HTTP based mobile video transfer

prof.A.N.Banubakode
Symbiosis Intemational University (SIU) Pune, India Deparftnent of Informatio;

Bhagyashri.pachkor, Sayali Wadekar f;"h""lrgy, RSCOE

Delivery NetworklCbN) infrastructui

h;;;;;-;; itrtp ur..a live streaming and dvnamic Uit rate aO-apiation witfr increased scatabititv *1t1 tr,. r,.rp'li ;il#a Content
As ornow
Live streaming,

video tiinrii].iori.i"i,ro focus on how segment based transmirri""

overview of how HTT{ quatity and standards of

Absfiact- Video delivervln f$ phones in world of wireless communication. is the upcoming trend This ,rti.i.'p.ouia.. un

gateways

f-

teing-

usJ" io"i.".up.."r.

tr,u

outgoing network.

or proxies to match available bandwidth of

A.

Review

CD\

dynamic bit rate.

over the past few^ years, the battle between heavy weights like Nokia fsryl,:l appr""fiphone oS), -Mobite),-funi"f*i* Microsoft (Windows os for Blackberry), and Google far*"i,il- ri'r" s**Bhor" operating systems markei share h"; L;; es"calating.

isi

Currently 25yo

. #Iffiff ffi';:1fl;,IH:h" ;[3'f+ffi,ffiT::':#

*r.*.1mtoro,J.""llu?ilrirrioo
content to mobile devices, new visions *a toi."p,s that will drive evolution of wireles. u"""r1l.froJfogi., to support hieh definition video dr*-;H diverse eoS requirements, deoloyment cnatenges"'rn new video detivery models (6roadcasymrlfi.;;;j; expect high quality video. Satisfying these a..*OIi, necessary for mass adoption which in turn i, ,.quir"J to mate content delivery cost effective. Thi;;i;ilil. a macroscopic view of the end-to_end.oUii" .ort*;;;""ry ecosystem. In,a huSe heterogeneous network environment, it is verv .tough to ransfer an.MpEG-2 ilam Content providers

has been an

Smartpho,re's (Nietsen.Wire,

of american m"iii;:;;.r*ers

delivery with htfo, *nign fr"fp, ir-dii.i"n, Management of the Mobile video ddt",y: ;i."_"r, to its online yj$e9 qlform sysr:m^, tn" to rive stream (HLS delivery) their free "uiiity _d p;y;;.-V;;; video

to Ae moUite To provide an inteEaled Sotution "r;i.;;;;: forlie Mobile video

even from the desktop Intemet

r*;;;o

and."o^** J"rl*i'*a

mobile users[l].

fll::Hl[::ing

mobile operators. developers, "rf.;;';;;;rlr."|,urro.r ana mnaset maiufacturers worrd-cra,,

mobile video delive* Ting HTTP f_iui'S?"amiog Android phones. Android

months, ied to 23% choosingrhe Appte iOS ^ril CNi.fs", WirL, Z"r'r'6i"1 tZt. According ro Table--i, ourr*lj^iilat different ^ Smaftrrhone,s support oirierent fficts. Lrve streaming has not _yet Ue., ."te"ar"j in Google android .This articte is ali about of

growtrr:l*: : experiencing rapid"h*., ot new Smartphone subscribersT;;;;_;r"n percent .h;; ;" Android -ffi platform over the IuT

rrii p*"tur. i, likely to be an iphone or an Android device. Although curently at l3o/o market
th"-Lar"ij
OS market

(makers of BlackBerry) SmarBhone subscribers with :sZr, foliJwJa Uy appt. ut 28%. This is likelv to change of current B.lackBerry subscriLers .rui.n"trruitrreir ",

tu ooi'il;;h in Motion f"ud, tfr.-ri*t"i"# cunent U.S.

have

"rlr"iaf

*"

;;;;;

urrr
i,
ro

iillil;;.ntation

;;;;;;;uii,,or**.,

*.transfer. The bandlilidth preseni u,rrJ'i,rfr."nt Iinks differs over time. Therefoi.,-ii, Ii*ii on rate MpEG
stream comes across a low bandwidth-ii"k

ffi;ffi:,ti,i:

TABLE. I. COMPARISON OF SMARTPHONE

Iike teleconferencing, video on demand, aistance' tearning have been emerging in the recent years which need unified network

-,i"i, suddenly, the frame rate will decrease Arasticaffy. ir .ur., there is possibitiry of packet dropp-e or proxy. The -"l"tut^r-;; MPEG stream wil be distorted due]to this,random loss of information. A dynamic. Ui, ,*-"a"rprlri* at real time would

be useful. Various *rftilil;;"services,

infraskucture which ioes

TCp/Ip, Wireless

services and various gxlsting

resulting in a heterogeneous network environment delivery of those ,.i,i."r. Th";;i;,-;'o]ru_,. for the bit_rate adaptation of incoming uia." needed at

;;*k; iicrr as arM and pSTfr, ;;.;'irt.."o*."ted uli-rl;#'i,

,or'.*ir, for those