of received repair packets according to the local error rates.
However, it should be noted that in order to meet IPTV quality targets, sufficient overhead must be received to overcome even relatively rare error events and thus receivers should measure error rates over a sufficiently long period in order to determine the amount of repair data required.
6.2 Unicast
6.2.1 Source Block Construction at Stream Start (Optional)
Source Block boundaries should be identified using the protection period algorithm defined in Section 4.4.1. The following algorithm is recommended for determining the protection periods, FEC overhead and sending rate to be used at any point at which a new stream is to be played out (e.g. start of stream or when using trick-modes). This algorithm allocates the initial available bandwidth above the source rate evenly between FEC repair data and fast buffer fill data. The initial available bandwidth may be greater than the nominal (long term) bandwidth or it may be the same, but should not be less.
Let,
Bmax be the initial bandwidth available to the stream (source and FEC)
Bnom be the nominal bandwidth for the stream (source and FEC)
Bsrc be the source bandwidth
Pinit be the initial buffering delay
Pfinal be the target protection period
P be the ith protection period for i=0, 1, . . .
Sinit be the initial source sending rate
Rinit be the initial repair sending rate
Then,
and, for all i such that Pi<Pfinal, then
And for all i such that Pi>=Pfinal
Pi+1=Pi
For protection periods of duration less that Pfinal, the source sending rate should be Sinit and the repair sending rate Rinit. After this, the source sending rate should be reduced to Bsrc. This arrangement means that during the initial period the source sending rate is higher than the actual source data rate and thus each protection period contains data which will take longer to play out than it took to send. As a result the subsequent protection period can be made longer, according to the algorithm above, without starving the receiver.
The minimum buffering time at the receiver advertised in the Service Discovery information should be Pinit.
6.2.2 Use of FEC Feedback (Optional)
FEC Feedback may be used on a long term basis to adjust the FEC Overhead which is provided to an individual user. However, it should be noted that in order to meet IPTV quality targets, sufficient overhead must be provided to overcome even relatively rare error events and thus feedback data gathered over a short period of time is not sufficient to determine the long-term overhead required.
In the case that the protection period is significantly longer than the IP round trip time between sender and receiver, then FEC Feedback may be requested for feedback groups of a single source block. In this case, feedback reports may be used to abandon sending of FEC repair packets for a source block in a report is received indicating that this source block has been successfully received/decoded.
While the invention has been described with respect to exemplary embodiments, one skilled in the art will recognize that numerous modifications are possible. For example, the methods and processes described herein may be implemented using hardware components, software components, and/or any combination thereof. Thus, although the invention has been described with respect to exemplary embodiments, it will be appreciated that the invention is intended to cover all modifications and equivalents within the scope of the following claims.
This application claims priority from and is a non-provisional of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/773,185 filed Feb. 13, 2006 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/773,501 filed Feb. 14, 2006. The following references are include here and are incorporated by reference for all purposes: U.S. Pat. No. 6,307,487 entitled “Information Additive Code Generator and Decoder for Communication Systems” issued to Luby (hereinafter “Luby”); and U.S. Pat. No. 7,068,729 issued to Shokrollahi et al. entitled “Multi-Stage Code Generator and Decoder for Communication Systems” (hereinafter “Shokrollahi”).
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3909721 | Bussgang et al. | Sep 1975 | A |
| 4365338 | McRae et al. | Dec 1982 | A |
| 4589112 | Karim | May 1986 | A |
| 4901319 | Ross | Feb 1990 | A |
| 5136592 | Weng | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5153591 | Clark | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5329369 | Willis et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5331320 | Cideciyan et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5371532 | Gelman et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5372532 | Robertson, Jr. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5379297 | Glover et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5421031 | De Bey | May 1995 | A |
| 5425050 | Schreiber et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5432787 | Chethik | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5455823 | Noreen et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5465318 | Sejnoha | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5517508 | Scott | May 1996 | A |
| 5524025 | Lawrence et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5566208 | Balakrishnan | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5568614 | Mendelson et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5583784 | Kapust et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5608738 | Matsushita | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5617541 | Albanese et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5642365 | Murakami et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5659614 | Bailey, III | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5699473 | Kim | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5701582 | DeBey | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5751336 | Aggarwal et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5754563 | White | May 1998 | A |
| 5757415 | Asamizuya et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5802394 | Baird et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5805825 | Danneels et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5835165 | Keate et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5844636 | Joseph et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5852565 | Demos | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5870412 | Schuster et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5903775 | Murray | May 1999 | A |
| 5917852 | Butterfield et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5926205 | Krause et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5933056 | Rothenberg | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5936659 | Viswanathan et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5936949 | Pasternak et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5953537 | Balicki et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5970098 | Herzberg | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5983383 | Wolf | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5993056 | Vaman et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6005477 | Deck et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6011590 | Saukkonen | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6012159 | Fischer et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6014706 | Cannon et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6018359 | Kermode et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6041001 | Estakhri | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044485 | Dent et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6061820 | Nakakita et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6073250 | Luby et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6079041 | Kunisa et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6079042 | Vaman et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6081907 | Witty et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6081909 | Luby et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6081918 | Spielman | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6088330 | Bruck et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6097320 | Kuki et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6134596 | Bolosky et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6141053 | Saukkonen | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6141787 | Kunisa et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6141788 | Rosenberg et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6154452 | Marko et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6163870 | Luby et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6166544 | Debbins et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6175944 | Urbanke et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6178536 | Sorkin | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6185265 | Campanella | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6195777 | Luby et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6223324 | Sinha et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6226259 | Piret | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6226301 | Cheng et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6229824 | Marko | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6243846 | Schuster et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6272658 | Steele et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6278716 | Rubenstein et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6298462 | Yi | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6307478 | Luby | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6314289 | Eberlein et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6320520 | Luby | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6332163 | Bowman-Amuah | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6333926 | Van Heeswyk et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6373406 | Luby | Apr 2002 | B2 |
| 6393065 | Piret et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6411223 | Haken et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6415326 | Gupta et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6420982 | Brown | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6421387 | Rhee | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6430233 | Dillon et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6445717 | Gibson et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6459811 | Hurst, Jr. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6466698 | Creusere | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6473010 | Vityaev et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6486803 | Luby et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6487692 | Morelos-Zaragoza | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6496980 | Tillman et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6497479 | Stoffel et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6510177 | De et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6523147 | Kroeger et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6535920 | Parry et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6577599 | Gupta et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6584543 | Williams et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
| 6609223 | Wolfgang | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6614366 | Luby | Sep 2003 | B2 |
| 6618451 | Gonikberg | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6631172 | Shokrollahi et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6633856 | Richardson et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
| 6641366 | Nordhoff | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6643332 | Morelos-Zaragoza et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6677864 | Khayrallah | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6678855 | Gemmell | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6694476 | Sridharan et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6704370 | Chheda et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6732325 | Tash et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6742154 | Barnard | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6748441 | Gemmell | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6751772 | Kim et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6765866 | Wyatt | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6804202 | Hwang | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6810499 | Sridharan et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
| 6820221 | Fleming | Nov 2004 | B2 |
| 6831172 | Barbucci et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6849803 | Gretz | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6850736 | McCune, Jr. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6856263 | Shokrollahi et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6868083 | Apostolopoulos et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6876623 | Lou et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 6882618 | Sakoda et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 6895547 | Eleftheriou et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6909383 | Shokrollahi et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6928603 | Castagna et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 6937618 | Noda et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 6956875 | Kapadia et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6965636 | DesJardins et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6985459 | Dickson | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6995692 | Yokota et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7010052 | Dill et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7030785 | Shokrollahi et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7031257 | Lu et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7057534 | Luby | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7068681 | Chang et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7068729 | Shokrollahi et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7072971 | Lassen et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7073191 | Srikantan et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7100188 | Hejna et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7110412 | Costa et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7139660 | Sarkar et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7139960 | Shokrollahi | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7143433 | Duan et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
| 7151754 | Boyce et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
| 7154951 | Wang | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7164370 | Mishra | Jan 2007 | B1 |
| 7164882 | Poltorak | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7168030 | Ariyoshi | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7219289 | Dickson | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7231404 | Paila et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7233264 | Luby | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7240236 | Cutts et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7240358 | Horn et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7243285 | Foisy et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7249291 | Rasmussen et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7254754 | Hetzler et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7257764 | Suzuki et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7265688 | Shokrollahi et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
| 7293222 | Shokrollahi et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7295573 | Yi et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7304990 | Rajwan | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7318180 | Starr | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7320099 | Miura et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7363048 | Cheng et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7391717 | Klemets et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
| 7394407 | Shokrollahi et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7398454 | Cai et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7409626 | Schelstraete | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 7412641 | Shokrollahi | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7418651 | Luby et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7451377 | Shokrollahi | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7483447 | Chang et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7483489 | Gentric et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7512697 | Lassen et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7525994 | Scholte | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7529806 | Shteyn | May 2009 | B1 |
| 7532132 | Shokrollahi et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7555006 | Wolfe et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7559004 | Chang et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
| 7570665 | Ertel et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7574706 | Meulemans et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7590118 | Giesberts et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7597423 | Silverbrook | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7613183 | Brewer et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
| 7633413 | Shokrollahi et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7633970 | Van Kampen et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7644335 | Luby et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7650036 | Lei et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7668198 | Yi et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7676735 | Luby et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7711068 | Shokrollahi et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7720096 | Klemets | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7720174 | Shokrollahi et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7721184 | Luby et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7812743 | Luby | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7831896 | Amram et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7924913 | Sullivan et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7956772 | Shokrollahi et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7961700 | Malladi et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7971129 | Watson et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7979769 | Lee et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 8027328 | Yang et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8028322 | Riedl et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8081716 | Kang et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8135073 | Shen | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8185794 | Lohmar et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8185809 | Luby et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| RE43741 | Shokrollahi et al. | Oct 2012 | E |
| 8301725 | Biderman et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8327403 | Chilvers et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
| 8340133 | Kim et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8422474 | Park et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8462643 | Walton et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8544043 | Parekh et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8572646 | Haberman et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8615023 | Oh et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8638796 | Dan et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
| 8713624 | Harvey et al. | Apr 2014 | B1 |
| 8737421 | Zhang et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
| 8812735 | Igarashi | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8958375 | Watson et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 20010015944 | Takahashi et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010033586 | Takashimizu et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20020009137 | Nelson et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020053062 | Szymanski | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020083345 | Halliday et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020085013 | Lippincott | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020133247 | Smith et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020141433 | Kwon et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020143953 | Aiken | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020191116 | Kessler et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030005386 | Bhatt et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030037299 | Smith | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030086515 | Trans et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030101408 | Martinian et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030106014 | Dohmen et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030138043 | Hannuksela | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030194211 | Abecassis | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030207696 | Willenegger et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030224773 | Deeds | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030235219 | Kapadia et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040015768 | Bordes et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040031054 | Dankworth et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040049793 | Chou | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040081106 | Bruhn | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040096110 | Yogeshwar et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040117716 | Shen | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040151109 | Batra et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162071 | Grilli et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040207548 | Kilbank | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040240382 | Ido et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040255328 | Baldwin et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050018635 | Proctor, Jr. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050028067 | Weirauch | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050041736 | Butler-Smith et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071491 | Seo | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091697 | Tanaka et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050097213 | Barrett et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050105371 | Johnson et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050123058 | Greenbaum et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138286 | Franklin et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160272 | Teppler | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050163468 | Takahashi et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050180415 | Cheung et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050193309 | Grilli et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050195752 | Amin et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050195899 | Han | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050195900 | Han | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050207392 | Sivalingham et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216472 | Leon et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216951 | MacInnis | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050254575 | Hannuksela et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060015568 | Walsh et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060020796 | Aura et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060031738 | Fay et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060037057 | Xu | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060048036 | Miura et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060093634 | Lutz et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060107174 | Heise | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060109805 | Malamal Vadakital et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060120464 | Hannuksela | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060136797 | Cai et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060193524 | Tarumoto et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212444 | Handman et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212782 | Li | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060229075 | Kim et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060244824 | Debey | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060244865 | Simon | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248195 | Toumura et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060256851 | Wang et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060279437 | Luby et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070002953 | Kusunoki | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070006274 | Paila et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070016594 | Visharam et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070022215 | Singer et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070028099 | Entin et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070078876 | Hayashi et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070081562 | Ma | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070110074 | Bradley et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070140369 | Limberg et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162568 | Gupta et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162611 | Yu et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070176800 | Rijavec | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070177811 | Yang et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070185973 | Wayda et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070195894 | Shokrollahi et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070200949 | Walker et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070201549 | Hannuksela et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070230568 | Eleftheriadis et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233784 | ORourke et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070255844 | Shen et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070277209 | Yousef | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070300127 | Watson et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080010153 | Pugh-O'Connor et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080034273 | Luby | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080052753 | Huang et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080058958 | Cheng | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080059532 | Kazmi et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080066136 | Dorai et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080075172 | Koto | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080086751 | Horn et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080101478 | Kusunoki | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080134005 | Izzat et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080152241 | Itoi et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080170564 | Shi et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080170806 | Kim | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172430 | Thorstensen | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172712 | Munetsugu | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080181296 | Tian et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080189419 | Girle et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080192818 | DiPietro et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080215317 | Fejzo | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080232357 | Chen | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080243918 | Holtman | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080256418 | Luby et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080281943 | Shapiro | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080285556 | Park et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080303893 | Kim et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080303896 | Lipton et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080309525 | Shokrollahi et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080313191 | Bouazizi | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090003439 | Wang et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090019229 | Morrow et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090031199 | Luby et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090043906 | Hurst et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090055705 | Gao | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090067551 | Chen et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090083806 | Barrett et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090089445 | Deshpande | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090092138 | Joo et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090100496 | Bechtolsheim et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090103523 | Katis et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090106356 | Brase et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090125636 | Li et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090150557 | Wormley et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158114 | Shokrollahi | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090164653 | Mandyam et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090189792 | Shokrollahi et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090195640 | Kim et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090201990 | Leprovost et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204877 | Betts | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090210547 | Lassen et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090222873 | Einarsson | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090248697 | Richardson et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090257508 | Aggarwal et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090287841 | Chapweske et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090297123 | Virdi et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300203 | Virdi et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300204 | Zhang et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090307565 | Luby et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090319563 | Schnell | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090328228 | Schnell | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100011061 | Hudson et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100011117 | Hristodorescu et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100011274 | Stockhammer et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100020871 | Hannuksela et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100023525 | Westerlund et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100046906 | Kanamori et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100049865 | Hannuksela et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100061444 | Wilkins et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100067495 | Lee et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100103001 | Shokrollahi et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131671 | Kohli et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100153578 | Van et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100165077 | Yin et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100174823 | Huang | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100189131 | Branam et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100198982 | Fernandez | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100211690 | Pakzad et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100223533 | Stockhammer et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100235472 | Sood et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100235528 | Bocharov et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100257051 | Fernandez | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100318632 | Yoo et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110019769 | Shokrollahi et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110055881 | Yu et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110083144 | Bocharov et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110096828 | Chen et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110103519 | Shokrollahi et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110119394 | Wang et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110119396 | Kwon et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110216541 | Inoue et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110231519 | Luby et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110231569 | Luby et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110238789 | Luby et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110239078 | Luby et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110258510 | Watson et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110268178 | Park et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110280311 | Chen et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110280316 | Chen et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110299629 | Luby et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110307545 | Bouazizi | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110307581 | Furbeck et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120013746 | Chen et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120016965 | Chen et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120020413 | Chen et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120023249 | Chen et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120023254 | Park et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120033730 | Lee | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120042050 | Chen et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120042089 | Chen et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120047280 | Park et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120099593 | Luby | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120151302 | Luby et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120185530 | Reza | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120202535 | Chaddha et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120207068 | Watson et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120208580 | Luby et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120210190 | Luby et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120317305 | Einarsson et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130002483 | Rowitch et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130007223 | Luby et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130067295 | Luby et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130091251 | Walker et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130246643 | Luby et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130254634 | Luby | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130287023 | Bims | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20140009578 | Chen et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140380113 | Luby | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1338839 | Mar 2002 | CN |
| 1425228 | Jun 2003 | CN |
| 1481643 | Mar 2004 | CN |
| 1708934 | Dec 2005 | CN |
| 1714577 | Dec 2005 | CN |
| 1792056 | Jun 2006 | CN |
| 1806392 | Jul 2006 | CN |
| 1819661 | Aug 2006 | CN |
| 101390399 | Mar 2009 | CN |
| 101729857 | Jun 2010 | CN |
| 0669587 | Aug 1995 | EP |
| 0701371 | Mar 1996 | EP |
| 0784401 | Jul 1997 | EP |
| 0853433 | Jul 1998 | EP |
| 0854650 | Jul 1998 | EP |
| 0903955 | Mar 1999 | EP |
| 0986908 | Mar 2000 | EP |
| 1024672 | Aug 2000 | EP |
| 1051027 | Nov 2000 | EP |
| 1124344 | Aug 2001 | EP |
| 1298931 | Apr 2003 | EP |
| 1406452 | Apr 2004 | EP |
| 1455504 | Sep 2004 | EP |
| 1468497 | Oct 2004 | EP |
| 1501318 | Jan 2005 | EP |
| 1670256 | Jun 2006 | EP |
| 1755248 | Feb 2007 | EP |
| 2071827 | Jun 2009 | EP |
| 1241795 | Aug 2009 | EP |
| 2096870 | Sep 2009 | EP |
| 1700410 | Apr 2010 | EP |
| H07183873 | Jul 1995 | JP |
| 08186570 | Jul 1996 | JP |
| 8289255 | Nov 1996 | JP |
| 9252253 | Sep 1997 | JP |
| 11041211 | Feb 1999 | JP |
| 11112479 | Apr 1999 | JP |
| 11164270 | Jun 1999 | JP |
| 2000151426 | May 2000 | JP |
| 2000216835 | Aug 2000 | JP |
| 2000513164 | Oct 2000 | JP |
| 2000307435 | Nov 2000 | JP |
| 2000353969 | Dec 2000 | JP |
| 2001036417 | Feb 2001 | JP |
| 2001094625 | Apr 2001 | JP |
| 2001223655 | Aug 2001 | JP |
| 2001251287 | Sep 2001 | JP |
| 2001274776 | Oct 2001 | JP |
| 2001274855 | Oct 2001 | JP |
| 2002073625 | Mar 2002 | JP |
| 2002204219 | Jul 2002 | JP |
| 2002543705 | Dec 2002 | JP |
| 2003507985 | Feb 2003 | JP |
| 2003092564 | Mar 2003 | JP |
| 2003510734 | Mar 2003 | JP |
| 2003174489 | Jun 2003 | JP |
| 2003256321 | Sep 2003 | JP |
| 2003318975 | Nov 2003 | JP |
| 2003319012 | Nov 2003 | JP |
| 2003333577 | Nov 2003 | JP |
| 2004048704 | Feb 2004 | JP |
| 2004070712 | Mar 2004 | JP |
| 2004135013 | Apr 2004 | JP |
| 2004165922 | Jun 2004 | JP |
| 2004516717 | Jun 2004 | JP |
| 2004192140 | Jul 2004 | JP |
| 2004193992 | Jul 2004 | JP |
| 2004529533 | Sep 2004 | JP |
| 2004289621 | Oct 2004 | JP |
| 2004343701 | Dec 2004 | JP |
| 2004348824 | Dec 2004 | JP |
| 2004362099 | Dec 2004 | JP |
| 2005094140 | Apr 2005 | JP |
| 2005136546 | May 2005 | JP |
| 2005514828 | May 2005 | JP |
| 2005204170 | Jul 2005 | JP |
| 2005223433 | Aug 2005 | JP |
| 2005277950 | Oct 2005 | JP |
| 2006503463 | Jan 2006 | JP |
| 2006505177 | Feb 2006 | JP |
| 2006506926 | Feb 2006 | JP |
| 2006074335 | Mar 2006 | JP |
| 2006074421 | Mar 2006 | JP |
| 2006115104 | Apr 2006 | JP |
| 3809957 | Jun 2006 | JP |
| 2006174032 | Jun 2006 | JP |
| 2006174045 | Jun 2006 | JP |
| 2006186419 | Jul 2006 | JP |
| 2006519517 | Aug 2006 | JP |
| 2006287422 | Oct 2006 | JP |
| 2006319743 | Nov 2006 | JP |
| 2007013675 | Jan 2007 | JP |
| 2007089137 | Apr 2007 | JP |
| 3976163 | Jun 2007 | JP |
| 2007158592 | Jun 2007 | JP |
| 2007174170 | Jul 2007 | JP |
| 2007520961 | Jul 2007 | JP |
| 2007228205 | Sep 2007 | JP |
| 2008011404 | Jan 2008 | JP |
| 2008016907 | Jan 2008 | JP |
| 2008508761 | Mar 2008 | JP |
| 2008508762 | Mar 2008 | JP |
| 2008283232 | Nov 2008 | JP |
| 2008283571 | Nov 2008 | JP |
| 2008543142 | Nov 2008 | JP |
| 2008546361 | Dec 2008 | JP |
| 2009027598 | Feb 2009 | JP |
| 2009522921 | Jun 2009 | JP |
| 2009522922 | Jun 2009 | JP |
| 2009171558 | Jul 2009 | JP |
| 2009527949 | Jul 2009 | JP |
| 2009277182 | Nov 2009 | JP |
| 2009544991 | Dec 2009 | JP |
| 2010539832 | Dec 2010 | JP |
| 2008502212 | Jan 2011 | JP |
| 2001189665 | Feb 2011 | JP |
| 2011087103 | Apr 2011 | JP |
| 1020030071815 | Sep 2003 | KR |
| 1020030074386 | Sep 2003 | KR |
| 20040107152 | Dec 2004 | KR |
| 20040107401 | Dec 2004 | KR |
| 20050009376 | Jan 2005 | KR |
| 100809086 | Mar 2008 | KR |
| 20080083299 | Sep 2008 | KR |
| 20090098919 | Sep 2009 | KR |
| 99117925 | Jul 2001 | RU |
| 2189629 | Sep 2002 | RU |
| 2265960 | Dec 2005 | RU |
| 2290768 | Dec 2006 | RU |
| 2297663 | Apr 2007 | RU |
| 2312390 | Dec 2007 | RU |
| 2357279 | May 2009 | RU |
| I246841 | Jan 2006 | TW |
| I354908 | Dec 2011 | TW |
| I355168 | Dec 2011 | TW |
| WO9634463 | Oct 1996 | WO |
| WO-9750183 | Dec 1997 | WO |
| WO9804973 | Feb 1998 | WO |
| WO9832231 | Jul 1998 | WO |
| WO-9832256 | Jul 1998 | WO |
| WO0014921 | Mar 2000 | WO |
| WO0018017 | Mar 2000 | WO |
| WO0052600 | Sep 2000 | WO |
| WO0120786 | Mar 2001 | WO |
| WO0157667 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO0158130 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO0158131 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO0227988 | Apr 2002 | WO |
| WO02047391 | Jun 2002 | WO |
| 02063461 | Aug 2002 | WO |
| WO-03046742 | Jun 2003 | WO |
| WO03056703 | Jul 2003 | WO |
| WO03105350 | Dec 2003 | WO |
| WO-03105484 | Dec 2003 | WO |
| WO2004015948 | Feb 2004 | WO |
| WO2004019521 | Mar 2004 | WO |
| WO2004030273 | Apr 2004 | WO |
| WO2004034589 | Apr 2004 | WO |
| WO-2004036824 | Apr 2004 | WO |
| WO2004040831 | May 2004 | WO |
| WO-2004047019 | Jun 2004 | WO |
| WO2004047455 | Jun 2004 | WO |
| WO-2004088988 | Oct 2004 | WO |
| WO-2004109538 | Dec 2004 | WO |
| WO2005036753 | Apr 2005 | WO |
| WO2005041421 | May 2005 | WO |
| WO2005078982 | Aug 2005 | WO |
| WO-2005107123 | Nov 2005 | WO |
| WO2005112250 | Nov 2005 | WO |
| WO-2006013459 | Feb 2006 | WO |
| WO2006020826 | Feb 2006 | WO |
| WO-2006036276 | Apr 2006 | WO |
| 2006060036 | Jun 2006 | WO |
| WO-2006057938 | Jun 2006 | WO |
| WO2006084503 | Aug 2006 | WO |
| WO-2006116102 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| WO-2006135878 | Dec 2006 | WO |
| 2007078253 | Jul 2007 | WO |
| WO2007090834 | Aug 2007 | WO |
| WO-2007098397 | Aug 2007 | WO |
| WO-2007098480 | Aug 2007 | WO |
| 2008011549 | Jan 2008 | WO |
| WO-2008023328 | Apr 2008 | WO |
| WO2008054100 | May 2008 | WO |
| 2008086313 | Jul 2008 | WO |
| WO2008085013 | Jul 2008 | WO |
| WO-2008131023 | Oct 2008 | WO |
| 2008144004 | Nov 2008 | WO |
| WO-2009065526 | May 2009 | WO |
| WO-2009137705 | Nov 2009 | WO |
| 2009143741 | Dec 2009 | WO |
| WO2010085361 | Jul 2010 | WO |
| WO2010088420 | Aug 2010 | WO |
| WO2010120804 | Oct 2010 | WO |
| WO-2011038013 | Mar 2011 | WO |
| WO-2011038034 | Mar 2011 | WO |
| 2011059286 | May 2011 | WO |
| 2011070552 | Jun 2011 | WO |
| 2011102792 | Aug 2011 | WO |
| WO-2012021540 | Feb 2012 | WO |
| WO-2012109614 | Aug 2012 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| International Search Report PCT/US07/62086. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2007/062086—The International Bureau of WIPO—Geneva, Switzerland, Aug. 19, 2008. |
| Written Opinion, PCT/US2007/062086—International Search Authority—European Patent Office, Nov. 1, 2007. |
| Bross, et al., “High efficiency video coding (HEVC) text specification draft 6,” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 JCTVC-H1003, 7th Meeting: Geneva, CH, Nov. 21-30, 2011, pp. 259. |
| Bross, et al., “High efficiency video coding (HEVC) text specification draft 7,” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 9th Meeting: Geneva, CH, Apr. 27-May 7, 2012, JCTVC-I1003—d21, pp. 290. |
| Bross, et al., “High efficiency video coding (HEVC) text specification draft 8,” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 10th Meeting: Stockholm, SE, Jul. 11-20, 2012, JCTVC-J1003—d7, pp. 261. |
| Bross et al., “WD4: Working Draft 4 of High-Efficiency Video Coding,” JCTVC-F803—d2, (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding, 6th Meeting, Torino, IT, Jul. 14-22, 2011, 226 pages. |
| Bross et al., “WD5: Working Draft 5 of High-Efficiency Video Coding,” JCTVC-G1103—d2, (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding, 7th Meeting, Geneva, Switzerland (Nov. 2011), 214 pages. |
| European Search Report—EP10013235—Search Authority—The Hague—Aug. 20, 2012. |
| ITU-T H.264, Series H: Audiovisual and Multimedia Systems, Infrastructure of audiovisual services—Coding of moving video, Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services, The International Telecommunication Union. Jun. 2011, 674 pp. |
| Jiang., File Format for Scalable Video Coding, PowerPoint Presentation for CMPT 820, Summer 2008. |
| Pantos, “HTTP Live Streaming draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-02”, Informational, Internet-Draft, Intended status: Informational, Expires: Apr. 8, 2010, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-02, pp. 1-20, Oct. 5, 2009. |
| Thomas Wiegand et al.,“WD1: Working Draft 1 of High-Efficiency Video Coding”, JCTVC-C403, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 3rd Meeting: Guangzhou, CN, Oct. 7-15, 2010. |
| Wiegand et al., “WD3: Working Draft 3 of High-Efficiency Video Coding,” Document JCTVC-E603, 5th Meeting: Geneva, CH, Mar. 16-23, 2011, 193 pp. |
| Wiegand T. et al., “WD2: Working Draft 2 of High-Efficiency Video Coding”, 20110128, No. JCTVC-D503, Jan. 28, 2011, XP002679642, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: http://wftp3.itu.int/av-arch/jctvc-site/2011—01—D—Daegu/ [retrieved on Jul. 11, 2012]. |
| Yamanouchi N., et al., “Internet Multimedia Transmission with Packet by Using Forward Error Correction,” Proceedings of DPS Workshop, The Information Processing Society of Japan, Dec. 6, 2000, vol. 2000, No. 15, pp. 145-150. |
| 3GPP TS 26.234 V9.1.0 ,“3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Transparent end-to-end Packet-switched Streaming Service (PSS); Protocols and codecs (Release 9)”, Dec. 2009, 179 pages. |
| 3GPP TS 26.244 V9.1.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Transparent end-to-end packet switched streaming service (PSS); 3GPP file format (3GP), (Release 9), Mar. 2010, 55 pp. |
| 3GPP TS 26.247, v1.5.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects Transparent end-to-end Packet-switched Streaming Service (PSS); Progressive Download and Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (3GP-DASH) (Release 10), 2010, 91 pages. |
| 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects Transparent end-to-end packet switched streaming service (PSS), 3GPP file format (3GP) (Release 9 ) , 3GPP Standard, 3GPP TS 26.244, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre , 650, Route Des Lucioles , F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex , France, No. V8.1.0, Jun. 1, 2009, pp. 1-52, XP050370199. |
| 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Transparent end-to-end packet switched streaming service (PSS); 3GPP file format (3GP) (Release 9), 3GPP Standard; 3GPP TS 26.244, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France, No. V9.2.0, Jun. 9, 2010, pp. 1-55, XP050441544, [retrieved on Jun. 9, 2010]. |
| Aggarwal, C. et al.: “A Permutation-Based Pyramid Broadcasting Scheme for Video-on-Demand Systems,” Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on Multimedia Systems, Hiroshima, Japan (Jun. 1996). |
| Aggarwal, C. et al.: “On Optimal Batching Policies for Video-on-Demand Storage Servers,” Multimedia Systems, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 253-258 (1996). |
| Albanese, A., et al., “Priority Encoding Transmission”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 1-22, (Nov. 1996). |
| Alex Zambelli,“IIS Smooth Streaming Technical Overview”, Microsoft Mar. 25, 2009, XP002620446, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/ details.aspx″FamilyID=03d22583-3ed6-44da-8464-blb4b5ca7520, [retrieved on Jan. 21, 2011]. |
| Almeroth, et al., “The use of multicast delivery to provide a scalable and interactive video-on-demand service”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, 14(6): 1110-1122, (1996). |
| Alon, et al.: “Linear Time Erasure Codes with Nearly Optimal Recovery,” Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, US, Los Alamitos, IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, vol. Symp. 36, pp. 512-516 (Oct. 23, 1995) XP000557871. |
| Amin Shokrollahi: “LDPC Codes: An Introduction” Internet Citation 2 Apr. 1, 2003 (Apr. 2, 2003), XP002360065 Retrieved from the Internet: URL : http ://www . ipm. ac . ir/IPM/homepage/Amin 2. pdf [retrieved on Dec. 19, 2005]. |
| Amon P et al., “File Format for Scalable Video Coding”, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, US, vol. 17, No. 9, Sep. 1, 2007, pp. 1174-1185, XP011193013, ISSN: 1051-8215, DOI:10.1109/TCSVT.2007.905521. |
| Anonymous: [Gruneberg, K., Narasimhan, S. and Chen, Y., editors] “Text of ISO/IEC 13818-1:2007/PDAM 6 MVC operation point descriptor”, 90 MPEG Meeting; Oct. 26, 2009-Oct. 30, 2009; Xian; (Motion Picture Expertgroup or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11|), No. N10942, Nov. 19, 2009, XP030017441. |
| Anonymous: “Text of ISO/IEC 14496-12 3rd Edition”, 83 MPEG Meeting; Jan. 14, 2008-Jan. 18, 2008; Antalya; (Motion Pictureexpert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11), No. N9678, Apr. 22, 2008, XP030016172. |
| Anonymous: “Text of ISO/IEC 14496-15 2nd edition”, 91 MPEG Meeting; Jan. 18, 2010-Jan. 22, 2010; Kyoto; (Motion Picture Expertgroup or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11),, No. N11139, Jan. 22, 2010, XP030017636. |
| Bar-Noy, et al., “Competitive on-line stream merging algorithms for media-on-demand”, Draft (Jul. 2000), pp. 1-34. |
| Bar-Noy et al. “Efficient algorithms for optimal stream merging for media-on-demand,” Draft (Aug. 2000), pp. 1-43. |
| Bigloo, A. et al.: “A Robust Rate-Adaptive Hybrid ARQ Scheme and Frequency Hopping for Multiple-Access Communication Systems,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, US, IEEE Inc, New York (Jun. 1, 1994) pp. 889-893, XP000464977. |
| Bitner, J.R., et al.: “Efficient Generation of the Binary Reflected Gray code and Its Applications,” Communications of the ACM, pp. 517-521, vol. 19 (9), 1976. |
| Blomer, et al., “An XOR-Based Erasure-Resilient Coding Scheme,” ICSI Technical Report No. TR-95-048 (1995) [avail. At ftp://ftp.icsi.berkeley.edu/pub/techreports/1995/tr-95-048.pdf]. |
| Byers, J.W. et al.: “A Digital Fountain Approach to Reliable Distribution of Bulk Data,” Computer Communication Review, Association for Computing Machinery. New York, US, vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct. 1998) pp. 56-67 XP000914424 ISSN:0146-4833. |
| Byers, J.W. et al.: “Accessing multiple mirror sites in parallel: using Tornado codes to speed up downloads,” 1999, Eighteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Comupter and Communications Socities, pp. 275-283, Mar. 21, 1999, XP000868811. |
| Cataldi et al., “Sliding-Window Raptor Codes for Efficient Scalable Wireless Video Broadcasting With Unequal Loss Protection”, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Jun. 1, 2010, pp. 1491-1503, vol. 19, No. 6, IEEE Service Center, XP011328559, ISSN: 1057-7149, DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2010.2042985. |
| Charles Lee L.H, “Error-Control Block Codes for Communications Engineers”, 2000, Artech House, XP002642221 pp. 39-45. |
| Chen, et al., U.S. Patent Application titled “Frame Packing for Asymmetric Stereo Video”, filed Feb. 25, 2011. |
| Chen, et al., U.S. Patent Application titled “One-Stream Coding for Asymmetric Stereo Video”, filed Feb. 25, 2011. |
| Chen Ying et al., “Coding techniques in Multiview Video Coding and Joint Multiview Video Model”, Picture Coding Symposium, 2009, PCS 2009, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, May 6, 2009, pp. 1-4, XP031491747, ISBN: 978-1-4244-4593-6. |
| Choi S: “Temporally enhanced erasure codes for reliable communication protocols” Computer Networks, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, NL, vol. 38, No. 6, Apr. 22, 2002, pp. 713-730, XP004345778, ISSN: 1389-1286, DOI:10.1016/S1389-1286(01)00280-8. |
| Clark G.C., et al., “Error Correction Coding for Digital Communications, System Applications,” Error Correction Coding for Digital Communications, New York, Plenum Press, US, Jan. 1, 1981, pp. 339-341. |
| D. Gozalvez et,al. “AL-FEC for Improved Mobile Reception of MPEG-2 DVB-Transport Streams” Hindawi Publishing Corporation, International Journal of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting vol. 2009, Dec. 31, 2009, pp. 1-10, XP002582035 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijdmb/2009/614178.html> [retrieved on May 12, 2010]. |
| Dan, A. et al.: “Scheduling Policies for an On-Demand Video Server with Batching,” Proc. ACM Multimedia, pp. 15-23 (Oct. 1998). |
| Davey, M.C. et al.: “Low Density Parity Check Codes over GF(q)” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 2, No. 6 pp. 165-167 (1998). |
| Digital Fountain: “Specification Text for Raptor Forward Error Correction,” TDOC S4-050249 of 3GPP TSG SA WG 4 Meeting #34 [Online] (Feb. 25, 2005) pp. 1-23, XP002425167, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg—sa/WG4—CODEC/TSGS4—34/Docs. |
| Digital Fountain: “Raptor code specification for MBMS file download,” 3GPP SA4 PSM AD-HOC #31 (May 21, 2004) XP002355055 pp. 1-6. |
| “Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Guidelines for the implementation of DVB-IP Phase 1 specifications; ETSI TS 102 542” ETSI Standards, LIS, Sophia Antipoliscedex, France, vol. BC, No. V1.2.1, Apr. 1, 2008, XP014041619 ISSN: 0000-0001 p. 43 p. 66 pp. 70, 71. |
| DVB-IPI Standard: DVB BlueBook A086r4 (Mar. 2007) Transport of MPEG 2 Transport Streatm (TS) Based DVB Services over IP Based Networks, ETSI Technical Specification 102 034 v1.3.1. |
| Eager, et al. “Minimizing bandwidth requirements for on-demand data delivery,” Proceedings of the International Workshop on Advances in Multimedia Information Systems,p. 80-87 (Indian Wells, CA Oct. 1999). |
| Eager, et al., “Optimal and efficient merging schedules for video-on-demand servers”, Proc. ACM Multimedia, vol. 7, pp. 199-202 (1999). |
| Esaki, et al.: “Reliable IP Multicast Communication Over ATM Networks Using Forward Error Correction Policy,” IEICE Transactions on Communications, JP, Institute of Electronics Information and Comm. ENG. Tokyo, vol. E78-V, No. 12, (Dec. 1995), pp. 1622-1637, XP000556183. |
| Feng, G., Error Correcting Codes over Z2m for Algorithm-Based Fault-Tolerance, IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 43, No. 3, Mar. 1994, pp. 370-374. |
| Fernando, et al., “httpstreaming of MPEG Media—Response to CfP”, 93 MPEG Meeting; Jul. 26, 2010-Jul. 30, 2010; Geneva; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SCE29/WG11), No. M17756, Jul. 22, 2010, XP030046346. |
| Fielding et al., “RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1”, Internet Citation, Jun. 1999, pp. 165, XP002196143, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.rfc-editor-org/ [retrieved on Apr. 15, 2002]. |
| Gao, L. et al.: “Efficient Schemes for Broadcasting Popular Videos,” Proc. Inter. Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video, pp. 1-13 (1998). |
| Gasiba, Tiago et al., “System Design and Advanced Receiver Techniques for MBMS Broadcast Services” Proc. 2006 International Conference on Communications (ICC 2006), Jun. 1, 2006, pp. 5444-5450, XP031025781 ISBN: 978-1-4244-0354-7. |
| Gemmell, et al., “A Scalable Multicast Architecture for One-To-Many Telepresentations”, Multimedia Computing and Systems, 1998/Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Austin, TX, USA Jun. 28-Jul. 1, 1998, Los Alamitos, CA USA, IEEE Comput. Soc, US, Jun. 28, 1998, pp. 128-139, XP010291559. |
| Goyal: “Multiple Description Coding: Compression Meets the Network,” in Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE, vol. 18., Issue 5 (Sep. 2001) pp. 74-93 URL:http://www.rle.mit.edu/stir/documents/Goyal—SigProcMag2001—MD.pdf [Nov. 4, 2007]. |
| Gozalvez D et, al: “Mobile reception of DVB-T services by means of AL-FEC protection” Proc. IEEE Intern. Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB '09), IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, May 13, 2009, pp. 1-5, XP031480155 ISBN: 978-1-4244-2590-7. |
| Gracie et al., “Turbo and Turbo-Like Codes: Principles and Applications in Telecommunications”, Proceedings of the IEEE, Jun. 1, 2007, pp. 1228-1254, vol. 95, No. 6, IEEE, XP011189323, ISSN: 0018-9219, DOI: 10.1109/JPR0C.2007.895197. |
| Grineberg, et al., “Deliverable D3.2 MVC/SVC storage format” Jan. 29, 2009, XP002599508 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.ist-sea.eu/Public/SEA—D3.2—HHI FF—20090129.pdf [retrieved on Sep. 1, 2010] paragraph [02.3]. |
| Hagenauer, J. : “Soft is better than hard” Communications, Coding and Cryptology, Kluwer Publication May 1994, XP002606615 Retrieved from the Internet : URL: http://www. Int . ei .turn. de/veroeffentlic hungen/l994/ccc94h. pdf [retrieved on Oct. 25, 2010]. |
| He Wenge et al., “Asymmetric Stereoscopic Video Encoding Algorithm Based on Joint Compensation Prediction”, IEEE International Conference on Communications and Mobile Computing, Jan. 6, 2009, pp. 191-194, XP031434775, ISBN: 978-0-7695-3501-2. |
| Hershey, et al., “Random Parity Coding (RPC)”, 1996 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). Converging Technologies for Tomorrow's Applications. Dallas, Jun. 23-27, 1996, IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), New York, IEEE, US, vol. 1, Jun. 23, 1996, pp. 122-126, XP000625654. |
| Hitachi Ltd. et al., “High-Definition Multimedia Interface,” Specification Version 1.4, Jun. 5, 2009, 425 pp. |
| Hua, et al., “Skyscraper broadcasting: A new broadcsting system for metropolitan video-on-demand systems”, Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 89-100 (Cannes, France, 1997). |
| Huawei et al., “Implict mapping between CCE and PUCCH for ACK/NACK TDD”, 3GPP DRAFT; R1-082359, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles ; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex ; France, vol. RAN WG1, No. Warsaw, Poland, Jun. 24, 2008, XP050110650, [retrieved on Jun. 24, 2008]. |
| Ian Trow, “Is 3D Event Coverage Using Existing Broadcast Infrastructure Technically Possible”, International Broadcasting Conference, Sep. 9, 2009-Sep. 13, 2009, XP030081671, pp. 4-5, “3D transmission over broadcast infrastructure” pp. 7-8, “Screen signaling”—Conclusions on 3D systems. |
| IETF RFC 2733: Rosenberg, J. et al. “An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction,” Network Working Group, RFC 2733 (Dec. 1999). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion—PCT/US2012/024737—ISA/EPO—May 11, 2012. |
| International Standard ISO/IEC 14496-12, Information Technology—Coding of audio-visual objects—Part 12: ISO base media file format, Third Edition, Oct. 15, 2008, 120 pp. |
| International Telecommunication Union, “ITU-T H.264, Series H: Audiovisual and Multimedia Systems, Infrastructure of audiovisual services—Coding of moving video, Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services,” Mar. 2010, 669 pp. |
| ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, ISO/IEC FCD 23001-6, Information technology—MPEG systems technologies—Part 6: Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH), Jan. 28, 2011. |
| Jin Li, “The Efficient Implementation of Reed-Solomon High Rate Erasure Resilient Codes” Proc. 2005 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Philadelphia, PA, USA, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, vol. 3, Mar. 18, 2005, pp. 1097-1100, XP010792442, DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2005.1415905 ISBN: 978-0-7803-8874-1. |
| Juhn, L. et al.: “Adaptive Fast Data Broadcasting Scheme for Video-on-Demand Service,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 182-185 (Jun. 1998). |
| Juhn, L. et al.: “Harmonic Broadcasting for Video-on-Demand Service,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 268-271 (Sep. 1997). |
| Kallel, “Complementary Punctured Convolutional (CPC) Codes and Their Applications”, IEEE Transactions on Communications, IEEE Inc., New York, US, vol. 43, No. 6, Jun. 1, 1995, pp. 2005-2009. |
| Kimata H et al., “Inter-View Prediction With Downsampled Reference Pictures”, ITU Study Group 16—Video Coding Experts Group—ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG(ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T SG16 Q6), No. JVT-W079, Apr. 19, 2007, XP030007039. |
| Kimura et al., “A Highly Mobile SDM-0FDM System Using Reduced-Complexity-and-Latency Processing”, IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), Sep. 1, 2007, pp. 1-5, IEEE, XP031168836, ISBN: 978-1-4244-1143-6, DOI: 10.1109/PIMRC.2007.4394758. |
| Kozamernik F: “Media streaming over the Internet”, Internet Citation, Oct. 2002, XP002266291, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: http://www.ebu.ch/trev—292-kozamerni k. pdf [retrieved on Jan. 8, 2004] section “Video codecs for scalable streaming”. |
| Lee L., et al.,“VLSI implementation for low density parity check decoder”, Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Elecctronics, Circuits and Systems, 2001. ICECS 2001, Sep. 2, 2001, vol. 3, pp. 1223-1226. |
| Lin, S. et al.: “Error Control Coding-Fundamentals and Applications,” 1983, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 288, XP002305226. |
| Luby Digital Fountain A Shokrollahi Epfl M Watson Digital Fountain T Stockhammer Nomor Research M: “Raptor Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery; rfc5053.txt”, IETF Standard, Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF, CH, Oct. 1, 2007, XP015055125, ISSN: 0000-0003. |
| Luby, et al., “Analysis of Low Density Codes and Improved Designs Using Irregular Graphs”, 1998, Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 23, 1998, pp. 249-258, XP000970907. |
| Luby, et al.: “Analysis of Low Density Codes and Improved Designs Using Irregular Graphs,” International Computer Science Institute Technical Report TR-97-045 (Nov. 1997) [available at ftp://ftp.icsi.berkeley.edu/pub/techreports/1997/tr-97-045.pdf]. |
| Luby, et al., “FLUTE—File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport”, IETF RFC 3926, pp. 1-35, (Oct. 2004). |
| Luby et al., “Improved Low-Density Parity-Check Codes Using Irregular Graphs and Belief Propagation”, Information Theory, 1998. Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Symposium on Cambridge, MA, USA Aug. 16-21, 1998, pp. 1-9, New York, NY, USA, IEEE, US Aug. 16, 199. |
| Luby et, al. “Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block”, IETF RFC 5651, pp. 1-42, (Oct. 2009). |
| Luby, M. et al.: “Efficient Erasure Correction Codes,” 2001, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 569-584, XP002305225. |
| Luby, M., et, al. “Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Block”, IETF RFC 5052, pp. 1-31, (Aug. 2007). |
| Luby M et al: “IPTV Systems, Standards and Architectures: Part II—Application Layer FEC in IPTV Services” IEEE Communications Magazine, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, US LNKDDOI: 10.1109/MCOM.2008.4511656, vol. 46, No. 5, May 1, 2008, pp. 94-101, XP011226858 ISSN: 0163-6804. |
| Luby, M. et al.: “Pairwise Independence and Derandomization,” Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 1, Issue 4, 2005, Print ISSN 1551-305X, Online ISSN 1551-3068. |
| Luby, M. et al., “Practical Loss-Resilient Codes: Tornado Codes,” 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, vol. SYMP. 29, May 4, 1997, pp. 150-159, XP002271229. |
| Luby, M., et al., “Raptor Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery”, IETF RFC5053, pp. 1-46 (Sep. 2007). |
| Luby M. et al., “RaptorQ Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery”, IETF draft ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-04, Reliable Multicast Transport, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Standard Workingdraft, Internet Society (ISOC), Aug. 24, 2010, pp. 1-68, XP015070705, [retrieved on Aug. 24, 2010]. |
| Luby, M., et al., “Request for Comments: 3453: The Use of Forward Error Correction (FEC) in Reliable Multicast,” Internet Article, [Online] Dec. 2002, pp. 1-19. |
| Luby, Michael G. “Analysis of Random Processes via And-Or Tree Evaluation,” Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms,TR-97-0, 1998, pp. 364-373, (search date: Jan. 25, 2010) URL: <http://portal.acm.prg.citation.cfm″id=314722>. |
| Luby Qualcomm Incorporated, “Universal Object Delivery using RaptorQ; draft-luby-uod-raptorq-OO.txt”, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Standardworkingdraft, Internet Society (ISOC), Mar. 7, 2011, pp. 1-10, XP015074424, [retrieved on Mar. 7, 2011]. |
| Mackay, “Fountain codes Capacity approaching codes design and implementation”, IEE Proceedings: Communications, Dec. 9, 2005, pp. 1062-1068, vol. 152, No. 6, Institution of Electrical Engineers, XP006025749, ISSN: 1350-2425, DOI: 10.1049/IP-C0M:20050237. |
| Mandelbaum D.M., “An Adaptive-Feedback Coding Scheme Using Incremental Redundancy”, IEEE Trans on Information Theory, vol. May 1974, May 1974, pp. 388-389, XP002628271, the whole document. |
| Marpe, et al., “The H.264/MPEG4 Advanced Video Coding Standard and its Applications,” Standards Report, IEEE Communications Magazine, Aug. 2006, pp. 134-143. |
| Matsuoka H., et al., “Low-Density Parity-Check Code Extensions Applied for Broadcast-Communication Integrated Content Delivery”, Research Laboratories, NTT DOCOMO, Inc., 3-6, Hikari-No-Oka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa, 239-8536, Japan, ITC-SS21, 2010 IEICE, pp. 59-63. |
| Mimnaugh, A et, al. “Enabling Mobile Coverage for DVB-T” Digital Fountain Whitepaper Jan. 29, 2008, pp. 1-9, XP002581808 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.digitalfountain.com/ufiles/ library/DVB-T-whitepaper.pdf> [retrieved on May 10, 2010]. |
| Min-Goo Kim: “On systematic punctured convolutional codes”, IEEE Trans on Communications, vol. 45, No. 2, Feb. 1997, XP002628272, the whole document, pp. 133-139. |
| Muller, et al., “A test-bed for the dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP featuring session mobility” MMSys '11 Proceedings of the second annual ACM conference on Multimedia systems, Feb. 23-25, 2011, San Jose, CA, pp. 271-276. |
| Naguib, Ayman, et al., “Applications of Space-Time Block Codes and Interference Suppression for High Capacity and High Data Rate Wireless Systems,” IEEE, 1998, pp. 1803-1810. |
| Narayanan, et al., “Physical Layer Design for Packet Data Over IS-136”, Vehicular Technology Conference, 1997, IEEE 47th Phoenix, AZ, USA May 4-7, 1997, New York, NY, USA, IEEE, US May 4, 1997, pp. 1029-1033. |
| Nokia: “Reed-Solomon Code Specification for. MBMS Download and Streaming Services”, 3GPP Draft; S4-050265—RS—SPEC, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre ; 650, Route Des Lucioles ; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex ; France, vol. SA WG4, No. San Diego, USA; 20050415, Apr. 15, 2005, XP050287675, [retrieved on Apr. 15, 2005]. |
| Nokia Corp., “Usage of ‘mfra’ box for Random Access and Seeking,” S4-AHI127, 3GPP TSG-SA4 Ad-Hoc Meeting, Dec. 14-16, 2009, Paris, FR, 2 pp. |
| Nonnenmacher, et al., “Parity-Based Loss Recovery for Reliable Multicast Transmission”, IEEE / ACM Transactions on Networking, IEEE Inc. New York, US, vol. 6, No. 4, Aug. 1, 1998, pp. 349-361. |
| Ozden, B. et al.: “A Low-Cost Storage Service for Movie on Demand Databases,” Proceedings of the 20th Very Large DataBases (VLDB) Conference, Santiago, Chile (1994). |
| PA. Chou, A. Mohr, A. Wang, S. Mehrotra, “FEC and Pseudo-ARQ for Receiver-Driven Layered Multicast of Audio and Video,” pp. 440-449, IEEE Computer Society, Data Compression Conference (2000). |
| Pantos R et al., “HTTP Live Streaming; draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-OT.txt”, HTTP Live Streaming; Draft-Pant0s-http-live-streaming-01.txt, Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF; Standardworkingdraft, Internet Society (ISOC) 4, Rue Des Falaises CH—1205 Geneva, Switzerland, No. 1, Jun. 8, 2009, XP015062692. |
| Paris, et al., “A low bandwidth broadcasting protocol for video on demand”, Proc. International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, vol. 7, pp. 690-697 (Oct. 1998). |
| Paris, et al., “Efficient broadcasting protocols for video on demand”, International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication systems (MASCOTS), vol. 6, pp. 127-132 (Jul. 1998). |
| Perkins, et al.: “Survey of Packet Loss Recovery Techniques for Streaming Audio,” IEEE Network; Sep./Oct. 1998, pp. 40-48. |
| Petition decision for Petition Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.78 to Accept an Unintentionally Delayed Priority Claim under 35 U.S.C. § 120 in U.S. Patent No. 7,532,132, dated Jul. 21, 2011, 2 pages. |
| Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.78 to Accept an Unintentionally Delayed Priority Claim under 35 U.S.C. § 120 in U.S. Patent No. 7,532,132, dated May 27, 2011, 2 pages. |
| Plank J. S., “A Tutorial on Reed-Solomon Coding for Fault-Tolerance I N Raid-Like Systems”, Software Practice & Experience, Wiley & Sons, Bognor Regis, GB, vol. 27, No. 9, Sep. 1, 1997, pp. 995-1012, XP00069594. |
| Pless and WC Huffman EDS V S: Algebraic geometry codes, Handbook of Coding Theory, 1998, pp. 871-961, XP002300927. |
| Pursley, et al.: “Variable-Rate Coding for Meteor-Burst Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, US, IEEE Inc. New York (1989) vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 1105-1112 XP000074533. |
| Pursley, M. et al.: “A Correction and an Addendum for Variable-Rate Coding for Meteor-Burst Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 43, No. 12 pp. 2866-2867 (Dec. 1995). |
| Pyle, et al., “Microsoft http smooth Streaming: Microsoft response to the Call for Proposal on httpstreaming”, 93 MPEG Meeting; Jul. 26, 2010-Jul. 30, 2010; Geneva; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SCE29/WG11), No. M17902, Jul. 22, 2010, XP030046492. |
| Qualcomm Europe S A R L: “Baseline Architecture and Definitions for HTTP Streaming”, 3GPP Draft; S4-090603—HTTP—Streaming—Architecture, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France, No. Kista; 20090812, Aug. 12, 2009, XP050356889. |
| Qualcomm Incorporated: “Use Cases and Examples for Adaptive httpstreaming”, 3GPP Draft; S4-100408-Usecases-HSD, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (JGPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France, vol. SA WG4, No. Prague, Czech Republic; 20100621, Jun. 17, 2010, XP050438085, [retrieved on Jun. 17, 2010]. |
| Rangan, et al., “Designing an On-Demand Multimedia Service,” IEEE Communication Magazine, vol. 30, pp. 56-64, (Jul. 1992). |
| Realnetworks Inc, et al., “Format for httpstreaming Media Presentation Description”, 3GPP Draft; S4-100020, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France, vol. SA WG4, No. S t Julians, Malta; 20100125, Jan. 20, 2010, XP050437753, [retrieved on Jan. 20, 2010]. |
| Research in Motion UK Limited: “An MPD delta file for httpstreaming”, 3GPP Draft; S4-100453, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (SGPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France, vol. SA WG4, No. Prague, Czech Republic; 20100621, Jun. 16, 2010, XP050438066, [retrieved on Jun. 16, 2010]. |
| Rhyu, et al., “Response to Call for Proposals on httpstreaming of MPEG Media”, 93 MPEG Meeting; Jul. 26, 2010-Jul. 30, 2010; Geneva; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SCE29/WG11) No. M17779, Jul. 26, 2010, XP030046369. |
| Rizzo, L. “Effective Erasure Codes for Reliable Computer Communication Protocols,” Computer Communication Review, 27 (2) pp. 24-36 (Apr. 1, 1997), XP000696916. |
| Roca, V. et al.: “Design, Evaluation and Comparison of Four Large Block FEC Codecs, LDPC, LDGM, LDGM Staircase and LDGM Triangle, plus a Reed-Solomon Small Block FEC Codec,” INRIA Research Report RR-5225 (2004). |
| Roca, V., et, al. “Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) Staircase and Triangle Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes”, IETF RFC 5170 (Jun. 2008), pp. 1-34. |
| Rost, S. et al., “The Cyclone Server Architecture: streamlining delivery of popular content,” 2002, Computer Communications, vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 1-10. |
| Roth, R., et al., “A Construction of Non-Reed-Solomon Type MDS Codes”, IEEE Transactions of Information Theory, vol. 35, No. 3, May 1989, pp. 655-657. |
| Roth, R., “On MDS Codes via Cauchy Matrices”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 35, No. 6, Nov. 1989, pp. 1314-1319. |
| Seshan, S. et al., “Handoffs in Cellular Wireless Networks: The Daedalus Implementation and Experience,” Wireless Personal Communications, NL; Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 4, No. 2 (Mar. 1, 1997) pp. 141-162, XP000728589. |
| Shacham: “Packet Recovery and Error Correction in High-Speed Wide-Area Networks,” Proceedings of the Military Communications Conference. (Milcom), US, New York, IEEE, vol. 1, pp. 551-557 (1989) XP000131876. |
| Shierl T; Gruneberg K; Narasimhan S; Vetro A: “ISO/IEC 13818-1:2007/FPDAM 4—Information Technology Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and Audio Systems amendment 4: Transport of Multiview Video over ITU-T Rec H.222.0 ISO/IEC 13818-1” ITU-T Rec. H.222.0(May 2006)FPDAM 4, vol. MPEG2009, No. 10572, May 11, 2009, pp. 1-20, XP002605067 p. 11, last two paragraphs sections 2.6.78 and 2.6.79 table T-1. |
| Shokrollahi, A.: “Raptor Codes,” Internet Citation [Online] (Jan. 13, 2004) XP002367883, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/labs/danss/p2p/resources/raptor.pdf. |
| Shokrollahi, Amin. “Raptor Codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Jun. 2006, vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 2551-2567, (search date: Feb. 1, 2010) URL: <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm″id=1148681>. |
| Shokrollahi et al., “Design of Efficient Easure Codes with Differential Evolution”, IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, Jun. 25, 2000, pp. 5-5. |
| Sincoskie, W. D., “System Architecture for Large Scale Video on Demand Service,” Computer Network and ISDN Systems, pp. 155-162, (1991). |
| Smolic et al., “Development of a new MPEG standard for advanced 3D video applications”, Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis (ISPA), Sep. 16, 2009, pp. 400-407, IEEE, XP031552049, ISBN: 978-953-184-135-1. |
| Stockhammer, “WD 0.1 of 23001-6 Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH)”, MPEG-4 Systems, International Organisation for Standardisation, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Coding of Moving Pictures and Audio, MPEG 2010 Geneva/m11398, Jan. 6, 2011, 16 pp. |
| Sullivan et al., Document: JVT-AA007, “Editors' Draft Revision to ITU-T Rec. H.264|ISO/IEC 14496-10 Advanced Video Coding—In Preparation for ITU-T SG 16 AAP Consent (in integrated form),” Joint Video Team (JVT) of ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T SG16 Q.6), 30th Meeting: Geneva, CH, Jan. 29-Feb. 3, 2009, pp. 1-683, http://wftp3.itu.int/av-arch/jvt-site/2009—01—Geneva/JVT-AD007.zip. |
| Sun, et al., “Seamless Switching of Scalable Video Bitstreams for Efficient Streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 6, No. 2, Apr. 2004, pp. 291-303. |
| Telefon AB LM Ericsson, et al., “Media Presentation Description in httpstreaming”, 3GPP Draft; S4-100080-MPD, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France, vol. SA WG4, No. St Julians, Malta; 20100125, Jan. 20, 2010, XP050437773, [retrieved on Jan. 20, 2010]. |
| Todd, “Error Correction Coding: Mathematical Methods and Algorithms”, Mathematical Methods and Algorithms, Jan. 1, 2005, pp. 451-534, Wiley, XP002618913. |
| Tsunoda T., et al., “Reliable Streaming Contents Delivery by Using Multiple Paths,” Technical Report of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Japan, Mar. 2004, vol. 103, No. 692, pp. 187-190, NS2003-331, IN2003-286. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/840,146, by Ying Chen et al., filed Jul. 20, 2010. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/908,537, by Ying Chen et al., filed Oct. 20, 2010. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/908,593, by Ying Chen et al., filed Oct. 20, 2010. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/082,051, by Ying Chen et al., filed Apr. 7, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/205,559, by Ying Chen et al., filed Aug. 8, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/205,565, by Ying Chen et al., filed Aug. 8, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No.13/205,574, by Ying Chen et al., filed Aug. 8, 2011. |
| Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; Transparent end-to-end Packet-switched Streaming Service (PSS); Protocols and codecs (3GPP TS 26.234 version 9.3.0 Release 9), Technical Specification, European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis; France, vol. 3GPP SA, No. V9.3.0, Jun. 1, 2010, XP014047290, paragraphs [5.5.4.2], [5.5.4.3], [5.5.4.4], [5.4.5], [5.5.4.6] paragraphs [10.2.3], [11.2.7], [12.2.3], [12.4.2], [12.6.2] paragraphs [12.6.3], [12.6.3.1], [12.6.4], [12.6.6]. |
| Viswanathan, et al., “Metropolitan area video-on-demand services using pyramid broadcasting”, Multimedia Systems, 4(4): 197-208 (1996). |
| Viswanathan, et al., “Pyramid Broadcasting for Video-on-Demand Service”, Proceedings of the SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking Conference, vol. 2417, pp. 66-77 (San Jose, CA, Feb. 1995). |
| Viswanathan,Subramaniyam R., “Publishing in Wireless and Wireline Environments,” Ph. D Thesis, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (Nov. 1994), 180pages. |
| Watson, M., et, al. “Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation”, IETF RFC 5775, pp. 1-23, (Apr. 2010). |
| Wong, J.W., “Broadcast delivery”, Proceedings of the IEEE, 76(12): 1566-1577, (1988). |
| Yamauchi, Nagamasa. “Application of Lost Packet Recovery by Front Error Correction to Internet Multimedia Transfer” Proceedings of Workshop for Multimedia Communication and Distributed Processing, Japan, Information Processing Society of Japan (IPS), Dec. 6, 2000, vol. 2000, No. 15, pp. 145-150. |
| Yin et al., “Modified Belief-Propogation algorithm for Decoding of Irregular Low-Density Parity-Check Codes”, Electronics Letters, IEE Stevenage, GB, vol. 38, No. 24, Nov. 21, 2002, pp. 1551-1553. |
| Ying Chen et al: “Response to the CfP on HTTP Streaming: Adaptive Video Streaming based on AVC”, 93 MPEG Meeting; Jul. 26, 2010-Jul. 30, 2010; Geneva; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11), No. M17909, Jul. 26, 2010, XP030046499. |
| Zorzi, et al.: “On the Statistics of Block Errors in Bursty Channels,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 45, No. 6, Jun. 1997, pp. 660-667. |
| Anonymous: “Technologies under Consideration”, 100. MPEG Meeting;Apr. 30, 2012-May 4, 2012; Geneva; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1 /SC291WG11),, No. N12682, Jun. 7, 2012, XP030019156. |
| Hannuksela M.M., et al., “DASH: Indication of Subsegments Starting with SAP”, 97. MPEG Meeting; Jul. 18, 2011-Jul. 22, 2011; Torino; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11) No. m21096, Jul. 21, 2011, XP030049659. |
| Hannuksela M.M., et al., “ISOBMFF: SAP definitions and ‘sidx’ box”, 97. MPEG Meeting; Jul. 18, 2011-Jul. 22, 2011; Torino; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11) No. m21435, Jul. 22, 2011, XP030049998. |
| Stockhammer T., et al., “DASH: Improvements on Representation Access Points and related flags”, 97. MPEG Meeting; Jul. 18, 2011-Jul. 22, 2011; Torino; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11) No. m20339, Jul. 24, 2011, XP030048903. |
| Yamazaki M., et al., “Multilevel Block Modulation Codes Construction of Generalized DFT,” Technical Report of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Jan. 24, 1997, vol. 96, No. 494, pp. 19-24, IT96-50. |
| 3GPP: “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and system Aspects; Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS); Protocols and codecs (Release 6)”, Sophia Antipolis, France, Jun. 1, 2005, XP002695256, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi—ts/126300—126399/126346/06.01.00—60/ts—126346v060100p.pdf. |
| 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Transparent end-to-end Packet-switched Streaming Service (PSS); Progressive Download and Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (3GP-DASH) (Release 10), 3GPP Standard; 3GPP TS 26.247, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France, vol. SA WG4, No. V10.0.0, Jun. 17, 2011, pp. 1-94, XP050553206, [retrieved on Jun. 17, 2011]. |
| Anonymous: “Technologies under Consideration”, 98. MPEG Meeting; Nov. 28, 2011-Dec. 2, 2011; Geneva; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11), No. N12330, Dec. 3, 2011, XP030018825. |
| Anonymous: “Text of ISO/IEC IS 23009-1 Media Presentation Description and Segment Formats”, 98. MPEG Meeting; Nov. 28, 2011-Dec. 2, 2012; Geneva; (Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11), No. N12329, Jan. 6, 2012, XP030018824. |
| Atis: “PTV Content on Demand Service”, IIF-WT-063R44, Nov. 11, 2010, pp. 1-124, XP055045168, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:ftp://vqeg.its.bldrdoc.gov/Documents/VQEG—Atlanta—Nov10/MeetingFiles/Liaison/IIF- WT-063R44—Content—on—Demand.pdf [retrieved on Nov. 22, 2012]. |
| Bouazizi I., et al., “Proposals for ALC/FLUTE server file format (14496-12Amd.2)”, 77. MPEG Meeting; Jul. 17, 2006- Jul. 21, 2006; Klagenfurt; (Motion Pictureexpert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11), No. M13675, Jul. 12, 2006, XP030042344, ISSN: 0000-0236. |
| “Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Framing structure, channel coding and modulation for digital terrestrial television; ETSI EN 300 744” ETSI Standards, LIS, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France, V1.6.1, pp. 9, Jan. 10, 2009. |
| European Search Report—EP07756943—Search Authority—Munich—May 2, 2013 (091851EP). |
| Frojdh P., et al., “Study on 14496-12:2005/PDAM2 ALU/FLUTE Server File Format”, 78.MPEG Meeting; Oct. 23, 2006-Oct. 27, 2006; Hangzhou: (Motion Picturexpert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11) No. M13855, Oct. 13, 2006, XP030042523, ISSN: 0000-0233. |
| Gil A., et al., “Personalized Multimedia Touristic Services for Hybrid Broadcast/Broadband Mobile Receivers,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 2010, vol. 56 (1), pp. 211-219. |
| Kim J., et al., “Enhanced Adaptive Modulation and Coding Schemes Based on Multiple Channel Reportings for Wireless Multicast Systems”, 62nd IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, VTC—2005—Fall, Sep. 25-28, 2005, vol. 2, pp. 725-729, XP010878578, DOI: 1 0.11 09/VETECF.2005.1558019, ISBN: 978-0-7803-9152-9. |
| Li, M., et al., “Playout Buffer and Rate Optimization for Streaming over IEEE 802.11 Wireless Networks”, Aug. 2009, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA. |
| Luby et al., RaptorQ Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-00, Qualcomm, Inc. Jan. 28, 2010. |
| Michael G et al., “Improved low-density parity-check codes using irregular graphs”, Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on, Feb. 2001, vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 585-598. |
| Moriyama, S., “5. Present Situation of Terrestrial Digital Broadcasting in Europe and USA”, Journal of The Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers, Nov. 20, 1999, vol. 53, No. 11, pp. 1476-1478. |
| Motorola et al: “An Analysis of DCD Channel Mapping to BCAST File Delivery Sessions; OMA-CD-DCD-2007-0112-INP—DCD—Channel—Mapping—to—BCAST—Fi1e—Delivery”, OMA-CD-DCD-2007-0112-INP—DCD—CHANNEL—MAPPING—TO—BCAST—FILE—DELIVERY, Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), 4330 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 110 San Diego, CA 92122; USA Oct. 2, 2007, pp. 1-13, XP064036903. |
| Ohashi A et al., “Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) Decoding of Quantized Data,” Technical Report of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Aug. 23, 2002, vol. 102, No. 282, pp. 47-52, RCS2002-154. |
| Qualcomm Incorporated: “RaptorQ Technical Overview”, pp. 1-12, Oct. 1, 2010. |
| Roumy A., et al., “Unequal Erasure Protection and Object Bundle Protection with the Generalized Object Encoding Approach”, Inria-00612583, Version 1, Jul. 29, 2011, 25 pages. |
| Schulzrinne, et al., “Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)” Network Working Group, Request for Comments: 2326, Apr. 1998, pp. 1-92. |
| Wadayama T, “Introduction to Low Density Parity Check Codes and Sum-Product Algorithm,” Technical Report of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Dec. 6, 2001, vol. 101, No. 498, pp. 39-46, MR2001-83. |
| Bross, et al., “High efficiency video coding (HEVC) text specification draft 6,” JCTVC-H1003, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 8th Meeting: San José, CA, USA, Feb. 1-10, 2012, 259 pp. |
| Makoto N., et al., “On Turning of Blocking LU decomposition for VP2000 series” The 42th Information Processing Society of Japan Conference (1st term in 1991), Feb. 25, 1991, pp. 71-72, 4B-8. |
| Miller G., et al., “Bounds on the maximum likelihood decoding error probability of low density parity check codes”, Information Theory, 2000. Proceesings. IEEE International Symposium on, 2000, p. 290. |
| Muramatsu J., et al., “Low density parity check matrices for coding of multiple access networks”, Information Theory Workshop, 2003. Proceedings. 2003 IEEE, Apr. 4, 2003, pp. 304-307. |
| Samukawa, H. “Blocked Algorithm for LU Decomposition” Journal of the Information Processing Society of Japan, Mar. 15, 1993, vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 398-408. |
| 3GPP TSG-SA4 #57 S4-100015, IMS based PSS and MBMS User Service extensions, Jan. 19, 2010, URL: http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg—sa/WG4—CODEC/TSGS4—57/docs/S4-100015.zip. |
| 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Transparent end-to-end Packet-switched Streaming Service (PSS);Protocols and codecs(Release 9) 3GPP TS 26.234 V9.3.0, Jun. 23, 2010 p. 85-102, URL, http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/TSG—SA/WG4—CODEC/TSGS4—59/Docs/S4-100511.zip, 26234-930.zip. |
| Lee, J.Y., “Description of Evaluation Experiments on ISO/IEC 23001-6, Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP”, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11MPEG2010/N11450, Jul. 31, 2010, 16 pp. |
| Luby M., “Simple Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes,” draft-luby-rmt-bb-fec-supp-simple-00.txt, pp. 1-14, Jun. 2004. |
| Luby M., “LT Codes”, Foundations of Computer Science, 2002, Proceedings, The 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on, 2002. |
| Morioka S., “A Verification Methodology for Error Correction Circuits over Galois Fields”, Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM Japan Ltd, pp. 275-280, Apr. 22-23, 2002. |
| Qualcomm Incorporated: “Adaptive HTTP Streaming: Complete Proposal”, 3GPP TSG-SA4 AHI Meeting S4-AHI170, Mar. 2, 2010, URL, http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/tsg—sa/WG4—CODEC/Ad-hoc—MBS/Docs—AHI/S4-AHI170.zip, S4-AH170—CR—AdaptiveHTTPStreaming-Full.doc. |
| Qualcomm Incorporated: “Corrections to 3GPP Adaptive HTTP Streaming”, 3GPP TSG-SA4 #59 Change Request 26.234 CR0172 S4-100403, Jun. 16, 2010, URL, http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/tsg—sa/WG4—CODEC/TSGS4—59/Docs/S4-100403.zip, S4-100403—CR—26234-0172-AdaptiveHTTPStreaming-Rel-9.doc. |
| Chikara S., et al., “Add-on Download Scheme for Multicast Content Distribution Using LT Codes”, IEICE. B, Communications, Aug. 1, 2006, J89-B (8), pp. 1379-1389. |
| Gerard F., et al., “HTTP Streaming MPEG media—Response to CFP”, 93. MPEG Meeting, Geneva Jul. 26, 2010 to Jul. 30, 2010. |
| Hasan M A., et al., “Architecture for a Low Complexity Rate-Adaptive Reed-Solomon Encoder”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, IEEE Service Center, Los Alamitos, CA, US, vol. 44, No. 7, Jul. 1, 1995, pp. 938-942, XP000525729, ISSN: 0018-9340, DOI: 10.1109/12.392853. |
| Tetsuo M., et al., “Comparison of Loss Resilient Ability between Multi-Stage and Reed-Solomon Coding”, Technical report of IEICE. CQ, Communication Quality, vol. 103 (178), Jul. 4, 2003, pp. 19-24. |
| Watson M., et al., “Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-11,” 2011, pp. 1-38, URL, http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-11.pdf. |
| Watson M., et al., “Raptor FEC Schemes for FECFRAME draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-04,” 2010, pp. 1-21, URL, http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-04.pdf. |
| Qualcomm Incorporated: “RatorQ Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-04”, Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF, pp. 1-68, Aug. 24, 2010. |
| Ramsey B, “HTTP Status: 206 Partial Content and Range Requests,” May 5, 2008 obtained at http://benramsey.com/blog/2008/05/206-partial-content-and-range-requests/. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20070204196 A1 | Aug 2007 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60773501 | Feb 2006 | US | |
| 60773185 | Feb 2006 | US |
