<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 02/05/2024 à 21:50, Frantisek Borsik
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJUtOOieZOiT60hFiVOc1qRDs2hMipXTJgKHW+KcepT5WvOGvw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Thanks, Colin. This was just another great read on
video (and audio - in the past emails from you) bullet-proofing
for the near future.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To be honest, the consensus on the bandwidth overall in the
bufferbloat related circles was in the 25/3 - 100/20 ballpark</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>To continue on this discussion of 25mbit/s (mbyte/s ?) of 4k, and
8k, here are some more thoughts:</p>
<p>- about 25mbit/s bw needs for 4K: hdmi cables for 4K HDR10 (high
dynamic range) are specified at 18gbit/s and not 25mbit/s
(mbyte?). These HDMI cables dont run IP. But, supposedly, the
displayed 4K image is of a higher quality if played over hdmi
(presumably from a player) than from a server remote on the
Internet. To achieve parity, maybe one wants to run that hdmi
flow from the server with IP, and at that point the bandwidth
requirement is higher than 25mbit/s. This goes hand in hand with
the disc evolutions (triple-layer bluray discs of 120Gbyte
capacity is the most recent; I dont see signs of that to slow).<br>
</p>
<p>- in some regions, the terrestrial DVB (TV on radio frequencies,
with antenna receivers, not IP) run at 4K HDR10 starting this
year. I dont know what MPEG codec is it, at what mbit/s speed.
But it is not over the Internet. This means that probably ISPs
are inclined to do more than that 4K over the Internet, maybe 8K,
to distinguish their service from DVB. The audience of these DVB
streams is very wide, with cheap one-time buy receivers (no
subscription, like with ISP) already widely available in
electronics stores.</p>
<p>- a reduced audience, yet important, is that of 8K TV via
satellites. There is one japanese 8K TV satcom provider, and the
audience (number of watchers) is probably smaller than that of DVB
4K HDR. Still, it constitutes competition for IPTV from ISPs.</p>
<p>To me, that reflects a direction of growth of the 4K to 8K
capability requirement from the Internet.</p>
<p>Still, that growth in bandwidth requirement does not say anything
about the latency requirement. That can be found elsewhere, and
probably it is very little related to TV.<br>
</p>
<p>Alex<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJUtOOieZOiT60hFiVOc1qRDs2hMipXTJgKHW+KcepT5WvOGvw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>, but all what many of us were trying to achieve while
talking to FCC (et al) was to point out, that in order to
really make it bulletproof and usable for not only near
future, but for today, a reasonable Quality of Experience
requirement is necessary to be added to the definition of
broadband. Here is the link to the FCC NOI and related
discussion:</div>
<div><a
href="https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hopefully, we have managed to get that message over to the
other side. At least 2 of 5 FCC Commissioners seems to be
getting it - Nathan Simington and Brendan Carr - and Nathan
event arranged for his staffers to talk with Dave and others.
Hope that this line of of cooperation will continue and we
will manage to help the rest of the FCC to understand the
issues at hand correctly.</div>
<div><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>All the best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Frank</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Frantisek
(Frank) Borsik</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><a
href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Signal,
Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">iMessage,
mobile: +420775230885</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Skype:
casioa5302ca</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><a
href="mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">frantisek.borsik@gmail.com</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM
Colin_Higbie via Starlink <<a
href="mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Alex,
fortunately, we are not bound to use personal experiences and
observations on this. We have real market data that can
provide an objective, data-supported conclusion. No need for a
chocolate-or-vanilla-ice-cream-tastes-better discussion on
this. <br>
<br>
Yes, cameras can film at 8K (and higher in some cases).
However, at those resolutions (with exceptions for ultra-high
end cameras, such as those used by multi-million dollar
telescopes), except under very specific conditions, the actual
picture quality doesn't vary past about 5.5K. The loss of
detail simply moves from a consequence of too few pixels to
optical and focus limits of the lenses. Neighboring pixels
simply hold a blurry image, meaning they don't actually carry
any usable information. A still shot with 1/8 of a second
exposure can easily benefit from an 8K or higher sensor. Video
sometimes can under bright lights with a relatively still or
slow moving scene. Neither of these requirements lends itself
to typical home video at 30 (or 24) frames per second – that's
0.03s of time per frame. We can imagine AI getting to the
point where it can compensate for lack of clarity, and this is
already being used for game rendering (e.g., Nvidia's DLSS and
Intel's XESS), but that requires training per scene in those
games and there hasn't been much development work done on this
for filming, at least not yet.<br>
<br>
Will sensors (or AI) improve to capture images faster per
amount of incoming photons so that effective digital shutter
speeds can get faster at lower light levels? No doubt. Will it
materially change video quality so that 8K is a similar step
up from 4K as 4K is from HD (or as HD was from SD)? No, at
least not in the next several years. Read on for why.<br>
<br>
So far that was all on the production side. But what about the
consumer side? Mass market TV sizes max out below about 100"
(83" seems to be a fairly common large size, but some stores
carry larger models). Even those large sizes that do reach
mass-market locations and are available on Amazon, still
comprise a very small % of total TV sales. The vast, vast
majority of TV sales are of sub 70" models. This is not just
because of pricing, that's a factor. It's also because home
architecture had not considered screens this big. At these
sizes, it's not just a matter of upgrading the entertainment
console furniture, it's a matter of building a different room
with a dedicated entertainment wall. There is a lot of inertia
in the architecture and building that prevents this from being
a sudden change, not to mention the hundreds of millions of
existing homes that are already sized for TV's below 100". <br>
<br>
And important to this discussion, at several feet from even a
70" - 90" screen, most people can't see the difference between
4K and 8K anyway. The pixels are too small at that distance to
make a difference in the User Experience. This is a contrast
with 4K from HD, which many people (not all) can see, or from
SD to HD, an improvement virtually everyone can see (to the
point that news broadcasts now blur the faces of their anchors
to remove wrinkles that weren't visible back in the SD days).<br>
<br>
For another real-world example of this curtailing resolution
growth: smartphones raced to higher and higher resolutions,
until they reached about 4K, then started pulling back. Some
are slightly higher, but as often as not, even at the flagship
level, many smartphones fall slightly below 4K, with the
recognition that customers got wise to screens all being
effectively perfect and higher resolutions no longer mattered.<br>
<br>
Currently, the leading contender for anything appearing at 8K
are games, not streaming video. That's because games don't
require camera lenses and light sensors that don't yet exist.
They can render dimly lit, fast moving scenes in 8K just as
easily as brightly lit scenes. BUT (huge but here), GPUs
aren't powerful enough to do that yet either at good
framerates, and for most gamers (not all, but a significant
majority), framerate is more important resolution. Top of the
line graphics cards (the ones that run about $1,000, so not
mainstream yet) of the current generation are just hitting
120fps at 4K in top modern games. From a pixel moving
perspective, that would translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of
pixels, 120/4 = 30). 30fps is good enough for streaming video,
but not good enough for a gamer over 4K at 120fps. Still, I
anticipate (this part is just my opinion, not a fact) that
graphics cards on high-end gaming PCs will be the first to
drive 8K experiences for gamers before 8K streaming becomes an
in-demand feature. Games have HUDs and are often played on
monitors just a couple of feet from the gamer where ultra-fine
details would be visible and relevant.<br>
<br>
Having said all of that, does this mean that I don't think 8K
and higher will eventually replace 4K for mass market consumer
streaming? No, I suspect that in the long-run you're right
that they will. That's a reasonable conclusion based on
history of screen and TV programming resolutions, but that
timeframe is likely more than 10 years off and planning
bandwidth requirements for the needs 10-years from now does
not require any assumptions relating to standard video
resolutions people will be watching then: we can all assume
with reasonable confidence based on history of Internet
bandwidth usage that bandwidth needs and desires will continue
to increase over time.<br>
<br>
The point for this group is that you lose credibility to the
audience if you base your reasoning on future video
resolutions that the market is currently rejecting without at
least acknowledging that those are projected future needs,
rather than present day needs.<br>
<br>
At the same time, 4K is indeed a market standard TODAY. That's
not an opinion, it's a data point and a fact. As I've said
multiple times in this discussion, what makes this a fact and
not an opinion are that millions of people choose to pay for
access to 4K content and the television programs and movies
that are stored and distributed in 4K. All the popular TV
devices and gaming consoles support 4K HDR content in at least
some versions of the product (they may also offer discounted
versions that don't do HDR or only go to 1080p or 1440). The
market has spoken and delivered us that data. 4K HDR is the
standard for videophiles and popular enough that the top video
streaming services all offer it. It is also not in a chaotic
state, with suppliers providing different technologies until
the market sorts out a winner (like the old Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD
fight 15 years ago, or VHS vs. Beta before that). Yes, there
are some variants on HDR (Dolby Vision vs. HDR-10), but as
TV's are manufactured today, Dolby Vision is effectively just
a superset of HDR-10, like G-Sync is a superset of Adaptive
Sync for variable refresh rate displays needed for gaming. So,
yes, 4K HDR is a standard, whether you buy a Blu-ray UHD movie
at Walmart or Best Buy or stream your programming from
Netflix, Disney+, Max, or Amazon Prime.<br>
<br>
So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any
new ISP should be developing (at least in developed countries
– I think it's fair to say that if people have no Internet
access within hundreds of miles, even slow Internet for
connectivity to a local library in travel distance from home
is far better than nothing) is 25Mbps as the established
bandwidth required by the 4K providers to stream 4K HDR
content. This does not mean more would not be better or that
more won't be needed in the future. But if you are endorsing
ISP buildout focused around low-latency under load at anything
LESS THAN 25Mbps, you have simply shifted the problem for
customers and users of the new service from poor latency (this
group's focus) to poor bandwidth incapable of providing modern
services.<br>
<br>
To be taken seriously and maximize your chances at success at
influencing policy, I urge this group's members to use that
25Mbps top bandwidth as a floor. And to clarify my meaning, I
don't mean ISPs shouldn't also offer less expensive tiers of
service with bandwidth at only, say, 3 or 10Mbps. Those are
fine and will be plenty for many users, and a lower cost
option with less capability is a good thing. What I mean is
that if they are building out new service, the infrastructure
needs to support and they need to OFFER a level of at least
25Mbps. Higher is fine too (better even), but where cost
collides with technical capability, 25Mbps is the market
requirement, below that and the service offering is failing to
provide a fully functional Internet connection.<br>
<br>
Sorry for the long message, but I keep seeing a lot of these
same subjective responses to objective data, which concern me.
I hope this long version finally addresses all of those and I
can now return to just reading the brilliant posts of the
latency and TCP/IP experts who normally drive these
discussions. You are all far more knowledgeable than I in
those areas. My expertise is in what the market needs from its
Internet connectivity and why.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Colin<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Starlink <<a
href="mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>
On Behalf Of <a
href="mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 5:22 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 38, Issue 13<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200<br>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <<a
href="mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC<br>
Message-ID: <<a
href="mailto:94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a
écrit :<br>
> Hi Colin,<br>
> [...]<br>
><br>
>> A lot of responses like "but 8K is coming" (it's not,
only <br>
>> experimental YouTube videos showcase these
resolutions to the general <br>
>> public, no studio is making 8K content and no
streaming service <br>
>> offers anything in 8K or higher)<br>
> [SM] Not my claim.<br>
<br>
Right, it is my claim. '8K is coming' comes from an
observation that it is now present in consumer cameras with
ability to film 8K, since a few years now.<br>
<br>
The SD-HD-4K-8K-16K consumer market tendency can be evaluated.
One could parallel it with the megapixel number (photo camera)
evolution, or with the micro-processor feature size. There
might be levelling, but I am not sure it is at 4K.<br>
<br>
What I would be interested to look at is the next acronym that
requires high bw low latency and that is not in the series
SD-HD-4K-8K-16K. This series did not exist in the times of
analog TV ('SD' appeared when digital TV 'HD' appeared), so
probably a new series will appear that describes TV features.<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
><br>
>> and "I don't need to watch 4K, 1080p is sufficient
for me,<br>
> [SM] That however is my claim ;)<br>
><br>
>> so it should be for everyone else too"<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Starlink mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>