A New Wireless Generation Technology for Video Streaming

. With the exponential rise in the volumes of video traﬃc in cellular networks, there is an urgent need for improving the quality of video delivery. This research proposes a mobile generation model based on the updated technologies of the fourth-and ﬁfth-generation mobile systems, which is called Proposed Generation (Pro-G). This model uses wider bandwidth and advanced adaptive modulation and coding. It also incorporates the method of the adaptive video streaming of multiple video data rates by using the transcoding technique, which is called H.265 proposed (H.265 pro). Thus, both methods are tested to provide a large number of users of video/data application with more speed and best quality. A comparison with 4G technology is done to assign the development regarding number of users with data rate. The suggested video coding shows how much the overall system is more reliable over the congested channel than conventional video coding technologies such as high-eﬃciency video coding (HEVC/H.265) and advanced video coding (AVC/H.264). The results showed that the proposed method of transmitting wireless data is better than the LTE-ADV method. In this method, the rate of data transfer increases by 29% compared with LTE-ADV, while the bit rate saving was increased to 13% in the proposed video coding compared with that in the H.265.


Introduction
Currently, there are many mobile and wireless systems such as fourth-generation (4G) systems, which include Long-Term Evolution (LTE), Wi-Fi, and WiMAX.Wireless networks depend on the IP protocol, which means that this protocol in the network layer expresses all data transmission.
4G technology is mainly the extension of the thirdgeneration (3G) technology, with additional information measure and services.4G technology can provide several advancements to the wireless market, together with downlink information rates [1].
e 5G systems offer many distinct characteristics which make them stronger and more demanding in the future [2].
e main objective of the 5G systems is the transfer of data to mobile devices with high quality and efficiency [3].
ese services have already been provided, but the provision of high-definition video, multimedia services, and interactive presentation that leads to degradation in service quality may be a significant challenge.Among the services, the video streaming service is preferred, and with the high flow of data and information, the response to users is essential to maintain the quality of service and performance.
ere must be improvements to 4G systems to accommodate the need for video services, which will be 72% in 2019 [4].
One of the characteristics of video transmission over wireless networks is the availability of large amounts of data for transmission in a short time.e popular video encoding technology is H.264, which provides a useful service yet is impractical in the transmission of high-resolution data.
is paper proposes a new wireless technology, and it has been compared with 4G system technology.is paper also designs a new multi-video coding, and it has been evaluated with previous video coding methods.
e advanced wireless technology and video coding have been studied in literature as follows: Pandiaraj [5] improved the throughput of coverage area by using relay techniques, compared their power adoption with WiMAX.e architectural evolution of wireless mobile network technology from 4G to 5G was discussed by Sule and Joshi [1]; Nissel and Rupp [6] proposed a new modulation scheme which combines the advantages of Filter Bank Multicarrier (FBMC) and Single-Carrier-Frequency-Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA).e proposed technique did not require a cyclic prefix and had much lower out-of-band emissions.
For video coding, Nightingale et al. [7] evaluated the performance of the HEVC regular in loss-prone networks.Zeng et al. presented a comparison between the coding gains predicted by the target models of video quality assessment for the two standards [8].Bojkovic examined the general performance of HEVC and implementation [9].
is paper proposes a new MCS, which is called a modulation coding scheme proposed (MCS pro).
e MCS pro has more throughput than the MCS standard.
en, the MCS pro is combined with FBMC.In terms of the video coding, this paper also proposes a new video coding which is called H.265 proposed (H.265 pro).e H.265 pro with optimum H.265 is used to find the best video coding.

Overview of the LTE-Advanced
3GPP defines three channels of control, a random-access channel (RACH), a physical channel (PCH), and a shared data channel (SDCH), and reference signals for the LTE downlink.
e control channels are transmitted in the control region at the beginning of each subframe, that is, in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols [10], and the physical broadcast channel (PBCH) is plotted on the 72 central subcarriers (6 resource blocks (RB)) of the available bandwidth [11].Figure 1 illustrates how the aforementioned logical channels are mapped on physical channels in a 20 MHz transfer scenario (100 RB) [12,13].3GPP describes two synchronization messages: the primary synchronization (P-SS) and secondary synchronization (S-SS), which are used for the search and synchronization procedures of the UE cells.Note that, in LTE, the time is divided into "10" ms frames, each frame is divided into "10" subframes, and each subframe is divided into two time slots [14].At last, a slot is partitioned into 7 OFDM symbol images (or six slots in the situation of amplified OFDM cyclic prefix).

Digital Video Coding Standard
e core of this paper is on transcoding for bit rate saving.e different types of video coding standards H.265 and H.264 are described in the following sections.

Advanced Video Coding (AVC/H.264).
e H.264 is the common coding method [15].It aimed for a good variety of video applications from mobile phones to web applications to the TV (HDTV).A variety of the practicality enhancements inside the H.264 commonplace compared to previous codecs of video are the discrete cosine transformation works at 4 × 4 pixels rather than 8 × 8.However, it additionally supports 8 × 8, color sampling is compatible with 4 : 2 : 2 and 4 : 4 : 4, up to twelve bits per pixel are possible.e H.264 has features such as the motion compensation (MC) blocks are of various sizes, coding is Arithmetic of Variable length (VLC), De-blocking filter and built-in reference mechanism, frequency distortion optimizer, weighted duplex forecast, redundant pictures (RD), versatile layout of the macroblocks, direct mode for frame B, multiple reference frames, and MC for subpixel [15].

High-Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC/H.265).
e H.265 procedure outlines the configurations to denote the coded data of video.Its encoder produces structures that are captured inside units of data referred to as NAL (Network Abstraction Layer) [16].
H.265 has a structure similar to H.264. H.265 has many enhancements such as flexible division partitions, transforming block sizes, and high interpolation with a complicated and unblocking filter and supports multiprocessing [16][17][18].

Implementation of the Proposed System in Physical Layer
is paper proposes a new communication system as shown in Figure 2, which is called Pro-G. Figure 2 illustrates the steps of the proposed system, some of which are components of the 4G system with the addition of proposals including a new modulation-coding scheme (MCS) that is more efficient and replacement of OFDM with FBMC.e new system and LTE-ADV features are presented in Table 1.
is paper proposes a new modulation coding scheme (MCS pro) (Algorithm 1) and compares the proposed scheme with the traditional MCS (Table 2).

Implementation of the Proposed Video Coding
is paper also explains a new multicoding with controller transcoding video method, which is called H.265 pro.e method has been designed by using two HEVC structures, as shown in Figure 3   An FFmpeg tool has been used to apply the controller types, and H.265 pro with the video sequence dimension 1920 * 1080 and 120 fps has been used in this paper.

Implementation Results
e simulation evaluates and compares the Pro-G and LTE-ADV system to determine the best performance; the parameters of simulation are presented in Table 3. e MATLAB 2018 is used to implement the proposed system by using parameters in Table 3. e bandwidth is from 1.4 to 20 MHz (i.e., 6 RB to 100 RB), while the MCS is from QPSK to QAM 256; three channel types are used in the evaluation (AWGN, Flat, and Pedestrian); FBMC is used in Pro-G while OFDM in the LTE-ADV; and minimum mean squared error (MMSE) is used in the equalizer while the antenna number is from single input single output (SISO) to multiple input multiple output (MIMO).Figure 4 provides information about the simulation steps: first, it enters the number of base stations and users; second, it enters the system configuration such as the power of nodes, frequency, number of antennas, and number of RB, and the modulation type index.
Figure 5 shows the throughput of transmitted data versus SNR in the AWGN channel; the parameters used in evaluation are FBMC, SISO, and 20 MHz. e throughput in MCS pro is about 128 Mb/s while that of MCS is about 116 Mb/s; the best performance is shown by the MCS pro.
Figure 6 shows the BER of the data versus SNR in the AWGN channel; the MCS pro shows the best performance because the BER in MCS pro is about 1 * 10 −6 while that of MCS is about 3 * 10 −6 .
Figure 7 presents the throughput versus SNR between two types of modulation schemes (MCS and MCS pro) in the flat channel with different numbers of antennas.
e throughput of MCS pro is more than that of MCS; two video coding methods consumed the most throughput after 27 db.e MCS pro offers significant gains regarding the number of data rates compared to MCS.In terms of the antenna 8 × 8, the throughput in the MCS pro is around 965 Mb/s as opposed to around 888 Mb/s in the MCS.
Figure 8 presents the BER versus SNR between two types of modulation schemes (MCS and MCS pro) with different numbers of antenna.e BER of MCS pro is lower than that of MCS.In terms of the antenna 8 × 8, the BER in the MCS pro is around 3.6 * 10 −5 as opposed to around 5.7 * 10 −5 in the MCS.
Figure 9 illustrates the throughput versus SNR between two types of modulation schemes (MCS and MCS pro) in the  Journal of Computer Networks and Communications pedestrian channel with different numbers of antenna.e throughput is the same as that in the flat channel.
Figure 10 shows that the BER of MCS pro is lower than that of MCS.In terms of the antenna 8 × 8, the BER in the MCS pro is around 3 * 10 −4 as opposed to around 4 * 10 −3 in the MCS.
Figure 11 shows the throughput with different numbers of antenna.
e parameters used in the evaluation are OFDM (LTE), FBMC (Pro-G), SISO, MIMO, 20 MHz, and LTE-ADV.When the number of antennas is eight, the throughput in the Pro-G is the highest, that is, around 965 Mb/s, as opposed to that of LTE-MCS pro and LTE-ADV, which was about 900 and 746 Mb/s, respectively.
Figure 12 illustrates a level of bit rate with high resolution (720, 1080, 4K, and 8K) between two video coding  Figure 13 presents that the bit rate performance in H.265 pro is the lowest (the best performance), the resolution 1080 is used in the evaluation, and the ABR rate is the largest.ABR has a higher bit rate than H.265pro about double rate, while the bit rate in constant rate also higher than in H.265pro (about 525 and 424, respectively).e VBV is considered the best and closest to the h265 pro.
Figure 14 shows the number of users of the two video coding methods from 720 to 8K. e number of users was highest for H.265 pro in 720; 720 has the most number of users for both the wireless systems while the lowest number of users is in 8K.
In terms of 720 in the Pro-G, the H.265 pro has the highest number of users around 3286 users as opposed to that of H.265, which was about 3116 users.In LTE-ADV, the number of users was 2541 for H.265 pro compared to 2410 for H.265.

Conclusions
is paper proposes a method of wireless transmission and video encoding method where the two proposed methods are compared with the traditional method.e evaluation parameters used are the data transfer rate, the compression ratio, and the bit error rate.Both proposed systems are combined to calculate the number of users, which is compared with the traditional systems.
e results showed that the proposed method for transmitting wireless data is better than the LTE-ADV  method where the throughput increased the data transfer by 29% because the proposed system uses a more efficient MCS compared to the traditional system.e proposed system uses the FBMC for waveform modulation.On the contrary, OFDM is used in the LTE-ADV.e improvement goes back to FBMC, which has less processing time and more spectral efficiency than LTE-ADV.
e bit rate has been gained in H.265 pro about 13% as compared to H.265.

Figure 2 :Figure 1 :
Figure 2: Block diagram of the proposed system.

Figure 11 : 8 Figure 10 : 8 Figure 9 :
Figure 11: Comparison of the throughput with different numbers of antenna.

Figure 14 :
Figure 14: Comparison of the number of users between video coding methods and the wireless systems in a high-resolution video.

Figure 13 :
Figure 13: Comparison of bit rate video coding with the control.

Table 1 :
Comparison of the features of the system.

Table 2 :
A parameter of the MCS pro and MCS standard.

Table 3 :
Parameters of simulation.
When the resolution is 8K, the bit rate of H.265 pro in 8K is lower than that of H.265 (i.e., about 1567 kbps and 1763 kbps, respectively).Table5presents the evaluation parameters of the H.265 pro and H.265.

Table 4 :
Parameters of the video sequences.Figure 12: Comparison of the bit rate between the H.265 and the H.265 pro in high-resolution video.

Table 5 :
Comparison results of the two video coding methods.