Bandwidth reduction of on-demand streaming data using flexible merger hierarchies

A method of efficiently transmitting streamed data of a program to multiple clients requesting the program at different times ranks the requests in a multilevel hierarchy, which describes merging of data streams servicing the requests. The multilevel hierarchy changes dynamically as new requests arrive or existing data streams are merged to reduce the bandwidth or other costs required to serve the requests. The hierarchy may be established by simple rules or by a modeling of the actual cost of possible hierarchies.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to methods of transmitting “streaming data”, such as video or audio content, to multiple clients at arbitrary delivery times within a delivery period and as selected by the clients. In particular, the present invention provides a method of reducing the bandwidth or other costs associated with transmitting such data at different delivery times to different clients.

“Streaming data” is data that a client will process sequentially as it is received during a transmission, under a timeliness constraint requiring progress in the reception of the data. Examples of streaming data are video and audio programs, including movies, television shows, news clips, product advertisements, medical or recreational information, or education programs. This list of examples is not exhaustive. “On-demand delivery” of streaming data is the delivery of streaming data triggered by client requests for that data, rather than simply by reaching a previously defined point in time. For example, in a video on-demand (VOD) system a customer might be able to request a video program at any time, with the expectation that the video would be viewable within a small time following the request.

Programs of streaming data may be stored at and transmitted from a server to clients via phone lines, cable, broadcast radio, satellite links or other media. The server may be a single machine or a set of machines that together provide a service.

On-demand delivery may be provided by making a separate transmission of data to each client when the client request arrives. This approach is simple and works with standard receiving devices but has the disadvantage of requiring a large number of transmission channels, one for each new client. The transmission capacity of the server and the intervening communications medium (phone lines, cable etc.) is termed “bandwidth,” referring generally to the amount of data transmitted in a given time interval. For this simple scheme of providing on-demand delivery of streaming data, the bandwidth required to serve the clients increases linearly with the number of clients and thus does not scale well to large numbers of clients. The bandwidth can be reduced by “batching” clients, that is, by delaying the transmission of the program to a first client request for some interval in the hope that additional client requests for the same item will be received, and then serving all clients in a batch with a single stream. However, the bandwidth savings achieved by batching is, under standard assumptions about client request times, inversely proportional to the delay imposed in the start of the data transmission for at least some clients.

Referring toFIG. 2, the transmission of each data stream describes a line on a graph plotting sequential position in the data stream (for example a frame number in a video transmission) against time. Sequential position as shown varies between zero and one where one indicates completion of the data stream.

A primary data stream10requested at delivery time t1is delivered at some base rate (indicated by the slope of the line extending from time t1) that allows the client to view the data without interruption once playback begins.

At a later time t2the server may receive a second request for the same program. Instead of transmitting an entirely new data stream, the technique of piggybacking responds to this second request by transmitting an accelerated data stream12. This accelerated data stream is actually a different encoding of the program, such that the slightly fewer frames are created for each minute of the program. Data stream12delivers the same number of frames per minute as stream10but because these frames cover more than one minute of the program, the client receiving stream12progresses through the program at a rate that is imperceptibly faster (e.g., 5% faster) than the client who receives simple data stream10. As a result of these differences in viewing rate, the data streams10and12will intersect at time t3and the accelerated data stream12may terminate, saving the bandwidth that would have been required for its continuation. After data streams10and12have merged, the continuation of stream10can be merged with an earlier or later stream for the same program, by accelerating stream10or by accelerating the later stream, respectively.

Like the previous method of on-demand delivery, piggybacking requires no storage of data at the client's receiver, yet it reduces the bandwidth required for multiple clients. On the other hand, multiple encodings of the file must be stored at the server or created when the file is transmitted to different clients. Furthermore, either the rate at which an accelerated stream merges with a simple data stream is limited by the rate at which a client can view the accelerated stream without noticing that it has been accelerated, or the distortion in the accelerated stream may be unacceptable.

Skyscraper Broadcasts

Referring toFIG. 3, a second way of limiting the bandwidth required for supporting on-demand transmission of streaming data divides the program into a plurality of “channels”20athrough20dwith each successive channel repeatedly transmitting a different time segment21a-21dof the program. Thus, for example, channel20arepresented by a row of the chart ofFIG. 3may repeatedly transmit the first one-minute of the program, thus, from zero to one minute. Channel20bin contrast may repeatedly transmit from minutes2and3of the program while channel20cmay transmit minutes4and5of the program, each of channels20band20crepeating their segment on a two-minute basis. Channel20dmay transmit minutes6-9.

Under this system, a client wishing to receive the program at time t1waits until the next delivery time on an even minute increment (i.e., t2) and then listen to channel20ato receive the first minute of the program indicated by stream22. The client's receiver begins displaying that first minute and simultaneously records channel20bproviding segment21bof minutes1-3of the program. At the conclusion of the stream22at time t3, the client's receiver begins playing the previously recorded portions of stream24of segment21bat its beginning while continuing to record segment21bon channel20b. At time t4, one minute later, the client's receiver begins recording channel20din preparation for the termination of the segment on channel20ctwo minutes later. In this way, by simultaneously recording and playing different channels, a continuous program may be assembled starting at any even minute interval. This method is termed “skyscraper broadcasts” referring generally to the way the complete program is assembled from segments of different sizes which when stacked like blocks from smallest to largest resemble the profile of a sky scraper.

It can be seen from this simple example that with skyscraper broadcasts, four channels may provide a nine-minute program starting every minute. If separate data streams were used for each new start time, nine channels would be required so it is apparent that skyscrapering can significantly reduce the bandwidth required for regular transmissions. It should be appreciated that the bandwidth savings is even greater for longer running programs; for example, a two-hour movie can start every minute using just 12 skyscraper channels (with the number of minutes delivered on each channel having the pattern 1,2,2,4,4,8,8, . . . ), rather than the 120 channels that would be required if a separate data stream were used for each new start time. Further the reconstructed programs are not time distorted as required by piggybacking. On the other hand, the client receiver must have the ability to concurrently store and playback received data and must be capable of following more sophisticated storage and playback schemes than are required for piggybacking. Further because periodicity of the initial time segments (for channel20a) is fixed and predetermined, skyscraper broadcasting is not truly an on-demand system as the client must wait for the initial segment starting time.

Patching

Patching, like the skyscraper technique, assumes that the client receiver may simultaneously store and playback portions of the program and may follow a given storage and playback scheme. Because the technique of patching has some similarities to the technique of piggybacking, it will be explained by referring again to FIG.2.

Again assume a primary data stream10is requested by a first client at delivery time t1and delivered at a rate equal to the rate at which the client reviews the primary data stream10. A request for the same program by a second client at time t2causes the allocation of a second data stream14having the same data rate as primary data stream10but starting at time t2from the beginning of the program.

At time t2the second client receiver also begins recording the ongoing transmission of the primary data stream10from stream position p1. The receiver is thus receiving data at a higher rate of a composite data stream15equal to the sum of the rates of the data streams10and14. This composite stream merges with the primary data stream10at time t3at which time data stream14(being part of composite data stream15) may be terminated saving the bandwidth that would have been required if data stream14had continued for the length of the program without an attendant time distortion.

At a fourth time t4, a third client may request the media stream and composite data stream13may be created from the ongoing primary data stream10and a new data stream16. This composite data stream13then merges with primary data stream10and data stream16is terminated. Additional client requests may be accommodated in this manner until the time when a composite data stream will no longer be able to merge with the primary data stream10before its conclusion, at which time a new primary data stream10is started. Additionally, variants of patching may start a new primary data stream for a client that could merge with an existing primary data stream, as a performance optimization.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides true on-demand delivery with scalability better than that of previously existing true on-demand approaches. Further, it may be combined with techniques that do not provide true on-demand service to further reduce the bandwidth requirements of those techniques.

The present inventors have recognized that the efficiency of skyscraper broadcasts flows in part from its merging of data streams into a multi-level hierarchy. At each level of the hierarchy where earlier streams are merged into larger groups, an attendant savings in bandwidth is realized. The present invention, therefore, as a first matter, provides a multi-level hierarchy of merging to produce a high degree of scalability with no program distortion and true on-demand delivery.

The present inventors have also recognized that a fixed merger hierarchy, with each later stream merging in a predetermined pattern into earlier streams, may not be effective for on-demand delivery. As an alternative, the present invention provides a dynamic merger hierarchy which is broadly a function of the actual delivery times requested by clients and that will produce greater bandwidth savings. Non-intuitively, such merger hierarchies may result in a longer time before merging for a given client, and may allow clients to discard previously received data in some circumstances without creating a need for additional transmissions from the server.

Specifically, the present invention provides a method of transmitting a streaming data file on-demand including the steps of scheduling a transmission of a program in response to a client request by a client; selecting a target transmission that is farther along in the program as a merge target for the transmission, so that the transmission could merge with the target transmission absent a change in the target transmission; receiving at the client a composite of the first transmission and data of the merge target, neither of which is time-distorted; and merging the transmission and the merge target and subsequent to the merger, merging the merge target with another transmission.

Thus it is one object of the invention to provide the benefits of a multilevel hierarchy in the context of a true on-demand delivery system. By merging streams with each other prior to merger with an earlier contemporaneous stream greater consolidation of bandwidth may be achieved.

The merge target may be chosen to reduce transmission costs that are a function of total bandwidth of the transmission of the streaming data to clients.

Thus it is another object of the invention to provide a merging structure that flexibly changes to reflect transmission costs.

In one embodiment, the determination of transmission costs may be done at the time of receipt of the request of the client.

Thus it is another object of the invention to provide a dynamic merging structure that changes in response to unpredictable arrival times of client requests.

Determining transmission costs may be by modeling or by the use of predetermined merger rules related to relative arrival times of the client requests.

Thus it is another object of the invention to provide a dynamic hierarchy of merging that may be employed efficiently on simple servers through easily implemented rules or on more complex servers which have the capacity for actual modeling of costs.

In one embodiment, merge targets may be selected by static techniques.

Thus it is an object of the invention to provide at least one extremely simple rule for dynamic merging.

The foregoing and other objects and advantages of the invention will appear from the following description. In the description, reference is made to the accompanying drawings, which form a part hereof, and in which there is shown by way of illustration a preferred embodiment of the invention. Such embodiment does not necessary represent the full scope of the invention, however, and reference must be made to the claims herein for interpreting the scope of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The example of video on-demand will be described, it being understood that the invention applies also to other types of streaming data.

Referring now toFIG. 1, a client receiver30connects via an output port32with a television monitor35on which a client may view streamed video data. Output port32receives data via an internal bus34from a processor36that may execute a stored receiver program39(as will be described below) contained in memory38also connected to the internal bus34. The internal bus also connects to one or more input/output (“I/O”) ports40athrough40c, which provide for the receipt of streaming data. I/O ports40athrough40cmay be connected, for example, singly or multiply to any of a variety of transmission media41including a satellite antenna42a, ground lines44such as a telephone line or cable, or to a fixed media player46, any of which may provide for one or more data streams.

A server48holds a video program51in memory50which will be formatted into data streams according to the present invention by a processor52executing a stored server program53(described below) also stored in memory50. The processor52and memory50communicate with each other over an internal bus54and also with multiple I/O ports56which may communicate via the previously described transmission media41and devices to multiple receivers30,30′ and30″.

The particular communication protocols between the server48and the receivers30are not critical provided they allow for broadcasting or multicasting in multiple logical channels and in a broadcast or multicast manner to other receivers30′,30″ and30′″ shown connected via lines44′,44″ or44′″.

Overview of Dynamic Hierarchies

To achieve effective bandwidth reduction, clients are merged in a hierarchical manner. A major question for any such technique is how to pair clients for merging. The present invention includes, but is not limited to, a family of techniques that rely on the notion of a “race” to determine these pairings. A spectrum of techniques exist within this family. In each technique, each client (except the oldest) may have a current merge target, and operates in a way that would allow it to merge with that target at some future time, if the media program is long enough and depending on the outcomes of other mergings that are in progress by other existing clients and those clients that might arrive in the future. The succession of merges that occur, are those merges that happen earliest, given the ongoing set of races taking place. Each merge that occurs, and each new client request received, may result in one or more clients choosing new merge targets, and so may change the set of races.

The family of techniques varies in how much effort is put in to evaluating what the set of winning races will be, given the information available at the time of a new client arrival. In this sense, the simplest technique in this family is to choose for each client stream, upon its creation due to a new client arrival or the merger of two existing streams, a merge target selected at random from the set of existing streams at that time. This is not a particularly effective technique, though. A better choice is for each client to pick as its target that other stream ahead of it that is least far along in the program at the time. Like random selection, this technique requires no prediction of the outcomes of current races. More complicated techniques do perform some race outcome prediction, either exactly (under some set of assumptions about future client request times) or approximately, and use this information to avoid assigning targets that are predicted to be unreachable at a given time because of the outcomes of the races in progress.

First Client Request

Referring now toFIGS. 1 and 7, at time zero, the processor36, in response to client input from a keyboard or the like (not shown), may execute the stored receiver program39to request a video program as indicated by process block60. This first request may be transmitted via one of the I/O ports40on the various transmission media41to the server48.

Referring now toFIGS. 1,6and8a, in response to the first request, received as indicated by process block62, the server48executing server program53identifies a merge target at process block64so as to place the request in a hierarchy100. Process block62is entered also after mergers of streams which may necessitate a review of existing hierarchies100. The requests will generally arrive in an aperiodic and asynchronous fashion.

The hierarchy100(shown inFIG. 8a) provides a tree structure with the requests as nodes102(circled numbers) joined by branches into an arbitrary number of levels measured by the number of branches separating a node from a root node of the tree. Generally the hierarchy100indicates which requests will eventually share data streams, if no further changes are made to the hierarchy. With no further changes, the streams being transmitted for requests at lower levels in the hierarchy will merge with those for requests at higher levels to which they are connected by branches.

Initially no earlier request for this particular video program51are being processed so the first request (indicated by circled number1) is placed at the top level of the hierarchy100, indicating that its data stream (as will be generated) merges with no other earlier data streams. The hierarchy of other requests has not changed (because there are no other requests) so the merge target remains the same as checked at decision block65. Therefore, the server program53proceeds to process block66where the server48responds to the receiver30with a control message specifying the identity (for instance, the Internet multicast address) of the data stream that the receiver should listen to. The server48then begins a new data stream80(shown in FIG.4), as indicated at process block68, before concluding its execution at process block70.

Referring again toFIG. 7, the control message is received at receiver30as indicated by process block67and because the request by the receiver30is at the root of the hierarchy100, the receiver need only listen to a single data stream80transmitted from the server48, as specified in the control message. The program then loops through decision blocks75and77(the latter which will be described later) until at decision block75an end of the video program51is reached and the receiver program39terminates.

Subsequent Concurrent Client Requests

Referring now toFIGS. 5,6,7and8a, at time 0.1, a second request for the same video program51may be generated by a second receiver30′ per process block60of the receiver program39contained in that receiver30′. Referring toFIG. 6at process block62, this second request is received by the server48. Because, a previous request for the same program is being concurrently processed at process block64, and may be caught, the second request is placed in hierarchy100ofFIG. 8awith the first request. The method of grouping the two requests in the hierarchy100by process block64will be described below in greater detail but in this example, the second request from receiver30′ is placed in a second level dependant on the first request from receiver30. This indicates that the data streams serving these two requests will merge if there are no subsequent changes to the hierarchy, and that the receiver30′ must begin to receive and store data that is being delivered in the data stream80for the receiver30. For example, but not necessarily, this may be done by the receiver30′listening in on data stream80. Alternatively, the server may start a new data stream that delivers this data (possibly at a different rate), which receiver30′ listens to. A third possibility is that the new data stream82that the server creates to deliver the program data being concurrently played back by receiver30′, is at higher than the playback rate, and in effect directly realizes the composite data stream84shown in FIG.4. Subsequently in this detailed invention description, we assume that the first of the above three options is followed, but we do not preclude the other two options or variants thereof.

At decision block65, no change was made to the merge target, hence the position of the first request in the hierarchy100so the program proceeds to process block66and a control message is sent to receiver30′ (received as indicated by process block67ofFIG. 7) specifying the streams80and82that receiver30′ should listen to.

Referring also toFIG. 7, the receiver responds30′ to this control message by listening to the data streams80and82and recording some part of them per process block69. This recording can be, for example, at a rate from 5% to 100%.

PerFIG. 6, the data stream82responsive to the second request is then initiated at process block68and it is received and played by the receiver30′ per process blocks69and74of FIG.7. Process blocks69and74are shown separately for clarity but it will be understood that typically these processes will be executed simultaneously.

As shown inFIG. 4, the second receiver30′ receives a composite data stream84made up of recorded data from the data stream80and the data stream82and the streams will merge at time 0.2. Although as depicted, the client receiver30is capable of receiving data at twice the rate of playback (this being the combined rate of the streams80and82), the present invention is equally applicable to situations in which characteristics of the client receiver30or the intervening media41limit reception to rates less than twice the rate of playback, as long as it is possible to receive at some rate exceeding the playback rate. In general, the ability to receive data at far less than twice the playback rate can be acceptable, resulting simply in longer delays between the merging of streams, whereas higher receive rates decrease the times required to merge.

At the time of the merger of the data streams80and84, the receiver30will switch to playing the recorded data stream80per normal patching protocols.

Referring generally toFIGS. 5,6and7and8a, at time 0.3 yet a third request for the same video program51may be received by the server48from a third receiver30″. According to the procedures described above, this third request will be integrated in the hierarchy100ofFIG. 8aaccording to the dynamic methods of process block64as will be described below. Because the dynamic method of forming the hierarchy100initially determines whether merger of data streams of two requests is possible, in this case, a data stream responsive to the request at time 0.3 cannot merge with the data stream82response to the request at time 0.1 so only one hierarchy100is possible, that in which the third request depends hierarchically on the first request at the same level as the second request.

Thus at process block68of the server program53of the server48, a third data stream86responsive to the request at time 0.3 is generated and the receiver30″ receives a control message indicating that it should begin recording data stream80related to the request on which it hierarchically depends. At this time, the hierarchy100anticipates that composite data stream88(being formed of recorded data from data stream80and the third data stream86) will merge with data stream80at time 0.6.

Referring still toFIGS. 5,6and7, at time 0.4 yet a fourth request for the same video program51may be received by the server48from a fourth receiver30″. Again according to the procedures described above, this fourth request will be integrated in the hierarchy100according to the dynamic methods as will be described below. In this case, the fourth request of receiver30′″ is made dependant on the third request of client by creating a second level in the hierarchy100. Hierarchies having nodes separated by at least one node from the root node will henceforth be termed multi-level hierarchies.

At process block68of the server program53of the server48, a fourth data stream90responsive to the request at time 0.4 is generated and the receiver30′″ receives a control message indicating that it should begin recording data stream86related to the third request on which it now hierarchically depends.

Second levels of the hierarchy100are unstable to the extent that they lead to a merger reducing the hierarchy100again to single levels. This future merger and change in the hierarchy100is handled by queuing the merger's times to trigger a change in the hierarchy100appropriately. Thus the message provided by process block67establishing the dependency of the fourth request on the third request puts in a time queue yet another change in hierarchy message to be effected at time 0.5 causing a reconnection of both the third request and the fourth request to the first request so that a composite data stream91formed of newly recorded data of data stream80(beginning at time 0.5) and data stream86merges with data stream80at time 0.8. This effectively collapses out the second level of the hierarchy100after time 0.5 as depicted inFIG. 8bwhere requests2,3, and4now depend directly on request1.

This change of hierarchy100is communicated to receiver30″ associated with the second request so as to indicate a new stream to be received. The change is detected at decision block77of the receiver program39(shown in FIG.7). At process block79, the third receiver30″ receives the new stream, and may choose to discard all of the data it previously recorded from stream80, without this creating a need for additional transmissions from the server.

By inspection ofFIG. 4, it can be seen that the total bandwidth needed to satisfy the four requests is 1.7 times the bandwidth for one request alone as a result of the merging process. Contrast this with a single level merge hierarchy of conventional patching depicted inFIG. 5, which requires 1.8 times the bandwidth of one request. This improvement in bandwidth utilization is more pronounced with large numbers of requests.

Methods of Establishing Merge Targets

Referring again toFIG. 6, process blocks64and65, one approach to selecting merge targets is to model the bandwidth and other costs (“total economic costs’) associated with each physically achievable combination of merges of current streams and anticipated client arrivals.

Another approach for selecting merge targets is to use one of the methods previously defined for the prior art of piggybacking. For example, referring toFIG. 9a, the static tree method defined for piggybacking would cause client B to merge with A and client D to merge with C, prior to clients C and D merging with A and B, based on client arrival order. The new invention implements the merges defined in the static tree method, or in any other method defined for piggybacking, without requiring the time distortion in the streams that occurs in piggybacking, which also enables the merges to happen more quickly.

A third approach creates new methods for still more efficient merging by taking advantage of the fact that clients receive and store extra data to implement a merge. In particular, one stream can have a merge target, and simultaneously the merge target can have another merge target. Referring toFIG. 9a, when client C arrives, the stream for client B can be a merge target for client C while the stream for client A is a merge target for client B. It is useful to have both merges in progress simultaneously because which of the two merges should be performed first depends on future client request arrival times that are not known when the stream for client C is initiated. This approach of allowing a stream that has a merge target to simultaneously serve as a merge target for another stream is not possible in prior stream merging techniques. As described below, there are several possible simple rules that can be applied at each stream initiation and stream merge time to dynamically select the simultaneously occurring merge targets, each rule differing in the amount of effort put in to evaluating the best possible merge target. The notion of a “race”, defined earlier, causes the merges to occur in time order.

Early merging supports the intuitive hypothesis that in choosing merge targets, one should merge the two neighboring streams that can be merged at the earliest point in time, followed by the next such pair and so on. For example inFIG. 9b, stream C can be merged with B sooner than B can be merged with A.

In this variant of early merging, a new client or newly merged group of clients records the closest stream that it can merge with, if no later arrivals preemptively catch them. For example, for the client inFIG. 9b, client B will listen to the stream for client A, client C will listen to the stream for client B, and client D will also listen to the stream that was initiated for client B. D listens to B's stream because D cannot merge with C (since C will merge with B at time 0.5).D can catch the merged stream for B and C, and this is the earliest reachable merge target for D if no later arrivals preemptively merge with D as shown inFIG. 9b.

One way to compute the target stream to record is to “simulate” the future evolution of the system, given the current merge target for each active stream and the rule for determining new merge targets, and assuming no future client arrivals. A more efficient, incremental maintenance of the merge tree is also possible. One approach involves keeping a list LSfor each active stream S of all earlier streams that were active at the time S was initiated, together with the ending times of these streams as had been predicted prior to the arrival of S. The current scheduled ending times of all active streams are also maintained, in a list Lcurrent. When a new request occurs, the list LSfor the new stream S that is created for this request is set equal to Lcurrent. Further, Lcurrentis used to compute the merge target stream T for the new client, and thus as well the projected length of the new stream S. T's own list LT(together with the projected time at which stream S will merge with stream T, after which T will be able to make progress towards merging with some earlier stream) is then used to compute an updated merge target for T, and an updated length. This (possibly new) merge target for T is now, in turn, considered, in the same fashion as was stream T. This process continues until a stream is reached that cannot catch any earlier stream, at which point the scheduled ending times of the active streams have been correctly updated, as necessary, and an updated list Lcurrenthas been formed.

The requirement of ERMT that all merge targets be the earliest possible complicates the calculation of which target stream to record. A simpler approach is to determine the closest reachable merge target if each currently active stream terminates at its current target merge point (or at the end of the file if it has no current target merge point). For example, if client D arrives at time 0.49 inFIG. 9c, D will snoop on stream for client A, since D cannot reach client B's stream before its target merge point at time 0.6 leading to the structure shown inFIG. 9c.

The SRMT is easily computed. For M currently active streams numbered1. . . M in order of earliest client arrival time, let Dj,i1≦j<i≦M, be the distance between streams j and i (i.e., the time, from the current time, that it would take to accomplish a merge of streams i and j). Let T (j) be the known target stream for each stream j<i. Stream i is assigned merge target k for which Dki<DT(k),kand k is as large as possible, k<i.

SMRT overlooks some merges that ERMT finds. (For example, if client D arrives at time 0.49 under ERMT, client D will snoop on client B's stream.) This happens because SRMT ignores the fact that a new merged stream is created when two streams merge. This simplifies the calculation of the stream to listen in on, but results in some merge operations taking longer than necessary.

This scheme simply chooses the closest earlier stream still in the system as the next merge target. InFIG. 9c, if client D arrives at time 0.49, D would simply listen in on the stream initiated for C.

The merge targets computed by CT are not necessarily reachable, even if no further arrivals occur. The reason is that the target stream may itself merge with its target before the later stream can reach it. When this happens, the later stream must select a new merge target, again using the CT algorithm.

The above description has been that of a preferred embodiment of the present invention, it will occur to those that practice the art that many modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. For example, the transmissions refereed to above may be divided into fractional bandwidth signals each of which carries less than the full bandwidth required to convey a program of streaming data in real-time, (but which together provide the full data of the program in real-time) and the merging principles discussed above may be applied to these fractional bandwidth signals. In order to apprise the public of the various embodiments that may fall within the scope of the invention, the following claims are made.