11 WLAN
Ivan Gagro, B.Sc.E.E.; Riko Lua, B.Sc.E.E.; Vanesa akovi B.Sc.E.E.
Ericsson Nikola Tesla d.d.
Krapinska 45, 10000 Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
Tel: +385 91 3654322, E-mail: ivan.gagro@ericsson.com
Tel: +385 91 3653127, E-mail: riko.lusa@ericsson.com
Tel: +385 91 3653588, E-mail: vanesa.cackovic@ericsson.com
I. INTRODUCTION
In last few years Wireless Local Area Networks
(WLANs) have become very popular, especially IEEE
802.11 standard [1], which became almost standard
network equipment in every household or company
premises. 802.11 standard is mostly used as extension to
Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) [2], which used as backbone part of
LAN networks. However, WLAN can also be used as an
alternative to wired LAN in case that physical
interconnection is not possible.
With introduction of new multimedia contents, including
streaming of high quality audio/video signal over IP
networks and the emergence of internet TV services have
put huge demands on bandwidth, which has to be provided
to end user. There are two major methods of delivering
streaming audio and video content over the Web. The first
method uses a standard Web server to deliver the audio and
video data to a media player. The second method uses a
separate streaming media server specialized to the
audio/video streaming task.
Wireless systems based on 802.11 technology became
very affordable today, and allow end-users to connect to
the network without cables. As most of multimedia devices
have 802.11 interface cards already built-in, or it can be
added at very low cost, it seems that we have technology
that fulfills our needs. Unfortunately, these sounds too
good to be true.
802.11b standard, with maximum physical data rate of
11 Mbit/s should be able to support Standard Definition
(SD) MPEG-2 (Moving Picture Experts Group) encoded
video stream, while faster 802.11g/a networks (with 54
Mbit/s) support High Definition (HD) video stream. There
is also relatively new standard, which is not officially
released yet (only in draft version), 802.11n, with
theoretical maximal throughput of 300 Mbit/s, but we are
not evaluating this one, as it's not as popular as 802.11a/b/g
yet.
0,31
0,21
130,91
SNR (dB)
20-30
30-40
>=40
1,07
3,52
4,21
4,71
0,95
3,38
4,16
4,62
30,24
4,57
4,21
4,17
10-20
0,23
0,18
274,37
SNR (dB)
20-30
30-40
>=40
0,91
3,31
4,05
4,52
0,79
3,18
3,98
4,41
74,27
26,58
24,31
23,56
10-20
D. Connection quality
Quality of the connection is usually measured by
different performance parameters [3], where some will
have more effect on the quality of media being transported.
But, these metrics are not reliable indicators. For example,
packet loss rate is affected by automatic retransmission
mechanism of IEEE 802.11 MAC layer. Before MAC layer
notifies application layer, it may request retransmission of
frame up to 7 times if its ACK message is not received.
Application layer may not perceive that packet losses are
happening until the loss is too great for it to recover from
errors.
Metrics such as signal strength and SNR are also
unreliable due to variation based on their susceptibility to
interferences.
In summary, there is no definite measure for connection
quality and current metrics are unstable and may not reflect
the real connection quality.
V. CONCLUSION
After close monitoring of the video in the private WiFi
network, we can conclude that existing WiFi networks can
be used as a transport mechanism to deliver video content.
Several notes have to be taken into account:
- The user is not connected to a same access point as
the video server. This will have enormous impact on the
quality of the receiving video stream;
- Signal strength is good without major disturbances;
- Preferably, receiving client will not share the access
point with other clients. This is especially affecting the
quality of video encoded in higher bit rate.
It has to be pointed out that even with all above
restrictions, video stream is likely to show some quality
degradation if transmitted over several wireless hops.
Nevertheless, due to high popularity of WiFi, this might
appear quite appealing to many users.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE 802.11, Local and metropolitan area networks.
Specific requirements. Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium
Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
specifications, Piscataway, NJ, 1999.
[2] IEEE 802.3, Local and metropolitan area networks.
Specific requirements. Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access
with collision detection (CSMA/CD) access method and
physical layer specification, Piscataway, NJ, 1999.
[3] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, Internet protocol data
communication service IP packet transfer and availability
performance parameters, November 2007.
[4] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541, Network performance
objectives for IP-based services, February 2006.
[5] ITU-T Recommendation H.264, Advanced video coding
for generic audiovisual services, November 2007.
[6] Wireshark, network analyzer, http://www.wireshark.org/
[7] Joost, Internet TV, http://www.joost.com/