WhitePaper OptimizingMobileVideo

Optimizing Mobile Video
How to Use Mobile Video Gateways to Conserve Network Bandwidth, Reduce Operating Costs,

Increase Simultaneous Users, and Improve Quality of Video Experience

Ortiva Wireless

July 2010
White Paper

White Paper – Optimizing Mobile Video

Optimizing Mobile Video
How to Use Mobile Video Gateways to Conserve Network Bandwidth, Reduce Operating Costs,
Increase Simultaneous Users, and Improve Quality of Video Experience
Table of Contents

Executive Overview ................................................................................................................................... 3
Mobile Video Trends ................................................................................................................................. 3
Mobile Video Challenges .......................................................................................................................... 4
History of Mobile Video Solutions ............................................................................................................ 7
Solution Overview ‐ Mobile Video Optimization ...................................................................................... 7
Video Optimization Gateway .................................................................................................................... 8
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Ortiva Wireless – Mobile Video Optimization Experts ........................................................................... 12

Copyright©2010 Ortiva Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved. July 2010.

Copyright ©2010 Ortiva Wireless 2


Executive Overview
Mobile video use is growing exponentially. Cisco forecasts mobile video data traffic will grow at a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 131% between 2009 and 2014.1 With the growth of mobile
video comes heavy demand on mobile network bandwidth because current video delivery methods,
designed for fixed wireline networks, are not optimized for wireless networks. Adding radio bandwidth
capacity with radio expansions or 4G does not solve the challenge of improving mobile video quality of
experience. Radio Frequency (RF) bandwidth variability and unpredictability persists, affecting
throughput. In fact, 4G aggravates mobile video quality of experience because of the greater variability
(the “peaks and valleys”) of 4G bandwidth, compared with 3G. 4G does nothing to reduce unnecessary
bandwidth consumption and its costs.
This inefficient delivery of mobile video strains and congests radio access networks (RAN) and backhaul,
raising network operational expenses (OPEX) and capital expenses (CAPEX) while degrading the
subscriber quality of experience.
But there is good news for mobile network planners and operators. Using video optimization gateways,
Mobile Network Operators (MNO) can improve the mobile video user experience while serving fewer
bits over wireless networks. Video optimization gateways can conservatively save MNOs 30% to 50% in
RAN and backhaul demand, allowing MNOs to save OPEX and defer CAPEX. At the same time, MNOs can
simplify management of the complex ecosystem of video and device protocols and standards.
Unlike text‐based mobile data, mobile video requires specialized optimization techniques. The purpose
of this white paper is to explain the challenges and importance of mobile video optimization.
Mobile Video Trends
Mobile video is booming. By 2014, mobile video will represent two‐thirds of all mobile data traffic.2
Several catalysts are driving mobile video growth.
• Penetration of Multimedia Devices. Subscribers are adopting netbooks, laptops, and
smartphones with higher resolution screens, better CPUs, and longer battery life. These
multimedia devices produce more traffic and consume more bandwidth than simple feature
phones by several orders of magnitude.

• More Network Bandwidth. MNOs are increasing wireless bandwidth as they shift from 2.5G to
3G to 4G networks. However, mixed networks increase bandwidth variability across networks.
The inherent variability of RF as a transmission medium persists, regardless of bandwidth
capacity.

• More Mobile Content. Content providers are producing more content for mobile subscribers.
Over‐The‐Top (OTT) video use continues to grow on fixed Internet and wireless networks, driven

1
‘Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2009‐2014,’ February 9, 2010.
2
Ibid


by both open video‐on‐demand sites (e.g., YouTube) and DRM (Digital Rights Management)
protected sites (e.g., Netflix).
Mobile Video Challenges
Despite improvements in devices, networks, and video protocols, MNOs face several challenges with
growing mobile video:

1. RF variability and unpredictability
2. Varying levels of subscriber quality of experience
3. Wasted network bandwidth
4. Complex mobile video ecosystem – content, devices, standards, protocols
5. Complicated mobile video management
The following examines each of these challenges in detail.
1. RF Variability and Unpredictability Persists
Wireless networks are fundamentally different than wireline networks because of RF variability,
unpredictability, and spectrum limitations. Video optimization techniques designed for the fixed
Internet are much less effective on wireless networks.
Throughput data rates vary dramatically in wireless networks, as RF effects can change in
microseconds with durations lasting for seconds to minutes. Because mobile video is time sensitive,
unlike the transmission of web pages or text, RF effects adversely affect subscriber quality of
experience.
• RF Attenuation, Distortion, and Noise Hinder Video Signals and Data. Some common
examples of attenuation are differences in RF signal strength at the core of a base station
versus its edge; blocking and fading of signals by buildings, trees, and terrain; signal latency;
and multipath fading. Wireless networks are also much more sensitive to noise than fixed
line networks.
• The Paradox of 4G. Although 4G promises more bandwidth and less latency, it does not
overcome the problems of RF variability and unpredictability. 4G actually aggravates the
problem of mobile video delivery due to the more extreme throughput variations.
For example, in a 4G network RF variability regularly results in a sudden change of
throughput from 3000 Kbps to 300 Kbps – a reduction of over 90% – on the downlink. By
contrast, in a 3G network the change in throughput could range from 300 Kbps to 100 Kbps
– a change of 66%. Entering an elevator in a building from an open street is just one
common cause of such a drop. Variable RF conditions persist regardless of bandwidth
capacity and speeds
If historical trends continue where bigger and faster pipes lead to more content
consumption, then subscribers will consume more content and bandwidth in 4G networks.
The last mile of the home fixed Internet market is an example. When home Internet users


switched from dial‐up modems to DSL or cable modems, they consumed more content.3
More content consumed can lead to congestion, especially at critical choke points such as
backhaul leased lines.
2. Subscriber Quality of Experience
Subscriber expectations for wireless broadband are high. They want the same video experience
on their mobile device as their home or office computer. Video quality of experience consists of
three major parts.
• Session Quality. Session quality includes video set‐up time, synchronization of video with
audio, and rebuffering. When streaming video data arrives faster than video playback, a
buffer temporarily stores the video data for smooth video playback. If the available video
data is insufficient to play, rebuffering will pause the video playback and frustrates users.

• Video Quality. Video quality consists of the picture quality of each frame, the number of
frames per second (frame rate), and the frequency of stalls. A clear frame contributes to a
perception of quality, as opposed to a fuzzy frame or a frame with blocks of missing parts.
The number of frames per second required for a smooth perception of motion depends on
the actual video content. For example, an action sports video requires a higher frame rate
than a video of a newscaster talking. The frequency and duration of stalls also degrades
quality, and frequent stalling often leads to subscribers abandoning a video clip altogether.

• Audio Quality. RF network variability and unpredictability can result in poor audio quality.
Audio quality and fidelity also affect the perceptions of video quality because the ear
influences the eye.
When a subscriber receives a poor video experience, the subscriber’s overall opinion of the
network brand diminishes. MNOs planning to segment subscribers and tier pricing to maximize
mobile data revenue must deliver acceptable quality of experience to premium video
subscribers.
3. Wasted Network Bandwidth
Even after compression, video files contain colossal amounts of data – thousands of times bigger
than messaging text or text document files – which create strain on network resources. Video
delivery methods designed for the fixed Internet are not effective and efficient for the variable
wireless transmission medium. Inefficient mobile video delivery squanders enormous amounts
of bandwidth, driving up costs and restricting the total number of concurrent subscribers.
Inefficient bandwidth use:

3
Horrigan, John, ‘Broadband: What’s All the Fuss About?’ Pew Internet and Life Project, October, 2007


• Increases Operating Expenses. Wasted bandwidth increases network operating expenses in
the RAN, backhaul, leased lines, and the upstream path to the content provider. Every byte
of data delivered has a cost associated with it so delivering non‐essential data raises
operating expenses.

• Increases Capital Expenses. Wasted bandwidth equals wasted network capacity and drives
network expansion projects. Avoidable RAN and backhaul bandwidth expansion costs
money, which raises capital expenses.

• Increases Congestion. When the data load is greater than the capacity of a network,
congestion occurs. Backhaul and RF spectrum are both potential chokepoints.

• Limits the Number of Simultaneous Subscribers. When bandwidth is congested, it limits the
total number of simultaneous users in a radio sector, backhaul, and the overall network.

4. Complex Mobile Video Ecosystem. Besides MNOs, the mobile video ecosystem includes content
providers (e.g., YouTube, Hulu, and Netflix), national and regional Internet service providers
(ISP), device manufacturers, device operating systems, and video protocol software developers.

• Fragmented and Evolving Video Protocols and Standards. Compression is required to send
video over the Internet and wireless networks. A large variety of audio and video
compression encoders and decoders (codecs) and file formats exist in the market. A few
years ago, video streaming RTSP (Real Time Streaming Protocol) was dominant on the web
but with the rise of streaming OTT video on the fixed Internet, HTTP progressive download
emerged as a significant protocol. Soon, HTTP adaptive streaming could make inroads and
Flash (.flv format) prevails on the web today. MP4 format and HTML5 are emerging.

• Current, Future, and Legacy Devices. An enormous variety of devices and video
configurations exist: feature phones, smartphones, netbooks, laptops, and tablets. Typically,
an MNO has hundreds of different device types in its network with a large variety of video
profiles.

5. Mobile Video Management
As mobile video grows in a network, it increases management complexity. MNO operational and
planning managers need analytical tools to diagnose mobile video behavior and set business rules to
manage traffic, save bandwidth, reduce OPEX, defer CAPEX, plan growth, and optimize revenue.
• Cost Reduction. Managing network operating and capital expenses demands behavioral
information and intelligence.



• Revenue Maximization. Serving segmented and premium subscribers’ demands requires
the delivery of a higher quality of experience.

• Logistics. Serving a wide range of devices and protocols requires logistical centralization and
simplification. Rapid mobile video growth requires intelligent architecting and scaling.
History of Mobile Video Solutions
Mobile video delivery relies on fixed Internet techniques, but these techniques are inadequate for the
wireless environment. Conventional techniques fall short of delivering quality and optimizing mobile
network efficiency. Fixed Internet techniques include:
• Bit‐Rate Capping or Lowest Common Denominator Content Reduction. Reducing video and
audio to a lowest common denominator to reduce the size of the video data file results in poor
quality of experience for all subscribers. It is a one‐size‐fits‐all approach that does not allow
segmentation of subscribers and the ability to serve premium subscribers with tiered pricing.

• Content‐Device Customization. Content customization for different devices is complicated.
Many mobile device types, operating systems, screen resolutions, video protocols and
standards, and proliferating content providers combine to produce a logistical nightmare.

• Tiered Bit‐Rate Switching. Tiered bit‐rate switching predetermines different bit rates but does
not consider real‐time RF conditions that can change in microseconds. It is slow to adapt and
does not cater to specific reasons for changes in RF conditions, resulting in poor quality of
experience or wasted bandwidth.

• Transcoding Only. Transcoding is the digital conversion of one encoding to another to reduce
file size. Transcoding causes a progressive loss of quality and, by itself, offers a substandard user
experience.

• Changing Subscriber Data Pricing Models. MNO tiered data pricing, for example AT&T’s tiered
pricing, is emerging as MNOs try to control network use and segment subscribers. However,
tiered pricing alone is not sufficient to maximize mobile video efficiency.
Solution Overview Mobile Video Optimization
Mobile video optimization is a method to improve mobile video quality of experience and reduce
wasted bandwidth.
How does it work? The video optimization gateway located in the MNO’s data center assesses network,
device, and video content conditions in real‐time and dynamically optimizes mobile video for each user,
while simultaneously minimizing bandwidth consumption. Optimization can reduce unnecessary mobile
video data transmission by 30% to 50%.


Data optimization is not the same as video optimization. Mobile video optimization not only analyzes
real‐time RF network conditions and device technologies, it analyzes video content as well. Optimization
of content assesses video quality of experience components and makes real‐time optimization trade‐
offs depending on content, network, and device conditions.
Video Optimization Gateway
Mobile video optimization is handled by video optimization gateways. The video optimization gateway
consists of several components and is located in an MNO data center, positioned between the Internet
and the RAN. See figure 1.
Figure 1: Network Overview
Functional Features
Application Aware Bandwidth Allocation
Application Aware Bandwidth Allocation apportions just the right amount of bandwidth to each
subscriber. For example, if one subscriber needs 750 Kbps of bandwidth for video, while another
needs only 250 Kbps, Application Aware Bandwidth Allocation delivers bit rates catered to each
subscriber’s specific need.
In contrast, brute force, non video aware methods simply deliver 500 Kbps to each mobile video
subscriber regardless of a subscriber’s bandwidth requirements. Brute force results in wasted
bandwidth or poor quality. 500 Kbps delivered to a subscriber needing only 250 Kbps wastes


bandwidth; while 500 Kbps delivered to a subscriber needing 750 Kbps results in stalls and a poor
user experience.
Application Aware Bandwidth Allocation allows more simultaneous subscribers across available
bandwidth, deferring the need for more RAN and backhaul capacity and associated capital expenses.
It also reduces RAN and backhaul operating expenses by reducing wasted bandwidth.
Client Buffer Management
Client Buffer Management estimates the video content in the subscriber device buffer and sends
just enough video data to enable continuous playback of the video instead of sending the entire
video file. Typically, subscribers seldom watch an entire video start to finish. Instead, they will watch
part of a video and then abandon it. Sending a four‐minute video clip when the subscriber only
watches one minute wastes bandwidth (in this example ¾ of the bandwidth utilized to send the
video is wasted).
Client Buffer Management coupled with Application Aware Bandwidth Allocation can save up to
60% in unnecessary bandwidth consumption. Regardless of network capacity, the two methods are
efficient ways to use network assets, especially in reducing operating expenses associated with data
transfer.
Content Aware Bandwidth Reduction
Content Aware Bandwidth Reduction checks video frames and their properties and reduces only the
parts of the content that a subscriber would not notice. The static part of a video image from frame
to frame is redundant data that can be reduced. The goal is to reduce bandwidth while providing the
same perceived quality of experience. Content Aware Bandwidth Reduction makes trade‐offs
between frame quality, smoothness, and bandwidth by taking advantage of the human perceptional
system.
By analyzing video content properties, Content Aware Bandwidth Reduction, saves 20% to 30% in
bandwidth. When mobile video congests networks, Content Aware Bandwidth Reduction relieves
congestion.
Network Aware Adaption
Network Aware Adaption shapes a video to match real‐time RF network conditions using
transrating, which adjusts bit rates to variable bandwidth conditions. When network conditions
worsen because of RF fades and noise, the bit rate must be adapted to match network conditions or
the video will stall, Network Aware Adaption reduces bandwidth only during drops in bandwidth,
dynamically changing to match bandwidth conditions and thus delivering the best possible quality
under the current network conditions.


Network Aware Adaption can achieve 20% to 30% bandwidth reductions, depending on the nature
of the content and network conditions. Again, this method reduces bandwidth, reducing OPEX and
deferring CAPEX, while still delivering an acceptable quality of experience to subscribers.
Device Aware Adaptation
Device Aware Adaptation centralizes and simplifies mobile video management of devices. Using
Device Aware Adapation, the mobile video gateway detects each device and its video profile using a
database of device profiles. Different devices have different profiles ‐ screen sizes, resolutions,
CPUs, players, and codecs and levels.
Legacy feature‐phones need different types of optimizations than current smartphones, netbooks,
and laptops. Despite the rapid penetration of smartphones and netbooks in mobile networks, legacy
devices make up most devices in the typical MNO’s network.
Caching and Distribution
Caching reduces upstream operating expenses by storing data in temporary memory for local
distribution. Caching saves multiple retrievals of the same video from content distributors, which
saves bandwidth in the upstream link and minimizes operating expenses.
Popular videos should be cached. For video portals, caching is an effective way to reduce data
transfer costs from the original content providers. For overseas operators, the transoceanic costs of
retrieving video content from North American content distributors can be disproportionately high.
Figure 2: Features and Benefits



Operational Features
In addition to the functional features, a video optimization gateway must support fundamental
operational requirements.
Linear Scalability
Rapid growth of mobile video requires rapid scalability. Architecting a solution using a modular,
distributed design supports rapid growth.
Gateway Intelligence and Management
Managing mobile video in a network requires the ability to collect intelligence about subscriber and
network behavior and set policies to heighten network efficiency and user experience. A gateway
management system should be flexible enough to set parameters to carry out business policies for
each of a gateway’s functional features. Subscriber and network intelligence data should be
exportable to off‐the‐shelf data mining tools to allow thorough analysis and support business
decisions.
The goal is to reduce costs and increase revenues and profits in the delivery of mobile video.
Behavioral intelligence helps planners design networks efficiently. Segmenting subscribers and
serving premium subscribers are opportunities to maximize revenue from subscriptions and
advertising.
Clientless
Ideally, video optimization gateways should be clientless. This means it is not necessary to download
dedicated client software onto a subscriber device to optimize or playback video. Instead, the video
optimization gateway should be device aware and automatically detect the device’s video
capabilities.
Carrier Grade
The gateway should be carrier grade, easy to integrate, and deliver five‐nines reliability with self‐
testing, error correction, redundancy, and maintenance service support.
Evolutionary Features
The mobile video optimization gateway must be future proof in its functionality. This requires
modular product road maps that support evolving protocols, standards, devices, resolutions, and
video content categories and business models (open, DRM protected, subscription, advertising).



Conclusion
Mobile video use is growing exponentially and strains network capacity. Inefficient mobile video delivery
wastes bandwidth and degrades quality of experience. RF variability and unpredictability, even with 4G,
causes unnecessary bandwidth consumption and variable quality of experience while raising operating
and capital expenses.
A video optimization gateway customizes mobile video quality to each subscriber while minimizing data
delivered through the wireless network. It can save 30% to 50% in mobile video bandwidth, reducing
OPEX and delaying network CAPEX by allowing more simultaneous users. Video optimization gateways
also simplify a complex ecosystem of devices, video protocols and standards, and content models.
Ortiva Wireless – Mobile Video Optimization Experts
Ortiva Wireless focuses on mobile video optimization for mobile network operators and video portals,
providing video optimization software, gateways, and services.
Ortiva’s iVOG video optimization gateway helps MNOs and video portals save bandwidth, reduce OPEX,
increase simultaneous users, and defer CAPEX, while delivering optimized mobile video quality of
experience to subscribers and centralizing and simplifying mobile video management. iVOG is designed
for 2.5G, 3G, and 4G networks, video portals, and a wide range of devices. It is carrier grade, scalable,
and provides intelligence and flexible rules for managing mobile video delivery efficiently.
For a presentation, demonstration, or trial of the iVOG video optimization gateway, contact:
Ortiva Wireless
4225 Executive Square, Suite 700
La Jolla, CA 92037, USA

Tel: +1 858 704 1550
Fax: +1 858 704 1721

E‐mail: sales@ortivawireless.com

Website: www.ortivawireless.com

WhitePaper OptimizingMobileVideo

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

WhitePaper OptimizingMobileVideo

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Вам также может понравиться