2016 International Symposium on Electronics and Smart Devices (ISESD) November 29-30, 2016
Stereotypes Based Resource Allocation for
Multimedia Internet Service in Limited Capacity
Network
Adi Sucipto
School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics
Institut Teknologi Bandung
Bandung, Indonesia
adisheva1208@gmail.com
Abstract-Nowadays, Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) is widely used in various fields. For an
example, education sector also widely utilizes ICT in distance
learning process through the use of multimedia conferencing
technology. In order to support the multimedia-based services, it
is needed sufficient network resources such as good
infrastructure and bandwidth availability. In Indonesia, most
areas are typically facing several barriers on network
infrastructure. Limited bandwidth is one of the main problems to
deliver multimedia contents like in distance learning services. In
this research, we aim to study on how to deliver multimedia with
Quality of Service (QoS) guarantee (minimum delay and packet
loss) on the bandwidth-limited network which is typically less
than 3 Mbps in Indonesia’s rural areas. Moreover, we also aim to
study on how to maximize the performance of the existing
network. In this research, we use stereotype-based model to
classify multimedia stream and allocate existing resources in
limited capacity network. This paper will explain how to allocate
the available resources using stereotype models for multimedia
internet services in a limited capacity networks. From simulation
study, the proposed method demonstrates better results when
employing proposed method than using iPAS mechanism in low
bandwidth network.
Keywords—Multimedia delivery, limited capacity network,
Stereotype, resource allocation
I. INTRODUCTION
Utilization of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) to communicate and exchange information is needed in
many aspects of life. Communication which originally was text
(the media) has evolved into a multimedia content. The
multimedia content includes text, voice, video, animation or
other data. The multimedia stream delivery requires good
infrastructure and large bandwidth capacity. The world of
education today utilizes ICT in teaching and learning by
utilizing multimedia services. Education in Indonesia,
especially in urban areas, infrastructure and existing
technology already supports multimedia services for the
learning process. For an example, it can support multiple
applications and multimedia content for teaching and learning.
This is in contrast to the rural areas. In rural areas, it only has
bandwidth less than 3 Mbps, distance learning is not going
well. The learning activities that use video conference, not only
audio and video data are transmitted, but also other data
transmitted participate, according to the needs of each type of
stream. This process requires good QoS to handle it.
978-1-5090-3840-4/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Y. Bandung
School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics
Institut Teknologi Bandung
Bandung, Indonesia
ybandung@gmail.com
Maintaining QoS in network is necessary, so that the delivered
data remains well until the data is received by the recipient.
The success of a network is how the multimedia stream is sent
over the network by minimizing delay and packet loss. Many
studies have been conducted in QoS with different approaches.
There are several techniques to improve QoS of multimedia,
such as stereotype [18], game theory [19] [20], overlay
networks [21] and cross layer [22] [23]. Resource allocation
and system-related priorities, as this determines the allocation
given will depend on the priorities.
Elaine Rich [5] introduces a technique that can be used for
user modeling called stereotype. Stereotypes can change
something complex into several classes/groups. The study on
[18] adapted stereotype to model the types of streams in the
QoS system. The study [18] showed better results than using
the 802.11e EDCA QoS performance. The study on [2]
conducted stereotyping on the user's web services, and
provided suggestions on what web services are in accordance
with the character of the web itself. This research was
developed to analyze and propose classifying streams and how
to allocate resources to the limited capacity of the network
connected to the internet. In this research we use stereotype
modeling and bandwidth distribution techniques. It is as a
benchmark of success measured by using some of the QoS
parameters.
II. RELATED WORKS
A. Multimedia
Multimedia is media containing various content such as
text, audio, video, animation and other data. Multimedia
functions as a means of support in conveying information,
learning, or entertainment. Multimedia streams are multimedia
services delivered over the network. In study [10] [15],
multimedia transmission over the internet becomes the object
of research. To make a good QoS, need to know what affects
the quality of the stream multimedia files. Multimedia
streaming requires sufficient bandwidth, low delay and low
packet loss. Multimedia files include audio (conversation,
messenger, streaming), video (video conferencing, video
streaming), background data (Fax, SMS and others), and best
effort (figures, conversations, email, data browsing, telnet,
bulk data or uploading and downloading files).
The study by [6] described two types of services in
multimedia streaming. First, On-demand service, it provides
272
multimedia data stored in a large volume of disks in real-time
when client’s requests are made. Second, Live broadcasting
service, it provides live broadcasting of images from video
camcorders or voices from microphones to clients in real-time.
B. Limited capacity network in rural area
Network in rural areas has limited bandwidth capacity. Fig.
1 shows rural networks still using DSL broadband network to
connect to the internet with low bandwidth less than 3 Mbps.
DSL uses copper wires to transmit data, it is connected to
homes. DSL in transmitting the data, data is together with the
sound simultaneously. In the DSL network, data are
transmitted differentiated frequency. The data transmitted
using high frequency, while the sound using low frequency.
Fig.1. DSL Network
Rural networks also use a wireless network. Fig. 2 shows
WLAN that is used in rural areas. Wireless networks have a set
of standards used for wireless local area network (Wireless
Local Area Networks - WLANs) based on IEEE 802.11
specification, namely 802.11a, 802.11b, and 802.11g. Standard
802.11g has a speed of 54 Mbps with a frequency of 2.4 GHz.
IEEE 802.11e specification was developed to solve the
problem before QOS on IEEE 802.11 specification, support for
a differentiation between the four different classes of traffic is
voice, video, best effort and background data.
Fig. 2. Wireless Network with Variety of Devices
C. Quality of Services (QoS)
QoS is a mechanism of measurement of how well the
applications and services running on the network. QoS aims at
providing better service quality and service that is different
with the same network infrastructure. QoS parameters are:
- Delay Time
Delay is the time duration required from the data sent to
the data received from one host to host. The delay time can be
a propagation delay time, delay time queuing and transmission
delay time [3]. ITU-T G.114 classifying delay based on the
convenience of users as shown in Table I.
TABLE I. CLASSIFYING TIME DELAY
Delay time(ms) Quality Description
0 – 150 Good Acceptable
150 – 400 Sufficient Still can Acceptable
> 400 Bad Not acceptable
273
- Bandwidth capacity
Bandwidth capacity is the ability of a network to transmit
data within a certain period. Data transfer speed is expressed
in units of bit per second (bps). Bandwidth capacity is closely
related to throughput. Throughput is the number of packets
that arrive at the destination during the specified time interval
divided by the duration of the interval. Bandwidth estimation
can be used to improve the quality of multimedia services and
video streaming applications [11].
ℎ ℎ =
(1)
- Packets Loss
Packet loss can be caused by discarded packets on the way
to the destination host. This is usually due to a connection
failure, the route changes suddenly, or congestion on the
router. Packet loss is a major cause of decreased quality of
audio and video in multimedia streaming and video
conferencing. Standard lost packets according to ITU-T
G.1010 shown in Table II. as follows. Tolerance levels of lost
packets according to ITU-T G.1010 a maximum of 3%.
= x 100% (2)
TABLE II. PLR OF ITU-T G.1010 RECOMMENDATION
Degree of
Medium Application
Symmetry
PLR
Audio Conversational voice Two-way < 3%
Audio Voice messaging Primarily one-way < 3%
Audio High quality streaming audio Primarily one-way <1%
Video Videophone Two-way <1%
Video One-way One-way <1%
D. Stereotype
Stereotyping is a technique used for user modeling. This
technique was introduced by Elaine Rich [5]. According to
Rich, stereotyping is used to create a system that can analyze
the character of the user which refers to information that has
been predetermined. Elaine Rich states that stereotyping can
accelerate decision-making because the system will not ask for
too much input data, and using the baseline of stereotypes.
Elaine Rich used stereotypes in Grundy system which is a
system that is trying to replace a librarian in suggesting books
that might correspond to the characteristics of the input by the
user. Stereotyping is commonly used to create a system that
has the ability of user’s modeler.
In research [2], stereotype is a structure of knowledge that
can be used by a system for decision-making or giving advice.
A stereotype in general has a section body, triggers, and a set
of relationships between the stereotypes in a system. The use
of stereotypes in the QoS also has been done before. The study
on iPAS[18] adapted stereotype to model the types of streams
in the QoS system. The study implements stereotyping to
determine the priority of each multimedia data stream and
provide suggestion for the allocation of resources (bandwidth).
iPAS system classifies multiple streams into several classes.
Classify into 5 classes: High Priority (HP), Medium to High
Priority (MHP), Medium Priority (MP), Medium to Low
Priority (MLP), Low Priority (LP). Stream is divided by two
main types of characteristics of the characteristic parameter
for network QoS (jitter, delay, loss) and characteristics of the B. Mechanism Proposed
stream, in this case (screen resolution of the device used, the In this study, we adapt the study [18] but there are
remaining battery life, and the type of application). difference on the number of classes, stereotype classification,
TABLE III. STEREOTYPE CLASSIFICATION BY IPAS [18] and the value of the shared bandwidth. We developed a method
to classify the multimedia stream and allocation of bandwidth
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
less than 3 Mbps. The development of this method is expected
Delay < 150ms (150ms- (400ms- (1s-5s] > 5s
400ms] 1s] to provide a good proposal in allocating resources, especially
Jitter < 40ms (40ms- (50ms- (60ms- > 70ms for audio and video. In this study, we evaluated the quality of
50ms] 60ms] 70ms] transmitted audio and video (QoS) by using several parameters
Loss < 10-5% 10-5%-1% 1%-2% 2%-5% >5% such as delay and packet loss. This study applies fourth
Battery [100%-80%] (80%- (60%- (40%- <20% stereotypes in classifying streams and priority the audio and
Remaining 60%] 40%] 20%] video streams. In this study, we proposed the classification of
Devices > 1024x768 (1024x768 (768x48 (480x3 <320x
Resolution -768x480] 0- 60- 240
stereotypes as shown in Table V.
480x36 320x24 TABLE V. CLASSIFICATION TO DETERMINE THE PRIORITY LEVEL
0] 0]
Application VoIP HD-Video SD- Best Backgr Priority Level Class
Types Video Effort ound Level 1 Priority
Level 2 Middle to priority
The main priority or high (high Priority) is shown on first Level 3 Middle to low
level and the lowest (Low Priority) is level 5th. Then, by iPAS Level 4 Low
[18] once classified, the system gives the proposal of
As shown in table V, classification of streams is divided
allocating existing resources. Table IV shows allocation of
into four classes: Priority (audio), Middle to priority (video),
resources, according to the priority level predetermined.
Middle to low (best effort), Low (background data). Each
TABLE IV. BANDWIDTH SHARED BY IPAS [18] level of classes determines priority level of the class. Class at
Priority level Resource Allocation bandwidth level 1 is given a high priority, and to the next level given the
Level 1 0 ~ 20% moderate and tend to be low. Table VI shows the stereotype
Level 2 20%~40% classification of streams that we have proposed.
Level 3 40%~60% TABLE VI. STEREOTYPE CLASSIFICATION PROPOSED
Level 4 60%~80%
Priority Stereotype
Level 5 80%~100%
Contains Sound/VoIP
According to [18], a stereotype consists of 2 parts: Bit-rate 4kbit/s-64kbit/s standard G.1010
Delay >150ms
- A set of features {F1,F2,….Fn}, it is refer to a character
Loss <3%
that describes the stereotype for the classification process. Middle to priorityStereotype1
- Suggestion {S1,S2,S3,…Sn}, it is need to be used to Contains High Resolution Video
Bit-rate >128kbit/s standard G.1010
allocate bandwidth.
Delay (150ms-400ms]
Loss <10-5-1%
III. METHODOLOGY Middle to priorityStereotype2
Contains Low Resolution Video
In this study, the authors use the method of approach which Bit-rate 4kbit/s-128kbit/s standard G.1010
includes literature studies, problem identification, development Delay 400ms-1s
Loss 1%-2%
of methods, classification, testing and analysis of the results Middle to low Stereotype
thus obtained a conclusion. Contains Data/Best Effort
A. Literature Review and Problem Identification Delay 1s-5s
Loss 2%-5%
Literature review is conducted in the field of multimedia Low Stereotype
streaming in the low bandwidth network [13] [16] Contains Background Data
Delay >5s
[17],multimedia streaming [9] [15], resource allocation [14]
Loss >5%
[18], as well as research related to the implementation of QoS
using stereotyping [2] [18], Game Theory [19] [20], overlay Middle to priority stereotype is divided into two parts,
networks [21], and cross layer [22] [23]. Furthermore, the High Resolution Video and Low Resolution Video.
authors identify the problems in research in the field of
streaming media on the network with low bandwidth refers to C. Stereotype-based Bandwidth Allocation (SBA)
the study [11] [13] as well as research on the implementation Based on the study [18] and the results of our observations,
of QoS with stereotyping [2] [18], and then perform method SBA is one of the optimal schemes to cope with the arrival of
development within the classification multimedia stream and the information which is unpredictable and always changing on
allocation resources on the network by the method of the network. SBA can also adapt to changes in the fluctuations
stereotyping. In general, network with low bandwidth capacity and changes the device used, because the incoming information
will affect the quality of transmitted audio and video. This is has filtered into classes that have been specified. We are using
because audio and video a transmitted with high data rate. This the SBA in allocating resources. This study adapted [18], but
study focuses on prioritizing the audio and video. SBA only into fourth classes. There are Priority class (audio),

274
Middle to priority class (video), Middle to low class (best Based on table VI, the streams are 1 (Middle to low
effort), and Low class (background data). Each stereotype class class), 2 (Middle to priority class), and 3 (priority class). If
consists of two components: a group of features F = (F1, F2..., calculated using the formula (3)-(8), then the results obtained
Fi… Fm) describing the stereotype and a group of suggestions S distribution are:
=(S1, S2...,Sj,...,Sn) that should be performed to determine
1= 2.58%x100% + 21.17%x75% + 43.16%x50% + 33.09%x25%
stream’s bandwidth. This study focuses on audio, the = 48.31%
bandwidth is divided at the beginning as shown in Table VII.
TABLE VII. BANDWIDTH SHARED 2= 25.95%x100% + 49.94%x75% + 21.22%x50% + 2.99%x25%
= 76.69%
Priority Level Bandwidth shared
Level 1 75%~100% 3= 60.97%x100% + 35.57%x75% + 3.36%x50% + 0.09%x25%
Level 2 50%~75% = 89.36%
Level 3 25%~50% The total of 1, 2 and 3 amounts to 212.35%. Due to the
Level 4 0%~25%
amount of percentage exceeds 100%, it is necessary to
In this study, researchers tried deployments of QoS by normalize the results of normalization entered into
dividing the stream into a fourth. It is adapted from the study parameter . Normalization Results obtained by dividing the
[18] that distribution of each class uses the Poisson value of 100 with the sum ( 1 . . . ).
distribution. 100
= (9)
, = (3) ∑
!
This research shows that the Poisson distribution uses the Based on the formula (9), the normalized results 1, 2
values u= 7 and x interval of [0-12]. Each class of stereotypes and 3 are inserted into the parameter is 0.47. Percentage
using the Poisson distribution with the same interval [0-12]. of value that will be distributed to 1 = 0.47x48.31% =
Uk value obtained by dividing the interval [0-12] into four 22.75%, 2 = 0.47x76.69% = 35.17% and 3 =
segments and then looking middle value. The probability of 0,47x89.36%= 42.08%. We can see from the above
each PFij values obtained from the equation (4). calculation, the distribution of existing bandwidth value is
different for each stream as shown in Table IX.
= , (4) TABLE IX. BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION FOR EACH LEVEL
∈ 1 , (5) Bandwidth Distribution Value
Allocation Level 3 Level 2 Level 1
12 75%~100% 2.58% 25.95% 60.97%
=  (6)
50%~75% 21.17% 49.94% 35.57%
25%~50% 43.16% 21.22% 3.36%
Every feature Fi has a linguistic term that has a length of q, 0%~25% 33.09% 2.99% 0.09%
the parameter q is a number of priorities class. Next step, the
authors try to seek value , and . is a IV. MULTIMEDIA DELIVERY QOS SIMULATION
normalization value for the stream, so that the value In this study, we conducted testing using simulations. Test is
distribution is not too small and close to 1 when done by allocating bandwidth of about 512 kbps-3 Mbps. The
inserted into the formula (8), look for the formula (7) below, tests are using a simulator OMNET ++ version 4.6 with INET
use (4) in (7): framework. Fig.3 describes a topography that will be used in
1 testing with OMNET ++.
= (7)
∑
The obtained value will be multiplied by , in
order to produce a value that is used to distribute bandwidth to
each class. Use (7) in (8):
DistPFij= MPFijx PFij (8)
This study using Poisson distribution for each segment Fig.3. Topography Network on simulation OMNET
from first to fourth grade class assumed initial values mean
This simulation data rate for each channel from the host to
(µ1) are 2.5, 4.5, 8.5, and 11.5. That values are used in
the router set from our proposed and [18] proposed. Data rate
allocating resources to each class, for example, the audio on internet cloud was assumed have high speed network, which
obtained 2.5.Based on the use of stereotypes, term linguistics is 100 Mbps. We use existing data in Table X as follows:
is the description of the stream (U) which contains the features TABLE X. SIMULATION DATA
and their values ( 1, 1 value)...( , value) to be used in Data
the classification stream. For example, a data stream shown in Bandwidth ISP 512kbps, 1Mbps, 2Mbps
Table VIII: Delay between locations 225 ms
TABLE VIII. DATA STREAM Delay Internet(cloud) 35ms
Bit error ratio 10-5
Stream1 Stream2 Stream3
Bit-rate Video two-way direction 500 kbps
Delay 3s 1s 140ms Bit-rate Audio two-way direction 100 kbps
Jitter 88ms 68ms 58ms Bit-rate Background data 256 kbps
Loss 2% 1% <10-5 Size of data (Best Effort) 1 Mb
Application Http Video streaming VoIP Long time simulation 100s

275
A. Multimedia Content Delivery Scenario 3) Test at 2 Mbps bandwidth
There are several scenarios that will be conducted in testing, We conducted several tests which are scenarios I and II on
the scenarios are: the bandwidth of 2 Mbps, with secondary data refers to
1. The first scenario, this simulation distributes bandwidth Table X. The simulation results are shown in Table XIII.
using stereotypes classification and allocation developed Table XIII described decrement in end-to-end delay and
by author. packet loss in scenario I towards scenario II, but increment
2. The second scenario, this simulation distributes bandwidth in the first scenario, especially in end to end delay of video
using stereotypes classification and allocation developed and packet loss of audio.
by the research [18] as a comparison.
TABLE XIII. DATA MEASUREMENT AT 2 MBPS BANDWIDTH
This study used two parameters: delay and packet loss.
Scenario I Scenario II
Multimedia delivery process was configured using one-way End to end delay of audio (s) 0.305 0.312
communication. Multimedia delivery consists of audio, video, End to end delay of video (s) 3.2 1.99
best effort, and background traffic. Configuration of Packet loss audio (%) 1.69 1.55
multimedia delivery is described as follows: Packet loss video (%) 2.65 12.2
1) Audio. Audio packets was transmitted using Bandwidth allocation of audio (kbps) 714 288
talkPacketSize = 160 bytes and packetization Interval = Bandwidth allocation of video (kbps) 598 470
0.02s. This configuration is aimed to represent the use of
Vorbis as the audio codec with data rate 64 Kbps. 4) Test at 3 Mbps bandwidth
2) Video. Video packets was transmitted using packetLen = We conducted several tests which are scenarios I and II on
1024 bytes and sendInterval = 0.016 s. This configuration the bandwidth of 3 Mbps, with secondary data refers to
is aimed to represent the use of Vorbis as the video codec Table X. The simulation results are shown in Table XIV.
with data rate 500 Kbps. Table XIV described decrement in end-to-end delay and
3) Best Effort. Packets was transmitted using sendbytes = packet loss in scenario I towards scenario II, but an
10Mb. increment in the first scenario, especially in packet loss of
4) Background Traffic. Video packets was transmitted using audio and video.
messageLength = 512 bytes and sendInterval = 0.032
TABLE XIV. DATA MEASUREMENT AT 3 MBPS BANDWIDTH
seconds. Background traffic was transmitted during audio
and video delivery process. Scenario I Scenario II
End to end delay of audio (s) 0.301 0.306
B. Simulation results End to end delay of video (s) 0.302 0.308
From the simulation scenarios, we obtained multimedia Packet loss audio (%) 1.57 1.55
QoS characterization of both audio and video delivery. We Packet loss video (%) 2.74 2.01
Bandwidth allocation of audio (kbps) 1071 432
investigate end-to-end delay and packet loss to obtain reviews Bandwidth allocation of video (kbps) 897 705
of these characteristics.
1) Test at 512 kbps bandwidth C. Analysis of result
We conducted several tests which are scenarios I and II on
the bandwidth of 512 kbps, with secondary data refers to 1) End-to-end delay
Table X. The simulation results are shown in Table XI. After the testing phase, we analyzed the simulation results
Table XI shows decrement on end-to-end delay and packet of end-to-end delay audio and video. Fig. 4 shows the result of
loss rates in scenario I towards scenario II: end-to-end delay audio and video on scenario I and scenario II
TABLE XI. DATA MEASUREMENT AT 512 KBPS BANDWIDTH according to the simulations that have been carried out.
Scenario I Scenario II
End to end delay of audio (s) 0.33 0.54
End to end delay of video (s) 5.7 7.1
Packet loss audio (%) 2 2.1
Packet loss video (%) 71.59 77.57
Bandwidth allocation of audio (kbps) 182.8 73.7
Bandwidth allocation of video (kbps) 153.1 120.4

2) Test at 1 Mbps bandwidth

We conducted several tests which are scenarios I and II on
the bandwidth of 1 Mbps, with secondary data refers to Fig.4. End-to-end delay of audio (i) and video (ii)
Table X. The simulation result are shown in Table XII. Fig 4 shown an increase of the method we are proposed. A
Table XII described decrement in end-to-end delay and decrement is in end-to-end delay audio and video. This occurs
packet loss rates in scenario I towards scenario II: in part of the low bandwidth of 512kbps - 3 Mbps.
TABLE XII. DATA MEASUREMENT AT 1 MBPS BANDWIDTH
Scenario I Scenario II 2) Packet Loss
End to end delay of audio (s) 0.31 0.32 After we analyzed end-to-end delay, we also analyzed the
End to end delay of video (s) 3.1 3.85
Packet loss audio (%) 1.7 1.9
simulation results of packet loss audio and video. Fig. 5 shows
Packet loss video (%) 44.13 56.03 the results of packet loss audio and video on scenario I and
Bandwidth allocation of audio (kbps) 357 144 scenario II according to the simulations that have been carried
Bandwidth allocation of video (kbps) 299 235 out.

276

Fig.5. Packet Loss of audio (i) and video (ii)
In Fig. 5 shown an increase of the method we are proposed.
A decrement is in packet loss audio and video. This occurs in
part of the low bandwidth of 512kbps - 3Mbps, but in Fig.5(i)
is at 2 Mbps bandwidth, packet loss of audio greater than the
results of iPASFig.5(ii). Test at 3 Mbps bandwidth, packet loss
of audio is lower than the results of iPAS Fig. 5(ii).
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we present a method of classification and
allocation of resources in the network with low bandwidth
capacity (less than 3 Mbps). There are several steps that have
been made; problem identification, streams classifications,
resource allocation, and testing. Simulation study was
conducted with different resource allocation for each stream
(audio, video, best effort, background data). We have done the
testing scenarios that have been determined, from the methods
we proposed compared with iPAS proposed, and the results
obtained are:
1) The simulation results in bandwidth of 512 kbps decreased
39% for the end to end delay of audio (from the methods we
proposed, audio is sufficient quality, it is still an acceptable
than iPAS), 19.7% for end-to-end delay of video (video is
bad quality as same as iPAS proposed), 4.8% for packet loss
of audio (audio still can an acceptable as same as iPAS
proposed), and 7.7% for packet loss of video (video is bad
quality as same as iPAS proposed).
2) The simulation results in bandwidth of 1 Mbps decreased
3.125% for the end to end delay of audio (audio is sufficient
quality, it is still can an acceptable as same as iPAS
proposed), 19.5% for end-to-end delay of video (video is
bad quality as same as iPAS proposed), 10.53% for packet
loss of audio (audio still can an acceptable as same as iPAS
proposed), and 21.24% for packet loss of video (video is
bad quality as same as iPAS proposed).
3) The simulation results in bandwidth of 2 Mbps decreased
2.24% for the end to end delay of audio (audio is sufficient
quality, it’s still can an acceptable as same as iPAS
proposed), but in end-to-end delay of video increased 37.8%
(video is bad quality as same as iPAS proposed), and 8.3%
for packet loss of audio (audio still can an acceptable as
same as iPAS proposed), and for packet loss of video
decreased 78.28% (video still can an acceptable than iPAS).
4) The simulation results in bandwidth of 3 Mbps decreased
1.64% for the end to end delay of audio (audio is sufficient
quality, it’s still can an acceptable as same as iPAS
proposed), 1.9% for end-to-end delay of video (video is
sufficient quality, it’s still can an acceptable as same as
iPAS proposed), but in packet loss of audio increased 1.27%
(audio still can an acceptable as same as iPAS proposed),
277
and 26.64 % for packet loss of video (video still can
acceptable as same as iPAS proposed).
REFERENCES
[1] Kobsa and W. Wahlster, Eds., User Models in Dialog Systems. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1989.
[2] Muntean and J. McManis, “A QoS-aware adaptive Web-based system,”
in 2004 IEEE International Conference on Communications (IEEE Cat.
No.04CH37577), vol. 4. IEEE, 2004, pp. 2204–2208 Vol.4.
[3] Dischinger, M., Haeberlen, A., Gummadi, K.P., and Saroiu, S.,
“Characterizing Residential Broadband Networks”. IMC’07. San Diego,
California USA., 2007
[4] Rich and C. Sciences, “Users are individuals : - individualizing
usermodels,” pp. 199–214, 1983.
[5] Rich, “User modeling via stereotypes,” Cognitive Science J., vol. 3, no.
4, pp. 329–354, 1979.
[6] Eun Hwan Jo, Moon Hae Kim, and Jung-Guk Kim, “Modeling of
Multimedia Streaming Services Based on the TMO Structuring Scheme”
0-7695-1089-2/01 IEEE, 2001.
[7] G. Venkatesan, “Multimedia streaming over 802.11 links” IEEE
Wireless Commun.,vol. 17, no.2, pp. 4–5, 2010
[8] ITU-T, “G.1010:end-user multimedia QoS categories,” 2001.
[9] J. L. Garcia-Dorado, A. Finamore, M. Mellia, M. Meo, and M. Munaf`o,
“Characterization of ISP Traffic: Trends, User Habits, and Access
Technology Impact” IEEE Transactions On Network And Service
Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2012
[10] J. Silvestre-Blanes, L. Almeida, R. Marau and P. Pedreiras, “Online QoS
Management for Multimedia Real-Time Transmission in Industrial
Networks,” Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions, vol. 58, no. 3, pp.
1061-1071,2011.
[11] K. Thomas Riedhammer, “Interactive Approaches to Video Lecture
Assessment,” Ph.D. dissertation, ErlangenN¨urnberg, 2012.
[12] Kadur, S., Golshani, F., and Millard, G, “Delay-jitter control in
multimedia application”, Multimedia Systems, No. 4, 1996, pp.30-39
[13] Nagarajanvelmurugan, Karthikeyan, S., and Dananjayan, P, “Resource
Allocation Management for Multimedia QoS in Wireless Networks”.
International Conference on Signal Processing, Communications and
Networking, ICSCN '07. Page(s): 122 – 127. 2007.
[14] Qian Zhang, Zhu, Wenwu, and Ya-Qin Zhang, “Resource Allocation for
Multimedia Streaming Over the Internet”. IEEE Transactions On
Multimedia, Vol. 3, No. 3, Page(s): 339 – 355. September 2001.
[15] Veeraraghavan and S. Weber, “Fundamental tradeoffs in distributed
algorithms for rate adaptive multimedia streams,” Computer Networks,
vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1238-1251, 2008.
[16] Bandung Y., Erwin, and Hutabarat Mervin T., “Network
Characterization for Delivering Multimedia-based Learning in Rural
Areas”; International Conference on Advances in Education
Technology (ICAET 2014), 2014, Page(s): 54-57. October 2014
[17] Yu, F., Wong, V.W.S., Leung, V.C.M., “Efficient QoS Provisioning for
Adaptive Multimedia in Mobile Communication Networks by
Reinforcement Learning”. First International Conference on Broadband
Networks, 2004. BroadNets 2004. Proceedings., Page(s): 579-588. 2004.
[18] Z. Yuan and G.-M. Muntean, “A Prioritized Adaptive Scheme for
Multimedia Services over IEEE 802.11 WLANs” IEEE Transactions On
Network And Service Management, Vol. 10, No.4, December 2013.
[19] R. Trestian, O. Ormond and G.-M. Muntean, “Game Theory-Based
Network Selection: Solutions and Challenges,” Communications
Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1212 - 1231, 2012.
[20] D. E. Charilas and A. D. Panagopoulos, “A survey on game theory
applications in wireless networks,” Elsevier, 2010.
[21] Z. Duan, Z.-L. Zhang and Y. Hou, “Service overlay networks: SLAs,
QoS, and bandwidth provisioning,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 870 - 883, 2003.
[22] Qian Zhang, Fan Yang, Wenwu Zhu, “Cross-Layer QoS Support for
Multimedia Delivery over Wireless Internet,” EURASIP Journal on
Applied Signal Processing, vol. 2, p. 207–219, 2005.
[23] Y.-J. Chang, F.-T. Chien and C.-C. Kuo, “Cross-layer QoS Analysis of
Opportunistic OFDM-TDMA and OFDMA Networks,” IEEE Journal
On Selected Areas In Communications, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 657 - 666,
2007.