V. Sgardoni et al.: Robust Video Broadcasting over 802.
11a/g in Time-Correlated Fading Channels
Robust Video Broadcasting over 802.11a/g
in Time-Correlated Fading Channels
Victoria Sgardoni, Mantalena Sarafianou, Pierre Ferré, Andrew Nix and David Bull
Abstract — In order to deliver video streams efficiently over
WiFi to many thousands of consumer handheld devices, broadcast
protocols must be employed. In this mode of operation the
received video quality can deteriorate rapidly as a result of high
application layer packet loss which occurs because MAC frame
retransmission cannot be used. In this paper we develop a robust
video delivery solution for broadcast transmission over 802.11a/g.
Using a cross-layer WiFi simulator in combination with an
accurate time-correlated fading channel, the received video
quality is evaluated for broadcast H.264 video sequences.
Application layer cross-packet forward error correction is then
used together with error concealment at the video client.
Furthermore, the application of an external packet interleaver is
considered. Combining a block size of two hundred packets
(which introduces a 4.8 second delay) and an application layer
FEC code rate of 0.75 our results demonstrate that video can be
successfully broadcast over WiFi to many thousands of handheld
terminals at large-scale spectator events.1
Index Terms — WLAN IEEE 802.11a/g, broadcast,
forward error correction, interleaving
I. INTRODUCTION
IEEE 802.11 is increasingly being used for multimedia
distribution to mobile terminals. This paper investigates
broadcast video streaming to thousands of handheld
devices, such as mobile phones and Personal Digital
Assistants (PDAs). The study was performed as part of the
VISUALISE project [1]. This work enables spectators at
sporting events to use mobile WiFi devices to radically
enhance their visual experience. Typical events include
motor sports, such as the World Rally Championship
(WRC), and stadium based activities such as cricket or
baseball. Live and recorded video streams are pushed to
spectator terminals together with scoreboard, game
statistics, live timing and location tracking information.
Spectators have the opportunity to watch their favorite
players and/or teams from a range of remote cameras.
The 802.11a/g standard combines a Coded Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiplexing (COFDM) Physical layer
(PHY) with the legacy 802.11 Medium Access Control
(MAC) layer. When data is sent as a broadcast (or
multicast) stream, MAC layer retransmission cannot be
used since clients no longer have access to a feedback
channel. While broadcasting potentially allows thousands
of terminals to receive the video stream, the received MAC
frame loss rate (FLR) is often too high for successful video
decoding. If the radio frequency signal level is poor then
1
All authors are with the Centre for Communications Research (CCR),
University of Bristol, UK. This work was supported in part by the UK
Technology Strategy Board. (Contact: Andy.Nix@bristol.ac.uk)
Manuscript received January 15, 2009
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on May 19, 2009 at 04:35 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
69
the number of lost MAC frames at a receiver can be high
(typically greater than 20% within a video frame). This
results in serious deterioration of the received video quality.
Cross-layer MAC-PHY optimization for video
transmission over WiFi has been explored by a number of
authors, e.g. [2, 3, 4]. The wireless broadcast of IP video
to multiple users in heterogeneous environments presents
a number of new challenges. Most importantly, MAC and
IP layer feedback from a given receiver or video decoder
is no longer possible. Each receiver experiences a unique
radio channel and user specific source adaptation in no
longer possible. Only a handful of papers address the
specific needs of broadcast video over wireless networks
[5, 6, 7].
In this paper we estimate the received broadcast video
quality by simulating the transmission of a video sequence
over the 802.11a/g MAC and PHY layers. A MAC-PHY
simulator is used to model the transmission of a time series
of queued MAC frames over the wireless channel [8].
MAC layer FLR and frame delay are evaluated. As
discussed in [8], most 802.11a/g MAC and PHY studies use
static channel models, where the PHY layer packet error
rate (PER) is independent of time. However, it is well
known that packet errors over a wireless medium are bursty
in nature [9]. Therefore, an accurate time correlated fading
channel is used here to simulate the PHY layer PER. We
investigate a number of methods to enhance the quality of
broadcast video encoded using the H.264/AVC standard.
These include H.264 error concealment and the use of cross
packet application layer Forward Error Correction (AP-
FEC). In the latter case an erasure block code is applied to a
block of NALUs (Network Abstraction Layer Units, see
section IV) to provide an additional layer of video
protection. We also investigate the effect of interleaving
packets within a large block using an external interleaver.
This approach allows shorter, and hence more
computationally efficient, erasure codes to be applied. The
impact of the time varying wireless channel (determined by
the Doppler spread) and its influence on packet loss and
video quality are also studied. Our simulation results are
supported by a number of experimental measurements and
field trials.
II. OVERVIEW OF IEEE 802.11 a/g
The IEEE 802.11 a/g MAC and PHY layers are
described in several publications, e.g. [8, 10], including the
standard [11]. As such we limit ourselves to the key points
relevant to this paper.
0098 3063/09/$20.00 © 2009 IEEE
70
Once a MAC frame has been produced for transmission,
in unicast mode the MAC layer at the transmit station
expects to receive an acknowledgement (ACK) following
successful reception by the intended user. This process is
described in [10]. When multicast and broadcast protocols
are used to simultaneously serve video packets to many
thousands of terminals, MAC layer ACK is no longer
provided. Instead each PHY layer packet is sent one after
the other without retransmission. As a result, in the
multicast and broadcast scenario each WiFi terminal can
experience a high PHY layer PER. This translates to a high
NALU loss rate at the H.264 video decoder.
MAC data frames are mapped to Protocol Data Units
(PDU) packets for transmission over the PHY layer. The
PHY layer simulator described in [12] supports correlated
time-varying channel gains for each tap in the channel
impulse response, as described in [8]. This PHY layer
model is used to evaluate the outcome of each PDU packet
transmission. A MAC frame is lost if an error is
encountered during the MAC layer frame check sum (FCS)
process.
III. THE CHANNEL MODEL
We use a time-varying channel model as described in [8]
to replicate the time correlated nature of the observed
instantaneous signal power at the target station. The PER
for consecutive packets is not independent, due to the time-
correlated characteristics of the mobile channel. This
implies that the probability of receiving a packet in error at
the PHY is correlated in time. The channel model replicates
multipath fading as a function of terminal velocity, carrier
frequency and Doppler spectrum. Here we use the classical
Jakes Doppler Spectrum [15]. This allows us to model the
spaced-time autocorrelation of the fast fading envelope.
The fading can be modeled as either a Rayleigh or Rician
process. The severity of the Rician fading is controlled via
the K-factor. The resulting spaced-time autocorrelation is
imposed onto a set of i.i.d. Rayleigh fading samples using a
Doppler filter [13, 14].
The instantaneous signal power is simulated at the
receiver for the duration of the video stream. Hence, the
instantaneous signal to noise ratio (SNR) on a per packet
basis varies with time (and the time correlation depends on
the Doppler spread). Given knowledge of the noise floor
and the average received signal power over the entire video
sequence, the instantaneous SNR per packet is computed
for any desired average SNR.
IV. VIDEO ENCODING AND ERROR CONTROL
H.264/AVC encoding: Our study of multicast WiFi
received video quality is based on encoded video sequences
taken from the World Rally Championship 2007 (WRC).
The video was encoded using the H.264/AVC standard [16]
to produce a 256 kbps video stream in 320x240 pixel
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on May 19, 2009 at 04:35 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 55, No. 1, FEBRUARY 2009
format (which is well suited to mobile phone displays and
processing capabilities). This was achieved using a
hardware video encoder2. The following results were
generated for the ‘ArtCar’ video sequence, which was taken
from inside a rally car at the WRC’07 event is South
Wales, UK. The video sequence consists of 410 frames
encoded at 12.5fps, with I-frames sent every 25th frame,
one reference frame and error concealment based on
previous frame copy.
The H.264/AVC standard specifies two layers, the Video
Coding Layer (VCL) and the Network Abstraction Layer
(NAL). The NAL is the interface between the VCL layer
and the underlying network layers. This helps to achieve
compatibility with many heterogeneous networks. The
coded video stream is divided into NAL units (NALU). In
the case of transmission over IEEE 802.11 systems, a
NALU is delivered to the transport layer in a packet based
format, according to the Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP). Each NALU represents a packet of specific length,
containing a header and payload data. After H.264
encoding, a number of fixed length NALUs are created. In
our study we assume a NALU size of 750 bytes.
Error Control: Cross-packet application layer FEC (AP-
FEC) is a suitable additional error control strategy for
H.264 video transmission [17]. AP-FEC is commonly
implemented using Reed Solomon (RS) or Raptor codes,
the latter being a type of fountain code that is recommended
as part of the 3GPP broadcast specification [18] and
implemented in [7]. When AP-FEC is applied at the
receiver it is able to correct packet erasures according to the
error correcting capability of the code used, which depends
on the code rate. Due to hardware limitations, AP-FEC was
not used in the WRC trial; however analysis is included in
the following simulations. The AP-FEC mechanism is
based on a generic erasure code, with code rates of 0.75
and 0.875, applied across 8 NALUs (i.e. a depth of 8), for
equal frame protection. In our simulations we assume that a
fixed 256 kbps IP stream is generated, with or without AP-
FEC. This means the encoded video quality decreases (as a
result of the lower video bit rate) when AP-FEC is added.
However, as will be seen later, when received over a
broadcast WiFi channel the benefits of AP-FEC far
outweigh the reduction in encoded video quality.
Alternatively, if fixed video encoder quality is desired, the
use of AP-FEC simply increases the IP transmission rate
(which is a problem for fixed rate cellular standards but not
for variable rate wireless LANs).To further enhance the
received video quality we also study the effect of NALU
interleaving, as correlated error bursts degrade the video
performance more significantly than randomly distributed
errors. This is because cross packet error correction and
video concealment fail for long sequences of lost packets.
In particular, we experiment with the interleaver block size
to explore the trade-off between improved performance and
2
ProVu encoder from ProVision Communications
V. Sgardoni et al.: Robust Video Broadcasting over 802.11a/g in Time-Correlated Fading Channels 71

T r a n s m itte r
NALUs FEC In t e r l e a v e d
p a ck ets .p a c k e t s

VLC /NAL
FEC I n te r le a v e r M AC
H .2 6 4 N PHY
E ncod er d ,r
V id e o fr a m es
C hann el

D e -F E C D e-
V id e o fr a m e s H .2 6 4 M AC PH Y
d ,r I n te r le a v e r
D ecoder N p a ck ets
NALUs R e c e iv e r
FEC
p a c k e ts M A C -P H Y
s im u la t o r

U ser
d e v ic e

Fig. 1 Block diagram of the cross-layer simulator with AP-FEC (depth d, rate r) and external interleaver (block size N)

fixed delay. As mentioned above, the use of higher layer quality of the received video sequence in terms of PSNR
interleaving introduces a fixed delay, and this is undesirable per frame and video FLR.
in live or interactive video applications. Since the data In the simulation results the average received SNR over
source rate is 256 kbps (32 kBytes/sec) and the packet size the wireless channel varies between 5 and 25dB. All of the
is 750 Bytes, the number of packets transmitted per second 802.11a/g link-speeds are simulated. Mobility in the
is 42.67. For an interleaver block size of N packets, the wireless channel was modeled for walking spectators. The
delay is given by N/42.67. It is obvious that a large block model is also capable of simulating results for vehicular
size introduces significant delay. The level of acceptable use. In order to study the video performance statistically, a
delay will vary depending on the application. number of video transmission simulations were performed.
Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) is the statistical In particular, the following results were produced by
metric generally used to assess video quality. The PSNR of averaging the video PSNR per frame over seven separate
a picture frame is based on the Mean Square Error (MSE) simulations (each assuming an uncorrelated and
of the received frame, compared with a reference frame (i.e. independent radio channel).
that generated at the encoder). In order to investigate the effect of packet interleaving on
the received video quality, an external interleaver is
V. THE CROSS-LAYER SIMULATOR applied. The interleaved error pattern is then used to
An integrated 802.11a/g MAC-PHY simulator is used to generate the sequence of received video packets. Since both
model the MAC frame loss process. The simulator is the simulated and measured error bursts can last for several
described in detail in [8]. A time sequence of MAC frames hundred milliseconds, a large interleaver block size is
is passed into the simulator. Outputs include i) MAC layer required.
FLR, ii) MAC-to-MAC frame delay, and iii) throughput.
These are evaluated as a function of the channel’s average VI. EXPERIMENTAL SET UP
SNR, the Power Spectral Density (PSD) and the selected During the WRC trials the video IP stream was sent over
PHY layer link-speed. Importantly, the PER for contiguous an 802.11b/g wireless network. The broadcast video
packets is not independent and this has a significant effect transmission measurements presented here were taken using
on the performance of AP-FEC and video error outdoor terminals in a cricket stadium as shown in fig. 2.
concealment. To replicate the bursty nature of the packet
error process an accurate time-correlated channel model is
implemented based on the PSD of a typical radio channel.
The video transmission simulator (Fig. 1) can simulate
the transmission of an arbitrary H.264 video sequence from
the transmitter to the receiver through the MAC and PHY
2
layers of WiFi. The encoder translates each video frame
1
into a number of fixed length NALUs. For broadcast
transmission an RTP/BCT/IP stack is assumed. In the
absence of AP-FEC there is 1:1 correspondence of video
Fig. 2 View of routes followed at cricket field for measurements at
NALUs to IP packets and MAC frames. If AP-FEC is
Cricket Festival 2008
applied, the packets created with FEC have the same length
as the NALUs, and are then mapped 1:1 to IP packets and These measurements used a WiFi Access Point
MAC frames. The MAC-PHY simulator provides an error (connected to a desktop computer) and two WiFi cards
modeling tool that predicts the error/loss pattern for a (each connected to a notebook computer). The hardware
sequence of NALUs. This information is then used to was configured in a client/server arrangement. The server
create the sequence of video packets arriving at the was used to broadcast a video sequence over 802.11g on a
receiver. The video transmission simulator evaluates the selected link-speed. Different channel scenarios were

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on May 19, 2009 at 04:35 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
72 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 55, No. 1, FEBRUARY 2009

evaluated by walking along three different routes (up to 10m,
40m and 100m from the Access Point respectively). The
measurements were taken using the logging software
developed in [19]. The following data was recorded: i) the
received packet sequence number, ii) the received signal
different channel realizations to obtain an average PSNR as
a function of mean SNR. This was performed for all link-
speeds and for Doppler shifts of 4Hz and 65Hz.
PSNR for video1, SNR=15dB, link speed=1, Doppler 4Hz
48

46
strength (RSSI), iii) the PER and iv) the link-speed. The
44
experimental data was processed to supply measured packet 42
error sequences (patterns) to the video transmission 40

PSNR (dB)
simulator, as described in section V. The video transmission 38

simulator is then used to evaluate the received video quality 36

in terms of PSNR and NAL unit Loss Rate (NLR). 34

32
error-free PSNR at TX

VII. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 30 mean PSNR at RX no FEC

mean PSNR at RX FEC=0.875
28
A. Simulation Results 0 100 200
Frame
300 400 500

(a)
The video transmission simulator evaluates the PSNR
NAL loss rate over time - mode 1 packet= 750 Doppler=4Hz SNR= 15dB
per received video frame for different link-speeds, mean 0.7
NAL loos
channel SNR values and Doppler spreads. The following 0.6 mean

results were generated for the ‘ArtCar’ video sequence, no FEC

0.5
which consists of 410 frames at 12.5fps.
Fig. 3a shows the PSNR per frame. The video is 0.4

NLR
broadcast over a WiFi link using link-speed 1 (BPSK, ½ 0.3

rate). The mean SNR at the receiver was 15dB and the 0.2
maximum Doppler shift was 4Hz. The blue plot (no
marker) shows the error-free PSNR per frame, as computed
0.1

at the video encoder. This is used as an upper bound of 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

video quality at the receiver. The mean received PSNR for time slot
(b)
video encoded without AP-FEC is shown using the red plot Fig. 3 a) PSNR per frame with/without FEC, b) NLR per frame
with the ‘x’ marker. The green plot with the circle marker
average PSNR vs. SNR - all link speeds - Doppler=4Hz
shows the received PSNR for video protected with a code 50
BPSK 1/2
rate 0.875 AP-FEC. Clearly the use of cross packet AP- 45 QPSK 1/2
FEC improves the mean received PSNR since a number of QPSK 3/4
average PSNR [dB]

40 16QAM 1/2
lost packets can be recovered prior to video decoding. With 16QAM 3/4
cross packet AP-FEC the received PSNR per frame can be 35 64QAM 3/4

seen to improve (approaching the error free value). It 30

should be noted that this test is extremely severe since the 25
average SNR is 15dB and in Rayleigh fading channels the
20
deep fades cause severe error bursts. The simulator outputs 5 10 15 20 25
the number of lost MAC frames (and hence NALUs) per SNR [dB]
(a)
video frame at the receiver prior to the application of cross average PSNR vs. SNR - all link speeds - Doppler=65Hz
packet AP-FEC. 50
BPSK 1/2
Fig. 3b shows the NLR over the time corresponding to 45 QPSK 1/2
QPSK 3/4
the duration of the video sequence (410 frames). Each NLR 16QAM 1/2
average PSNR [dB]

40
16QAM 3/4
value is averaged over a time window of 132ms. The bursty 64QAM 3/4

nature of the NLR is clearly visible. Figs 3a and b are time- 35

aligned to allow a direct comparison between the NLR and 30

the video PSNR. Regions of high NLR (typically greater 25

than 20%) result in low video PSNR. Errors in a P-frame
without AP-FEC propagate into the following frames, thus 20
5 10 15 20 25
SNR [dB]
decreasing the PSNR even at times when the NLR is low. (b)
With cross packet AP-FEC the received PSNR per frame Fig. 4a, b. Average PSNR per video sequence versus average channel
can be seen to improve (approaching the error free value). SNR for all link-speeds (no FEC). Top: max Doppler 4Hz, Bottom:
To compare video quality at each of the 802.11a/g link- max Doppler 65Hz

speeds the average PSNR of the entire video sequence can Figs. 4a and 4b show the results in the case without AP-
be computed as the sum of the PSNR per frame over the FEC. When the mean received SNR exceeds 15dB we
entire sequence. We compute the average PSNR over seven observe that link-speeds 1-4 (BPSK and QPSK) achieve an

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on May 19, 2009 at 04:35 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
V. Sgardoni et al.: Robust Video Broadcasting over 802.11a/g in Time-Correlated Fading Channels 73

average PSNR ≥30dB for the 65Hz channel. For the 4Hz the cross marker shows the mean PSNR without any AP-FEC,
channel only link-speeds 1-2 (BPSK) meet this target. the green line with the star marker shows the mean PSNR with
Furthermore, at the higher Doppler shifts link-speed 1 0.75 rate AP-FEC and the yellow line with the circle marker
achieves a higher average PSNR for SNR ≤15dB. At high shows the mean PSNR with 0.875 rate AP-FEC.
Doppler values the error burst length is significantly TABLE I
reduced, thus making lost NALUs easier to conceal. Delta average PSNR values from Figs. 5a, b
In Fig. 5a and 5b we show the difference in the average
SNR=15dB SNR=20dB
PSNR (delta PSNR) between the error-free video encoded
BPSK 1/2 5.471 1.517
at 256 kbps and the received video, as a function of mean No
QPSK 1/2 8.521 3.559
SNR for all link-speeds. These results, and all subsequent FEC
QPSK 3/4 12.37 5.93
results, focus on the pedestrian case with a maximum
Doppler shift of 4Hz. Fig. 5a shows the delta PSNR of the BPSK 1/2 1.897 0.544 AP-
QPSK 1/2 4.369 1.256 FEC
received video when no cross packet AP-FEC is applied,
QPSK 3/4 12.61 2.229 0.875
whereas fig. 5b shows the delta PSNR when AP-FEC with
a code rate of 0.875 is used. We observe that when AP-
FEC is applied in this slow fading channel the PSNR It can be seen that when the 0.75 rate AP-FEC is applied
difference drops by approximately 2-4dB, resulting in the video quality drops at some locations compared to the
significant video quality improvement for link-speeds 1-4 higher rate. This observation is also supported by our
(BPSK, QPSK and 16QAM). Table I shows specific values experimental results.
of delta average PSNR for link-speeds 1-3 and mean SNR 48
PSNR for video1, SNR=15dB, link speed 3 Doppler 4Hz
error-free PSNR at TX
values of 15dB and 20dB for the cases without and with 46
mean PSNR at RX FEC=0.75
AP-FEC (code rate = 0.875). To achieve near perfect video mean PSNR at RX FEC=0.875
mean simulated PSNR at RX no FEC
44
quality the received SNR needs to exceed 20dB.
42
d elta ave r ag e P S NR d iff e r en c e fr o m r e f. vs. S NR - D opp le r = 4 Hz
30 40
PSNR (dB)
B PS K 1 /2
Q PS K 1 /2 38
25
average PSNR difference [dB]

Q PS K 3 /4
1 6QA M 1 /2 36
20 1 6QA M 3 /4
6 4QA M 3 /4 34
15 32

10 30

28
5 0 100 200 300 400 500
no FE C Frame
0
5 10 15 20 25 Fig. 6 PSNR per frame with/without FEC, max Doppler 4Hz, mean
S NR [dB ] SNR 15dB, link-speed 3.
(a)
delta averag e P SNR diff eren c e from ref. vs. SNR - D opp ler= 4 Hz
30
The degradation with lower code rate AP-FEC only occurs
B PS K 1/2
Q PS K 1/ 2
when residual errors remain after the decoding process.
25 Q PS K 3/ 4 Ultimately the PSNR depends on the location of the missing
average PSNR difference [dB]

20
15
10
5
c rossFEC = 0.87 5
0
5 10
S NR [dB ]
(b)
Fig. 5a, b Delta average PSNR vs SNR for all link-speeds, max
Doppler 4Hz a) no FEC, b) FEC with code rate 0.875
Simulations have shown that improvement in video quality
is not guaranteed in severe channel conditions when AP-FEC
is applied. Fig. 6 shows the PSNR per frame for the ‘ArtCar’
video sequence broadcast over WiFi using link-speed 3
(QPSK, ½ rate). The mean SNR at the receiver was just 15dB
and the maximum Doppler shift was 4Hz. The blue plot with
the dotted marker shows the error-free PSNR, the red line with
1 6QA M 1 /2
1 6QA M 3 /4 NALUs and how they propagate over time. It is possible for a
6 4QA M 3 /4
lower PER to result in a higher PSNR. Furthermore, to
maintain a constant transmission rate, when the code rate is
reduced, we also have to lower the encoded video rate.
Clearly, based on the rate-distortion curve, this reduces the
encoded PSNR. Low AP-FEC code rates should only be used
15 20 25 over channels where a high PER is expected. With a low
PER the received video quality with a low rate code can be
worse than a high code rate. The same situation is also seen
in our later experimental results and observed in [7].
Finally, Fig. 7 clearly demonstrates a case where the
mean PSNR approaches the error-free PSNR when AP-
FEC is applied. The video is broadcast over a WiFi link
using link-speed 3 (QPSK, ½ rate), the mean SNR at the
receiver is 25dB and the maximum Doppler shift is 4Hz.
The received video quality improves with AP-FEC,
reaching its best for code rate 0.75, where the PSNR is
improved by approximately 3-4dB.

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on May 19, 2009 at 04:35 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
74 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 55, No. 1, FEBRUARY 2009

48
PSNR for video1, SNR=25dB link speed 3 Doppler 4Hz
varying channel has a relatively large coherence time
(hundreds of milliseconds). Therefore, if a large interleaver
46
block size is used to match the channel coherence time, the
44
resulting decoded PER will improve significantly since the
42 bursty PER prior to decoding will be smoothed. When
PSNR (dB)

40 determining the interleaver block size another key

38
consideration is the delay it introduces. If the interleaver
error-free PSNR at TX block size is set to 200 packets (each of 750 bytes) then the
36
mean PSNR at RX no FEC
mean PSNR at RX FEC=0.75
video delay is approximately 4.8 seconds (using the
34
equation from section IV). Assuming that a 5 second delay
32
0 100 200 300 400 500
is acceptable and that a suitable buffer can be implemented
Frame at the receiver, we now investigate the received video
Fig. 7 PSNR per frame with/without FEC, max Doppler 4Hz, mean
quality improvement based on a block size of 200 packets.
SNR 25dB, link-speed 3
PSNR for video 1 at cricket pitch - li nk speed 3 a nd route 2
50
B. Experimental Results
Our simulation results are supported by experimental 45
measurements taken during VISUALISE trials at a cricket
40
stadium. Fig. 8 shows the SNR at the mobile WiFi device

PSNR (dB)
as the user moves along ‘route 2’ using link-speed 3 35
(QPSK, ½ rate). The SNR was calculated from the received
RSSI assuming a receiver noise floor of -93dBm. 30

50
SNR at receiver - mode 3 and route 2
25 erro r fre e PS NR at TX
mea n PS NR at Rx FE C=0 .75
45 mea n PS NR at Rx no FE C
20
40 0 100 2 00 300 400 5 00
F rame
35
SNR (dB)

30
Fig. 9 PSNR per frame with/without FEC based on measured PER at
cricket match
25
Packet Error Rate over packet window sizes - link speed 3 & route 2
20 35
window size 500
15 window size 200
30
window size 50
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 25
time of packet reception (sec)

Fig. 8 Measured channel SNR during video reception at cricket match 20

PER (%)

Fig. 9 shows the PSNR per frame for the ‘ArtCar’ video 15

sequence broadcast over a WiFi link to a mobile receiver as

10
it moves along ‘route 2’ using link-speed 3. This data
corresponds (and is time-aligned) to the SNR data shown in 5

Fig. 8. In fig. 9 the blue plot (with no marker) represents 0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
the error-free PSNR, the red line with the cross marker the number of packets

mean PSNR without AP-FEC and the green line with the
star marker the mean PSNR with 0.75 rate AP-FEC.
Fig. 10 depicts the mean PER over time. This was
evaluated using different packet interleaver block sizes, as
shown here for 50, 200 and 500 packets. It can be observed
that for small block sizes the troughs are deeper and the
peaks are higher, whereas for larger block sizes the PER is
much smoother over time. This figure demonstrates that a
large packet interleaver lowers the peak PER and reduces
the bursty nature of the packet loss mechanism.
To improve the received video quality over 802.11a/g we
now study the impact of varying the interleaver block size,
assuming the AP-FEC spans a depth of 8 NALUs. Given
that the measurement data was captured using a slow
moving (walking pace) receiver, we observe that the slow
Fig. 10 Measured PER averaged over a window of 50 packets
Fig. 11 shows the packet error pattern at different stages of
the video transmission system: the top figure shows the error
pattern without AP-FEC or interleaving, the upper middle
figure shows the error pattern after AP-FEC decoding (0.875
code rate), the lower middle figure shows the error pattern
after the combined application of interleaving (with a 200
packet block size) and AP-FEC (0.875 code rate) and the
bottom figure shows the error pattern after the combined
application of interleaving (with a 200 packet block size) and
AP-FEC at a code rate of 0.75. In the graphs a value of zero
represents a correctly received packet while a value of one
represents a missing packet. It can be seen that the addition of
interleaving improves the percentage of correctable missing

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on May 19, 2009 at 04:35 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
V. Sgardoni et al.: Robust Video Broadcasting over 802.11a/g in Time-Correlated Fading Channels 75

packets compared to the case where only AP-FEC with a
depth of 8 NALUs is applied. The process of interleaving
rearranges the missing packet sequence over a large window,
thus randomizing the burst errors and smoothing out the
PER. In cases where the interleaver block size is longer than
that AP-FEC depth this combination improves the AP-FEC
decoder performance. The lower code rate of 0.75 further
reduces the PER. In harsh channel conditions (such as those
shown here) there is still a residual missing packet rate, and
video quality is maximized in this case via error concealment
transmission simulator. The mean PER achieved for each code
rate and block code size, based on the measurements taken for
link-speed 3 and route 2, is shown in Fig. 14. It is observed that
for higher code rates the PER increases. For larger block sizes
lower PER is seen, especially for higher code rates. For the
channel encountered in our experiment, a block size of between
200-500 packets reduces the mean PER to less than 1% with
AP-FEC rates of between 0.70 and 0.75.
50
PSNR for video 1 at cricket field - link speed 3 and route=2

in the video decoder.

error patterns for link speed 3 and route 2 - FEC 0.875 - block 200 45
1
40

PSNR (dB)
0 35
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1
30
error free PSNR at TX
25 mean PSNR at Rx FEC=0.875
0 mean PSNR at Rx no FEC
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
mean PSNR with interleaver +FEC
1 20
0 100 200 300 400 500
Frame
Fig. 12 PSNR per frame with/without FEC and interleaving as
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 measured at cricket match for link-speed 3 and route 2
number of packets
PSNR for video 1 at cricket field - link speed 5 and route 1
FEC 0.75-block 200 50
1
45

40

0 35
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
number of packets 30
PSNR (dB)

25
Fig. 11 Packet error pattern - top: without FEC, upper middle: with
20
FEC at 0.875, lower middle: with interleaving (200 block size) and
FEC at 0.875, bottom with interleaving (200 block size) and FEC 0.75. 15
error free PSNR at TX
10 mean PSNR at Rx FEC=0.75
Fig. 12 shows the mean PSNR of the received video 5 mean PSNR at Rx no FEC
mean PSNR with interleaver+FEC
sequence based on the PER measured at the sports stadium. The 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
blue curve with no marker shows the error-free PSNR. The red Frame
curve with the star marker shows the mean PSNR per received Fig. 13 PSNR per frame with/without FEC and interleaving as
frame without AP-FEC. The green curve, with the star marker, measured at cricket match for link-speed 5 and route 1
shows the PSNR per received frame, when 0.875 AP-FEC is 6
video PER vs. code rate - link speed 3 and route 2

applied. The light blue curve, with the dotted marker, shows the block size=50
block size=200
PSNR per received frame, when 0.875 AP-FEC and 200 packet 5
block size=500

interleaving are applied. It can be seen that the combination of 4

interleaving with a 200 packet block size and AP-FEC decoding
PER (%)

with a 0.875 rate significantly improves the PSNR. 3

Fig. 13 shows an improvement in PSNR when a combination 2

of interleaving (with an interleaver block size of 200 packets)
1
and AP-FEC with code rate 0.75 is applied. However, in this
figure we also note that the PSNR with AP-FEC only is actually 0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
worse than the case without AP-FEC. This confirms the code rate

observations made from our simulations (Fig. 6).
Further investigation of the video quality for a variety of code
rates was conducted through the development of a generic
erasure block code emulator for AP-FEC protection. Using the
error patterns that were recorded during the measurements taken
at the cricket stadium, this emulator generates new error patterns
using two parameters, the block code size n and the code rate r.
The resulting error patterns were then fed into the video
Fig. 14 Evaluated PER vs FEC code rate for different block code sizes
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
For broadcast transmissions, lost MAC frames (or
NALUs) are inevitable. However, with the use of cross
packet AP-FEC the NLR can be reduced (often to zero)
and the video quality improved. Results have shown that
the degree of motion in the radio channel can affect the

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on May 19, 2009 at 04:35 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
76
error burst length, and hence the decoded video quality.
In combination with error concealment, good quality
broadcast reception over 802.11a/g can be achieved for
average SNR values in excess of 20dB (this assumes a
worst case Rayleigh fading channel). Further
improvements in received video quality can be achieved if
the AP-FEC approach is combined with packet level
interleaving. Selection of the most appropriate interleaver
block size must be taken into account as a trade-off
between latency and video performance. A wireless video
transmission system based on the concepts described in
this paper was developed as part of the VISUALISE
project.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was partly funded by the Technology Strategy
Board as part of the VISUALISE project.
REFERENCES
[1] http://www.3cresearch.co.uk/item/8
[2] S. Lee and K. Chung, "Joint Quality and Rate Adaptation Scheme
for Wireless Video Streaming,", IEEE AINA 2008, pp.311-318
[3] I. Haratcherev et al., "Optimized Video Streaming over 802.11 by
cross-layer signaling", IEEE Communications Magazine, Jan 2006.
[4] M. van der Schaar and D. Turaga, "Cross-layer optimization and
retransmission strategies for delay sensitive multimedia
transmission", IEEE Trans. on Multimedia, vol. 9, No.1, Jan. 2007.
[5] C-M. Chen, C-W. Lin and Y-C. Chen, "Adaptive error-resilience
transcoding and fairness grouping for video multicast over
wireless networks," IEEE Conference ICC 2007, pp.1661-1666.
[6] J. Ma, X. Feng, Y. Liu and B. Tang, “Video multicast over
WLAN”, IEEE ISCIT 2005, vol. 2, pp. 1400-1403, Oct. 2005.
[7] J. Afzal, T. Stockhammer, T. Gasiba, W. Xu, ‘System Design
Options for Video Broadcasting over Wireless Networks’, CCNC
06
[8] V. Sgardoni, P. Ferré, A. Doufexi, A. Nix and D. Bull, "Frame
Delay and Loss Analysis for Video Transmission over time-
correlated 802.11a/g channels", IEEE Conf.PIMRC’07, pp.1-5,
Sept. 2007.
[9] A. Willig, M. Kubisch, C. Hoene, and A. Wolisz, ‘Measurements
of a Wireless Link in an Industrial Environment using an IEEE
802.11-Compliant Physical Layer’, IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, volume 49-6, Dec. 2002.
[10] P. Ferre, A. Doufexi, A. Nix and D. Bull, ‘Throughput Analysis of
IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.11e MAC’, IEEE WCNC 2004
[11] IEEE Std 802.11g; Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications: Further High-
Speed Physical Layer in the 2.4 GHz Band, d1.1, 2001.
[12] A. Doufexi, S. Armour, M. Butler, A. Nix, D. Bull, & J.
McGeehan, ‘A Comparison of the HIPERLAN/2 and IEEE
802.11a Wireless LAN Standards, IEEE Communications Mag.,
pp. 172-180, May 2002
[13] C. Komninakis, ‘A Fast and Accurate Rayleigh Fading Simulator’,
IEEE GLOBECOM 2003.
[14] IEEE 802.16 standards, IEEE 802.16.3c-01/2 9r4, ‘Channel
Models for Fixed Wireless Applications’
[15] W.C. Jakes, ‘Microwave Mobile Communications’, IEEE Press,
New York, 1974.
[16] Joint Video Team (JVT) of ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T VCEG.
ITU-T Rec. and Final Draft Intern. Standard of Joint Video
Specification (ITU-T Rec. H.264-ISO/IEC 14496-10 AVC), March
2003.
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on May 19, 2009 at 04:35 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 55, No. 1, FEBRUARY 2009
[17] M. van der Schaar, S. Krishnamachari, S. Choi, X. Xu, ‘Adaptive
cross-layer protection strategies for robust scalable video
transmission over 802.11 WLANs’, IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, Vol. 21, No. 10, Dec. 2003.
[18] 3GPP TS 26.346 V6.1.0, Technical Specification Group Services
and System Aspects; Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service;
Protocols and Codecs, June 2005.
[19] T.K. Chiew, P. Ferre, D. Agrafiotis, A. Molina, A. Nix, and D.
Bull, ‘Cross-Layer WLAN Measurement and Link Analysis for
Low Latency Error Resilient Wireless Video Transmission’, IEEE
ICCE 2005
Victoria Sgardoni received the degree Dip. Ing. in
Electrical Engineering from the University of Patras,
Greece in 1985 and her MSc in Communications
Engineering from Imperial College, University of
London in 1988. She then worked on speech
recognition at Logica Cambridge, UK and
subsequently for a number of companies including
Reuters and the Greek PTT OTE. She is currently a lecturer at the
Technological Educational Institute of Chalkis in Greece and is pursuing a
PhD at the Centre for Communications Research, University of Bristol.
Her research interests include broadband wireless communications, cross
layer video delivery, robust error control coding and signal processing.
Mantalena Sarafianou received her undergraduate
degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece in 2007
and continued with an MSc degree in Communication
Systems and Signal Processing from the University of
Bristol, UK in 2008. She is currently working towards
her PhD degree at the University of Bristol. Her
research interests include antennas, wireless communications, wireless
video streaming and microwave breast cancer detection.
Pierre Ferré received his engineering degree from
ENST Bretagne, France in 1999, jointly with his
M.Sc. in Communiction Systems and Signal
Processing from the University of Bristol. He joined
the Centre for Communications Research at the
University of Bristol in 2001 where he graduated with
his Ph.D. in 2006. From 2004 he has worked as a
Research Associate in the University of Bristol on a number of European
projects in the area of wireless video transmission. His main research
interests include robust and error resilient video coding, distributed video
coding, wireless LANs and MANs (PHY/MAC), cross layer
communications for improved video delivery and error modelling.
Andrew R. Nix received BEng and PhD degrees from
the University of Bristol in 1989 and 1993
respectively. He joined the Centre for
Communications Research at the University of Bristol
as a member of lecturing staff in 1993. He is currently
Professor of Wireless Communication Systems. His
main research interests include broadband wireless
communications, radiowave propagation modelling, cellular network
optimisation and advanced digital modulation/reception techniques. He has
published in excess of 300 Journal and Conference papers.
David Bull (M’94, SM’07) holds the Chair in Signal
Processing at the University of Bristol. He also leads
the Signal Processing activities in the Centre for
Communications Research where he is Deputy
Director. He is co-founder and Chairman of ProVision
Communication Technologies Ltd. Prior to his current
appointments he was a Systems Engineer at Rolls
Royce and subsequently a Lecturer at Cardiff University. He has also acted
as an independent consultant to numerous international organisations in the
fields of video coding and signal analysis. Prof. Bull is a Fellow of the IEE
and a Chartered Engineer, U.K.