From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FA343B29D for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:32:49 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1717774363; x=1718379163; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=JV0epbAbDFHdf8XtxUO61IpMsEfV0KAgdJmqnxFYy5E=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id: mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=p6q4/Lg6PcaXABFefjPj+EoG3hcIUT/JLDQHEAKHXpiK8/mQv74sHUiBvVR2EO6q vb2uLkKsdkhUajvLe0kExnxg3J5gfdYmZ2yvhstcsOngdqvUdtd64A/MHJSbe7nm2 +Yj4jstaj7fmC8p+SpA8Xj31JCrKeCUyHEWIaLtFTaW2yAxKVsHbH/zl6eZkWgshT q+itUTGcJBw7DfJg9ONQRTTMOU3CCy/6b+pSH+Yxui0w0Xd1y3kTB9paQyRuL56og NQYh4Y3/n6dZaDrzIHaEwApv5ZNfAyTCF9X4RFOxdzRvTB0P9S49zEPM3kEVUFaxN ThXBQJLQiXlUkpNuPw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([80.187.115.192]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MMobU-1rzBC23Ymq-00Lzge; Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:32:42 +0200 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:32:36 +0200 From: Sebastian Moeller To: David Lang CC: Colin_Higbie , "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <64FC2A3B-D512-4270-9285-C5AD69BBE40E@gmx.de> <61FA5621-4E64-4CB3-81BA-04D568939E68@gmx.de> Message-ID: <2F6A4FBA-AFBE-43D3-9F02-4E74A1B2983A@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:yDYbeSealfZWRV0E7CYPuFhS4ygTtNloL01kdmAtulbFjeYCwQc BFD2WuUEq52i845+udvac606nriLbDXr7uRUCR4f4AN0jmIfjfNKXgoEhThcue98dQwBOLB p1vDmyg2Rgtux+SA08Px3TayHgqvU0lA/4ZrDK0PPD4SS8NlNsHoERY+6ZQlfuD1x8XqExa cKriDDbYt6/QSI5jaUx7A== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:JzY1Nvu24Oo=;woy5qtK3eetZ65ofCK9WbmJVH76 +xblL41b4IG3XdwarY+uXZQ85dRzzRk2ZXJNSRjW1EvoZZYBjpJL+aW2+N0w9GnyYb1OxobZC yJzeY6dbdPfiwlHeCpzVqF1ZvZGhDqIpCaxsKAjRyqS5Vpr6TNL21ZcVUyhatsx2/0zWuOpn2 lqouB39TZjwja7bYBuvkKeovbGNz5eRAnl+E20K+il9WJiVDwr9tTSG9JZ2uxWV/1lwujXfCz 4gMaFnSBohMf4r7q22yDS/YtJ2lN2QMfRHg3xPOniOh1X6VNdNremRmEwVQY/Xm2JbE9+WJCK uVVil0xT0iHnJCpMoArwd4GHsAOocPlAeGXspTlfCIdceQQJQ/WWnJhnbgjgC1GGTPxvjnhmq bRmegZhvV8O51FHB7wUoA6QZ6gOexO2dWUpyNPQuJEkm1aGbH/+bQ8QlR1re6YHcrVV8dlQhA zTpUYz4L31Jm0vKJPzF7V59hKegFxkbpm6ESKV5uLqJH0P+pTBbgjRWMZ37D04K904AkVCqH/ A/Z2QFQv2lxWwz48fTuzPSK7YAq4d7W85MWvGtGSWTUjMaJzJKOWncJR3l2QyTXZwj+mUgpVe RON4qcjEIA14NAx2jnCe/PCPdAG82CAp3yayzqYjn/stRdAm8mMnf2kQx+wQpGKG+tWXz0f+K DVSAW2vHkCWrk4yCmqo04KJXChJKA3Tn3cXl0jhUnVIzgBKkvLpAOwJFovLXogNilMbprldkV QwDr5E6bLZQsrXhl2vPdf24cMnD9qBGXpCr4eZdgymn9SzohYcZyFw5L5yfb09wo2YNROSBf6 C477ZjZnD2ZxETpzTGbMkcwSL9BmoMKQLE1PftisuD6g8= Subject: Re: [Starlink] 300ms Telecommunication Latency and FTL Communication X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 15:32:49 -0000 Hi David, On 7 June 2024 16:55:54 CEST, David Lang wrote: >Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >>> video conferencing is more sensitive to latency than pure voice (in my= personal opinion, no study I've read on this specifically), because we wat= ch people's faces for reactions to what we say as we're speaking=2E >>=20 >> [SM] I am happy to believe you on this, but ti turn this into something= useful for my purpose I will need to find something published, preferably = peer reviewed=2E But thanks to the pointer which should help in my search= =2E > >one factor to point out, almost all video conferencing is you to server t= o other user, not direct you to other user=2E If you have two people in the= same house on a call together, they suffer double the latency=2E > >>> If there is a noticeable lag there, it disrupts the conversation=2E On= the other hand, the same lag in a pure voice discussion, which is inherent= ly less synchronous, would not be noticeable=2E >>=20 >> [SM] Not sure I fully agree here, assuming video and audio arrive both = with the same delay I would guess both suffer similarly from the delay=2E= =2E=2E my gut feeling is as long as natural speech sequence stays intact, t= hat is no unintended collisions due to both speaking at the same time, audi= o-only and audio-video should both be sort of OK=2E=2E=2E > >the longer the latency, the more likely people are to talk over each othe= r, because they don't see/hear the other person talking when they start=2E = If the latency is low, they can stop quickly, but as the latency increases,= they are talking longer before they hear the other person=2E [SM] I fully agree, that is what I meant with unintended collisions=2E=2E= =2E and as long as we are in the regime with little talking over each other= I expect little differences between the modalities=2E > >1=2E this means it's harder to figure out who started first and should co= ntinue >2=2E this means that there is a longer time period of multiple people tal= king > >I agree that this is the same video vs audio=2E That's why I was thinking= back to the early AT&T research I've heard from Internet lore (back when A= T&T had a huge R&D section)=2E It may be useful to look not only for long d= istance info (including microwave relays vs direct cables vs satellite rela= ys) but also if they have any research on early conference calling=2E [SM] Thanks, will have a look at that as well=2E > >David Lang --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E