IPTV Capacity Analysis
using DCCP over IEEE 802.11n
Saad Saleh, Zawar Shah and Adeel Baig
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
Email: {11mseessaleh, zawar.hussain and adeel.baig}@seecs.edu.pk
Abstract—Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) has gained an
enormous growth rate by revolutionizing personal entertainment.
High data rates with increased coverage radius of IEEE 802.11n
Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) motivate the concept
of wireless IPTV. Streaming of Television contents over highly
pervasive wireless environment with satisfactory Quality of
Service (QoS) is a challenging task. Focusing on wireless IPTV,
our work deals with the capacity evaluation of IPTV users
over IEEE 802.11n. We first present an upper capacity limit
for supporting maximum number of users over IEEE 802.11n.
We then propose that 4-times packet size is the optimal frame
aggregation size for IPTV which maximizes users capacity
and QoS. Finally, we suggest the use of Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP) at transport layer for IPTV. We show
that DCCP capacity for IPTV increases upto 35% by reducing
packet losses at Access Point (AP), compared to User Datagram
Protocol (UDP). We further evaluate fairness of IPTV traffic in
the presence of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) traffic in
the network. Our study concludes that IPTV using DCCP over
IEEE 802.11n not only provides increased user’s capacity but
also co-exists fairly with TCP traffic.
Keywords- IPTV; DCCP; IEEE 802.11n.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) is an exciting ap-
plication which provides streaming of Television contents over
Internet Protocol (IP) based networks. IPTV transmits video,
audio, data and graphics etc simultaneously to users. In the
past few years, IPTV has gained an unremarkable growth [1].
It has been predicted that IPTV network traffic would increase
from 34% to 54% by 2016 [1]. Users growth rate, packet loss
reduction, channel change time reduction and coping fairly
with the current network traffic are key challenges for current
IPTV infrastructure. The architecture of IPTV is composed
of three major parts: video head end, transport network and
video receiver. Among all these entities, major bandwidth
restricting entity in transport network is the Access Point (AP)
because limited buffer size of queues at AP drop packets
[2]. To avoid bandwidth restriction, wired access links are
preferred by IPTV service providers. But ease of mobility,
less installation cost and freedom of entertainment demands
the shift of paradigm from wired to wireless infrastructure.
Among wireless technologies, IEEE 802.11n is the latest
standard providing maximum data rate. Frame aggregation
is an important capacity enhancement mechanism for IEEE
802.11n WLANs. Multiple frames are combined at Medium
Access Control (MAC) Layer and physical layer. This feature
reduces the header overhead and collision time. Our study
shows that significant capacity improvement is gained by
frame aggregation mechanism for IPTV over IEEE 802.11n.
We also show that there is an optimal aggregation size for
IPTV transmission over IEEE 802.11n. In [3]-[5], authors
show that IEEE 802.11n gives performance improvement for
VoIP and UDP based applications while [6] experimentally
verifies IPTV performance over IEEE 802.11n. To the best
of our knowledge, no work has been done on the frame
aggregation trends of IPTV over IEEE 802.11n.
IPTV uses UDP at transport layer. IPTV requires less
delay and less packet loss. UDP provides less delay but
it increases packet loss because it has no network conges-
tion avoidance mechanism. To resolve UDP’s congestion-
less mechanism, DCCP has emerged as a suitable transport
layer protocol for streaming media applications [7]. It has
two variants i.e., TCP-like and TCP Friendly Rate Control
(TFRC) protocol. TCP-like offers high reliability with no
retransmissions while TFRC prefers timeliness and avoids
network congestion. Our study shows that DCCP (TFRC)
can significantly enhance IPTV capacity than UDP. Moreover,
TCP and UDP cannot co-exist in any network with fairness be-
cause TCP decreases its congestion window size in congested
situations while UDP sends data with constant bit rate [8]. This
results in starvation of TCP flows [8]. We also study fairness
of IPTV traffic with TCP traffic because 80% of network users
are using TCP traffic [9]. Our fairness results show that DCCP
is much more fairer to TCP than UDP.
Our main contributions in this work are, (i) To determine
capacity of IPTV users using IEEE 802.11n, (ii) To investigate
the effect of frame aggregation size on IEEE 802.11n for the
capacity of IPTV, (iii) To study the use of DCCP (TCP-like
and TFRC) for IPTV over IEEE 802.11n in place of UDP, (iv)
To evaluate the capacity of IPTV users using DCCP (TFRC)
and UDP in the presence of TCP flows in the network.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:
In Section-II, we present the related work for IPTV and its
wireless implementations. Section-III presents the bandwidth
requirements and IPTV capacity for IEEE 802.11n with and
without aggregation. In Section-IV, we present the use of
DCCP (TCP-like and TFRC) over IPTV. In Section-V, we
evaluate capacity of IPTV by using UDP and DCCP (TFRC) in
the presence of TCP traffic. Section-VI presents the conclusion
of IPTV capacity using DCCP over IEEE 802.11n.
 II. RELATED WORK modules [3] and [16] which now provide support of enhanced
Several studies have been conducted for IPTV distri- distributed channel access, transmission opportunity and ac-
bution in wireless networks. In [10], Yang et al. claims that cess categories having timers in compatibility with the DCCP
IPTV is a killer application for next generation internet and module. The developed module is compatible with legacy
performance metrics need to be studied in WLANs. In [11], 802.11 module. Block Acknowledgement and Frame aggrega-
authors show that IEEE 802.11b and IEEE 802.11g networks tion mechanisms have been modified to include A-MSDU and
can support upto 2 and 6 IPTV users respectively. They show A-MPDU. Packet format is modified to include 802.11n and
that system capacity has a non-linear relationship with data DCCP enhancement. We conduct capacity analysis for both
rate of WLAN. In [12], Gidlund et al. show that IEEE 802.11b Standard Definition Television (SDTV) and High Definition
Wireless mesh network can provide upto 3 IPTV channels with Television (HDTV).
maximum 2 hops only. They conclude that current WLANs Fig. 1 shows the IPTV architecture, implemented in form
are not efficient for supporting IPTV and VoIP over multiple of an IPTV server at one end of internet and AP located on
hops. They suggest the use of IEEE 802.11n WLAN for IPTV other side. A number of wireless nodes requiring IPTV traffic
because of its high data rate. In [13], authors suggest that are connected to IEEE 802.11n AP. Table-I lists the various
IPTV packet loss can be minimized by minimizing number slot times used for configuring IEEE 802.11n AP having queue
of hops in network and maximizing buffer size. They extend size of 70 packets [3]. IPTV packet size is 1368 bytes.
fluid model flow analysis to study buffer size and number of TABLE I
802.11 N ACCESS P OINT PARAMETERS
hops relationship with QoS of IPTV.
In [3], authors show that MAC enhancements of IEEE Parameter Value
802.11n give significant performance improvement than its Slot time 20 us
SIFS 10 us
legacy networks. They conclude with simulations that VoIP
TXOP limit 3.264 ms
performance is significantly improved by using IEEE 802.11n. Channel Bandwidth 40 MHz
In [4], authors show that frame aggregation can increase Bit error rate 0.000008
channel utilization upto 95% for UDP traffic. They conclude Area 500 * 500 m
that frame aggregation at physical layer is more effective than
at MAC layer because of physical bit error rate. In [5], authors
show that throughput performance of IEEE 802.11n is affected
in presence of legacy networks because of frame protection
mechanisms.They conclude that capacity of IEEE 802.11n is
enhanced even in presence of legacy networks.
In [6], Atenas et al. develop an experimental test bed for
IPTV performance over IEEE 802.11n. They estimate delay,
jitter and packet loss and conclude that indoor environment
can provide better QoS than outdoor. Our study differs from
their experimentation because we focus on frame aggregation
trends and use of DCCP over IEEE 802.11n for IPTV.
In [7] and [14], authors suggest that DCCP can enhance
performance for VoIP, video streaming and video gaming.
They show that change of data rate in congested situations Fig. 1. IPTV Network Scenario
can increase performance of time-sensitive applications. They
suggest that DCCP gives fair share to TCP rather than UDP. A. IPTV Bandwidth Requirements
Their capacity findings and fairness evaluations are a source
Data rate requirement plays the most important role in
of motivation for using DCCP over IPTV.
evaluating IPTV capacity . We evaluate data rate by taking into
Comparison of studies [3]-[14] shows that low data rates
account all factors including resolution (Horizontal Resolution
of IEEE 802.11b/g were the major hurdles in the path of wire-
RH ∗ Vertical Resolution RV ), frames per sec (F ), Luminance
less IPTV. With the advent of high data rates of IEEE 802.11n,
& Chrominance (C) , bytes per pixel (B) and compression
performance of wireless IPTV has improved. Moreover, use
schemes (MPEG-2 and MPEG-4). Studies suggest that SDTV
of DCCP is currently limited to voice and video applications
should use MPEG-2 while HDTV should use MPEG-4 owing
only. As far as we know, very limited investigation has been
to their cost and complexity [17]. Table II presents the data rate
made on frame aggregation trends and use of DCCP for IPTV
(D) of HDTV and SDTV streams calculated using equation (1)
over IEEE 802.11n wireless network.
and (2) respectively. Ngop and Hcomp are given by number of
III. CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF WIRELESS IPTV pictures per frame and by compression efficiency [17].
We implement IEEE 802.11n MAC and physical layer D = RH RV CF B (1)
module with DCCP (TCP-like and TFRC) at transport layer
in ns2 [15]. Our implementation is an extension of previous D = RH RV CF BNgop /Hcomp (2)
 TABLE II
DATA R ATE R EQUIREMENT FOR VARIOUS COMPRESSION AND
RESOLUTION SCHEMES

TV F C Resolution Compression Required Data

(fps) RH ∗ RV Scheme Rate (Mbps)
SD 24 2 640 * 480 MPEG-2 3.93
SD 24 2 640 * 480 MPEG-4 2.36
HD 24 3 1920* 1080 MPEG-2 26
HD 24 3 1920* 1080 MPEG-4 15.92

B. Capacity of IPTV over IEEE 802.11n without Aggregation

We evaluate the capacity of wireless IPTV using IEEE
802.11n without using aggregation mechanism. Our motivation
is to minimize IPTV packets delay by removing aggregation
at AP which can enhance QoS. IPTV can tolerate a delay of
50ms [18]. IPTV allows channel zap time of 200ms which is
the time required to wait for new channel request [19]. Also,
IPTV cannot tolerate packet loss greater than 1% [20].
Table III shows that capacity is limited to a single HDTV
user with 0.4% packet loss without aggregation at AP. If
number of users are increased then it results only in loss of
packets at AP. Fig. 2 shows that average throughput drops from
15.86 Mbps to 8.8 Mbps with the addition of second HDTV
user. Third user deteriorates the average throughput to 6 Mbps.
Average delay and channel zap time for second user are 3.2ms
and 18ms which are less than their corresponding threshold
values (50ms and 200ms respectively). Fig. 2 shows that
average throughput has an inverse relationship with number
of wireless users while delay has direct relationship with
number of users. Our results show that 1st user gets a packet
loss of 0.4% while further users get packet loss greater than
1%. Results show that any addition of HDTV channels after
1st channel result in loss of throughput because there is no
aggregation of packets at AP. Additional users have limited
delay but packet loss crosses threshold value. SDTV users
exhibit similar behaviour but they have more capacity than
HDTV users because less resolution of SDTV allows more
users to be accommodated in the same bandwidth. This holds
true for all our simulations results presented in this paper.
TABLE III
IPTV USERS OVER IEEE 802.11 N WITHOUT AGGREGATION
TV Capacity Packet Loss Delay Chan. zap time
HD 1 0.4% 2.5ms 7ms
SD 4 0.5% 3ms 58ms
Fig. 2. HDTV performance without Aggregation
user crosses the threshold value (50ms). Packet aggregation
at AP more than the threshold delay value results in loss
of capacity of IPTV users. Fig. 3 shows that capacity for
supported users increases sharply to 17 SDTV users till 4-
times packet aggregation size. Capacity remains stable from
4-times to 6-times packet aggregation size because 18th user
gets delay more than 50ms. From 6-times aggregation size, the
capacity decreases because AP stores the packets more than
the threshold delay value of 50ms.
Optimal frame aggregation size is necessary to maximize
the capacity of IPTV users. Our results suggest that 4-times
packet size is the optimal frame aggregation size for IPTV with
maximum capacity and minimum delay as shown in Fig. 4.
Results from Fig. 4 show that throughput remains stable upto
4 HDTV users and it drops to 12.4 Mbps with the addition
of 5th HDTV user. Channel zap time for all users is less than
200ms. Delay of packets comes to be 2.1ms for 1 user and
increases upto 6.5ms for 6 users. Channel zap time varies
from 9ms to 140ms. Packet loss graph shows that upto 4 users
get a loss less than 1%. Packet loss for 5th user reaches to
5.8%. Limited buffer size of queues at AP drop packets in
congested situations. This results in an increase in packet-loss
with number of users. HDTV support is limited to 4 users with
optimal aggregation. SDTV users exhibit same trends having
4-times optimal packet aggregation size.
TABLE IV
IPTV CAPACITY TRENDS WITH PACKET AGGREGATION

C. IPTV Capacity Trends with Frame Aggregation Packet Aggregation

TV
1-time 2-times 4-times 6-times 8-times
In this subsection, we aim to estimate the IEEE HD users 1 2 4 4 3
802.11n aggregation trends for wireless IPTV. Our goal is to HD delay 35ms 31ms 29ms 43ms 48ms
SD users 4 7 17 17 11
find the aggregation limit for which delay is tolerable and SD delay 37ms 34ms 32ms 39ms 45ms
maximum number of users can be accommodated.
Table IV shows that IPTV capacity increases as we
increase the packet aggregation size. After 4-times aggregation IV. CAPACITY OF IPTV USING DCCP
size, any further increase in packet aggregation size at AP does IPTV using UDP encounters packet loss in congested
not increase capacity of IPTV users. Analysis shows that by situations because UDP has no congestion control mechanism.
using aggregation, more packets can be sent from AP with less To avoid packet-loss, we study the use of DCCP for IPTV.
probability of collision. IPTV capacity does not increase after DCCP has two famous variants namely TCP-like and TFRC
4-times aggregation limit because the delay (57ms) for 5th [7]. TCP-like is similar to the congestion mechanism of TCP
 TABLE V
IPTV C APACITY USING TCP- LIKE

TV Without Aggregation With 4-times Aggregation

1 3
HD
delay=33ms pkt-loss=0.08% delay=42ms pkt-loss=0.1%
3 14
SD
delay=40ms pkt-loss=0.09% delay=46ms pkt-loss=0.12%

for HDTV and SDTV channels increased by 25% and 35%

respectively. Packet loss is upto 0.96% but it is still less than
1% threshold value. Delay for HDTV users is upto 18ms. Main
reason for more capacity of TFRC is attributed to its nature of
being more time sensitive than being reliable. TFRC decreases
its data rate in congested situations and sends those packets on
next instants. Our results imply that TFRC encounters more
packet loss and less delay than TCP-like.
Fig. 3. IPTV Capacity Trends with Packet Aggregation size TABLE VI
IPTV C APACITY USING TFRC

TV Without Aggregation With 4-times Aggregation

1 5
HD
delay=9ms pkt-loss=0.75% delay=18ms pkt-loss=0.96%
7 23
SD
delay=20ms pkt-loss=0.8% delay=28ms pkt-loss=0.92%

Results from Table VII present a comparison of the

IPTV capacity by using DCCP in place of UDP. Comparison
shows that TCP-like decreases capacity upto 25% than UDP.
Moreover, use of DCCP (TFRC) can increase capacity by
25%. It implies that TFRC may be preferred over TCP-like
for capacity enhancement of IPTV.
TABLE VII
IPTV C APACITY C OMPARISON FOR UDP AND DCCP

IPTV Capacity over IEEE 802.11n without Aggregation

TV UDP TCP-like TFRC
Fig. 4. HDTV Performance with Optimal Frame Aggregation HD 1 1 1
SD 4 3 7
and it gives abrupt changes in bandwidth with more reliability. IPTV Capacity over IEEE 802.11n with Aggregation
TFRC is a nearly constant bandwidth protocol which uses TV UDP TCP-like TFRC
HD 4 3 5
round trip time, segment size and packet loss rate to determine SD 17 14 23
sending rate. We use both variants TCP-like and TFRC to
determine IPTV capacity.
We configure IPTV for using TCP-like in place of V. IPTV CAPACITY ANALYSIS WITH UDP AND
UDP for same number of SDTV and HDTV sessions. Re- DCCP IN THE PRESENCE OF TCP TRAFFIC
sults suggest that 3 HDTV users are supported with optimal Network statistics claim that non-real time traffic is
aggregation (4-times aggregation) as shown in Table V. Main four times greater than the real-time traffic [9]. This suggests
reason for less capacity of TCP-like is attributed to its nature that our analysis of IPTV would be incomplete if we don’t
of preferring reliability over timeliness. Capacity of HDTV incorporate other traffic categories into IPTV traffic. In this
and SDTV channels drop by 25% and 18% respectively by subsection, we suggest that use of DCCP not only improves
using TCP-like in place of UDP. Simulation results show that IPTV capacity but it also gives fair share to TCP.
the delay for 4th and 15th user of HDTV and SDTV streams File Transfer Protocol (FTP) application has been im-
is 75ms and 80ms, respectively. Packet loss is less then 1% by plemented because it uses TCP as transport layer protocol.
using TCP-like but packet delay is greater than the threshold FTP traffic has a packet size of 1000 bytes. Original IPTV
delay value. It implies that TCP-like can avoid packet loss but architecture carrying UDP traffic is analysed by passing TCP
delay is un-tolerable which decreases IPTV user’s capacity. traffic simultaneously in the network.
TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) protocol is imple- Our results from Table VIII show that IPTV capacity
mented in IPTV in place of UDP. Same numbers of SDTV using UDP decreases by 25% and 24% for HDTV and SDTV
and HDTV channels are turned on one-by-one. The results users, respectively in presence of TCP traffic. This suggests
are presented in Table VI. Our results show that capacity that IPTV using UDP encounters packet loss in presence of
TCP traffic. Our capacity results show that IPTV using TFRC gives minimum delay with maximum number of users. Any
provide more users (20 SD users) than IPTV using UDP (13 further increase in aggregation results in loss of capacity be-
SD users) in presence of TCP traffic. It implies that TFRC cause of an increase in packet’s delay. We deduce that limited
can gain significant capacity improvement in presence of TCP buffer size of queues at AP limit the capacity of IPTV users
traffic. Bandwidth usuage statistics show that throughput of by dropping packets in congested situations. We study the use
TCP has increased by 6 Mbps in presence of IPTV using of DCCP at transport layer of IPTV. Our results verify that
TFRC. Our results show that IPTV capacity using TFRC DCCP for IPTV can give significant capacity improvement by
decreases by 20% and 13% for HDTV and SDTV users varying its data rate in congested situations. Fairness analysis
respectively in presence of TCP traffic. It reveals that the also shows that DCCP for IPTV provides better bandwidth
decrease in capacity for IPTV using UDP is always higher share to TCP. Our study concludes that DCCP can increase
than IPTV using TFRC, in presence of TCP traffic. capacity for IPTV users over IEEE 802.11n.
Fairness analysis from Fig. 5 shows that throughput of
R EFERENCES
TCP remains stable to 13 Mbps in presence of 3 HDTV
users running on IPTV using UDP. But the addition of 4th [1] Cisco White Paper, “Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and
Methodology, 2011-2016”, published on May 30, 2012.
user introduces 15.92 Mbps of UDP traffic which increases [2] M. Garcia, J. Lloret, M. Edo and R. Lacuesta, “IPTV distribution
network congestion. This behaviour causes TCP to decrease network access system using WiMAX and WLAN technologies”, In
its congestion window size to nearly zero after 25sec and UDP Proc. of Use of P2P, GRID and agents for the development of content
networks (UPGRADE-CN), Germany, June 2009.
keeps sending IPTV data at an average rate of 51.2 Mbps. On [3] C. Yang and H. Wei, “IEEE 802.11n MAC Enhancement and Perfor-
contrary, throughput of TCP is about 15.1 Mbps in presence mance Evaluation”, in Journal Mobile Networks and Applications, pp.
of IPTV using TFRC and IPTV gets an average data rate of 760 - 771, volume 14, issue 6, December 2009.
[4] B. Ginzburg and A. Kesselman, “Performance analysis of A-MPDU and
67.5 Mbps. TCP throughput remains stable to 14 Mbps till A-MSDU aggregation in IEEE 802.11n”, in IEEE Sarnoff Symposium,
last. Obtained results show that use of DCCP for IPTV can April-May 2007.
provide fair share in bandwidth to TCP. [5] T. Selvam and S. Srikanth, “Performance study of IEEE 802.11n
WLANs”, in proc. of the First international conference on COMmuni-
TABLE VIII cation Systems And NETworks (COMSNETS’09), pp. 637-642, 2009.
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS FROM IPTV (UDP/DCCP) TRAFFIC [6] M. Atenas, S. Sendra, M. Garcia and J. Lloret, “IPTV Performance
ALONG WITH TCP TRAFFIC in IEEE 802.11 n WLANs”, in IEEE Global Telecommunications
Workshop (GLOBECOM), pp. 929-933, Miami, 2010.
Channel Combined Average Traffic With Without Capacity [7] E. Kohler, M. Handley, and S. Floyd, “Datagram Congestion Control
Type Traffic Throughput Bandwidth TCP TCP decrease Protocol (DCCP)”, RFC 4340, March 2006.
Flows (Mbps) Usuage(%) capacity capacity (%) [8] H. K. Rath and A. Karandikar,”Performance Analysis of TCP and UDP-
HDTV UDP- UDP:51.2 UDP:84.8 3 4 25 based Applications in a IEEE 802.16 deployed Network”, Wireless
TCP TCP:9.19 TCP:15.2 Personal Multimedia Communications (WPMC), France, October 2011.
HDTV TFRC- TFRC:67.5 TFRC:81.7 4 5 20 [9] M. Fomenkov, K. Keys, D. Moore and K. Claffy, “Longitudinal Study of
TCP TCP:15.1 TCP:18.28 Internet Traffic from 1998 to 2003”, in Proceedings of the Winter Inter-
SDTV UDP- UDP:50.4 UDP:85.2 13 17 24 national Symposium on Information and Communication Technologies,
TCP TCP:8.73 TCP:14.8 ACM Press, New York, USA, January 2004.
SDTV TFRC- TFRC:77.8 TFRC:83.5 20 23 13 [10] Y. Xiao, X. Du, J. Zhang, F. Hu and S. Guizani, “Internet Protocol Tele-
TCP TCP:15.3 TCP:15.4 vision (IPTV):The Killer Application for the Next-Generation Internet”,
IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 45, Issue 11, November 2007.
[11] T. Guo, C. H. Foh, J. Cai, D. Niyati and E. W. M. Wong, “Performance
Evaluation of IPTV Over Wireless Home Networks”,IEEE transactions
on multimedia, vol. 13, no. 5, Oct 2011.
[12] M. Gidlund and J. Ekling, “VoIP and IPTV Distribution over Wireless
Mesh Networks in Indoor Environment”, IEEE Transactions on Con-
sumer Electronics, November 2008.
[13] E. Shihab, F. Wan, L. Cai, A. Gulliver and N. Tin, “Performance analysis
of IPTV traffic in home networks”, IEEE Global Telecommunications
Conference (GLOBECOM), pp. 5341-5345, Washington, DC, Nov 2007.
[14] I. Ullah, Z. Shah, M. Owais and A. Baig, “VoIP and Tracking Capacity
over WiFi Networks”, in 73rd IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference
(VTC Spring), Hungary, May 2011.
[15] The Network Simulator - NS-2, http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns.
[16] S. Linck, DCCP Module for ns-2, open-source available at
http://lifc.univ-fcomte.fr/ dedu/ns2.
[17] ETSI Standard, ”Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Framing structure,
channel coding and modulation for digital terrestrial television”, Avail-
Fig. 5. (a) Simultaneous UDP and TCP Traffic - (b) Simultaneous DCCP able at http://pda.etsi.org.
and TCP Traffic [18] Agilent technologies, ”IPTV QoE: Understanding and interpreting MDI
values”, white paper, 2008.
[19] B. Dekeris and L. Narbutaite, “IPTV Channel Zap Time Analysis”,
VI. C ONCLUSION in Proceedings of International Conference on Ubiquitous and Future
In this paper, we evaluate the capacity of IPTV users for Networks, China, 2009.
[20] W. Sun, K. Lin and Y. Guan, “Performance analysis of a finite duration
transmission over IEEE 802.11n. Our study shows that optimal multichannel delivery method in IPTV”, IEEE Transactions on Broad-
frame aggregation size is required to maximize capacity of casting, pp. 419-429, 2008.
IPTV users. We conclude that 4-times packet size aggregation