From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (syn-045-059-245-186.biz.spectrum.com [45.59.245.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71A523B29D for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:40:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.2.53]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81EC1CF2ED; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang To: David Lang cc: Colin_Higbie , "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" In-Reply-To: <6ro9518q-478r-391s-r3s1-2291o7188nso@ynat.uz> Message-ID: <4206ro7p-213r-so60-14s7-r23n39009p6p@ynat.uz> References: <6ro9518q-478r-391s-r3s1-2291o7188nso@ynat.uz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="228850167-575963348-1714523470=:111574" Content-ID: <034nporn-6o1q-o34r-q3o2-o5441734qn59@ynat.uz> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It?s the Latency, FCC 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: Wed, 01 May 2024 00:40:21 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --228850167-575963348-1714523470=:111574 Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-ID: <3op5q65p-03q1-op17-p89r-51029srq6rn2@ynat.uz> another note on video quality, how many people are watching '4k video' on a 6-8" mobile device? higher resolution helps a lot for computer text and near static images, but is far less significant for watching videos. Now, I watch a lot of space videos on a 42" monitor and I really notice the difference there between 4k and HD video, but that's not your typical studio produced video :-) David Lang On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, David Lang via Starlink wrote: > As a note on video quality, look at what's in use in theaters. most are now > moving to 4k from 2k (just over HD) > > If theaters are still in the process of moving to 4k, I don't expect a lot of > content to be available at 8k+ for quite a few years. > > (even IMAX laser is only 4k, 70mm IMAX is roughly 18k, which has pretty > limited support) > > David Lang > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie via Starlink wrote: > >> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:12:41 +0000 >> From: Colin_Higbie via Starlink >> Reply-To: Colin_Higbie >> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" >> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC >> >>>>> Spotify lower quality than CD and still usable: one would check not >>>>> Spotify, but other services for audiophiles; some of these use 'DSD' >>>>> formats which go way beyond the so called high-def audio of 384khz >>>>> sampling freqs. They dont 'stream' but download. It is these >>>>> higher-than-384khz sampling rates equivalent (e.g. DSD1024 is the >>>>> equivalent of, I think of something like 10 times CD quality, I think). >>>>> If Spotify is the king of streamers, in the future other companies might >>>>> become the kings of something else than 'streaming', a name yet to be >>>>> invented. >>>>> For each of them, it is true, normal use will not expose any more >>>>> advantage than the previous version (no advantage of 8K over 4K, no >>>>> advantage of 88KHz DVD audio over CD, etc) - yet the progress is ongoing >>>>> on and on, and nobody comes back to CD or to DVD audio or to SD >>>>> (standard definition video). >>>>> Finally, 8K and DSD per se are requirements of just bandwidth. The need >>>>> of latency should be exposed there, and that is not straightforward. >>>>> But higher bandwidths will come with lower latencies anyways. >> >> Sorry, not sure if that's Alexandre or Sebastion, but to those points: >> >> Spotify is absolutely the correct metric because it's the commercial leader >> (and roughly aligned from a quality perspective with Amazon Music, Apple, >> iHeart Radio, and the others popular services). The fact that it's lower >> quality than what audiophiles (myself included) would prefer only proves >> the point: most users (AKA the "market") don't care enough about the audio >> quality to want to go beyond CD quality. This is how the market establishes >> a "sufficient" level of quality. It's not a fixed figure and can change >> over time. If some musical artist creates some popular music that sounds >> meaningfully different to most listeners between 44.1kHz CD quality and the >> newer higher quality 96kHz 7.1 surround sound AND if the cost in equipment >> and connections to hear that difference were attainable to the mass market, >> then that could move the standard, but that's what it would take. >> >> If it's only we few audiophiles who hear the difference, then the market >> won't care and will continue to say, "CD Quality is good enough. Now leave >> me alone with my music." :-) >> >> If Spotify were in mono and sounded fuzzy like old AM radio, because that's >> clearly much worse even to the untrained ear, there would be an ongoing >> push for better quality audio. But that's not the situation. >> >> Same logic with video. Is 12K better than 8K better than 4K? Yes. Is that a >> commercially important distinction? No, not in 2024, and the video quality >> change vectors would suggest it won't be in the next 10 years either (maybe >> will be after that). This is because at that quality level (like CD quality >> for audio), the digital quality achieves a level where either original >> recording equipment or the average human eye, brain, and ear can no longer >> distinguish between further advances. This is not an argument against >> over-provisioning bandwidth capacity to plan for the future, just laying >> out that a future with greater bandwidth needs per video stream is nothing >> that's coming soon. >> >> (As a LAN aside and parallel to show there is a common precedent with >> networking equipment for these growth rates, home and small business >> routers have had a max bandwidth of 1Gbps at mass market pricing for over a >> decade. Arguably, that's still the upper limit today. 10Gbps is still >> extremely rare and expensive for routers with more than a single 10Gbps >> uplink port, with 2.5Gbps being the more common upgrade both on PC >> motherboards and in the router ports.) >> >> SD -> HD is a HUGE improvement. SD is fuzzy (like mono AM radio). Facial >> expressions are hard to see without filling the screen with the person's >> face. HD -> 4K is noticeable, but much less significant. 4K with >> compression artifacts looks WORSE than a high quality 1080p stream. 4K -> >> 8K is literally imperceptible to typical people on typical sized TV's. >> While there are video cameras that can record at 8K in good lighting (even >> good reasonably priced studio digital cameras cannot record quality above >> 4K without excellent lighting), the picture quality limits are defined more >> by the optics and what's in focus than by the number of pixels. Further, >> for displaying an image even on an 83" TV, when viewed from more than a few >> feet away, must humans can't tell the difference between 4K and 8K even if >> the 8K image truly is sharper (and remember, they're usually not due to >> camera limitations). >> >> But all of that technical explanation is also irrelevant. The fact is that >> Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, and some of the other big streaming services only >> offer 4K + HDR streams. None of them offer or have suggested that they >> intend to offer anything higher than that. The lion's share of TVs for sale >> today are also 4K TV. Even computer monitors, which have always been a >> leading indicator for TV resolutions, mostly top at 4K. There are a few 5K >> monitors, but the price jump from 4K to 5K is substantial. 8K monitors are >> rarer and even more expensive. This gives insight into a minimum timeframe >> before 4K is supplanted by 8K or something else: it's at least many years >> away. I suspect 3D may make a comeback before 8K (or maybe together – >> sometimes tech advances because it's paired with something else, like >> Blu-ray and 1080p). >> >> I worry that many of the discussions here around bandwidth needs are >> academic and not market driven. Engineers and scientists know better than >> the market HOW to do something, HOW to solve the problems, but market >> always knows better than the engineers WHAT it wants. To be clear on a >> point dear to many here, the market may not know how to describe what it >> wants (e.g., the failing of ISPs to promote the importance of latency), but >> ignorance on technical matters is not the same as not knowing what it likes >> and wants. We can easily test for those distinctions via focus groups to >> let people actually experience the differences or via usage surveys to find >> out what users want to do. If you have a statistically significant sample, >> you will get a statistically significant response on what matters. >> >> One last caveat: while the market is the ONLY group that matters in >> determining what it wants, the market also may be poor in explaining what >> it wants. If you'd asked the market what it wanted improved in a VCR, the >> market never would have said, "We want a DVD player" or "We want streaming >> video over the Internet." They would just say they don't like picture >> quality, rewinding tapes, tape wear, etc. All problems solved by DVD and >> modern streaming. So it's important for marketing teams working with >> engineers to ask the right questions and truly understand the responses so >> that clever engineers can innovate the best solutions to solve the market's >> pain points. >> >> Hope that helps everyone here. >> >> Cheers, >> Colin >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Starlink On Behalf Of >> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net >> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 10:56 AM >> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 12 >> >> Send Starlink mailing list submissions to >> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> starlink-owner@lists.bufferbloat.net >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than >> "Re: Contents of Starlink digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Sebastian Moeller) >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:45:07 +0200 >> From: Sebastian Moeller >> To: Alexandre Petrescu >> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink >> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> Hi Alexandre, >> >> >>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:40, Alexandre Petrescu >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit : >>>> Hi Alexandre, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Colin, >>>>> 8K usefulness over 4K: the higher the resolution the more it will be >>>>> possible to zoom in into paused images. It is one of the advantages. >>>>> People dont do that a lot these days but why not in the future. >>>> [SM] Because that is how in the past we envisioned the future, see here >>>> h++ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHwjceFcF2Q 'enhance'... >>>> >>>>> Spotify lower quality than CD and still usable: one would check not >>>>> Spotify, but other services for audiophiles; some of these use 'DSD' >>>>> formats which go way beyond the so called high-def audio of 384khz >>>>> sampling freqs. They dont 'stream' but download. It is these >>>>> higher-than-384khz sampling rates equivalent (e.g. DSD1024 is the >>>>> equivalent of, I think of something like 10 times CD quality, I think). >>>>> If Spotify is the king of streamers, in the future other companies might >>>>> become the kings of something else than 'streaming', a name yet to be >>>>> invented. >>>>> For each of them, it is true, normal use will not expose any more >>>>> advantage than the previous version (no advantage of 8K over 4K, no >>>>> advantage of 88KHz DVD audio over CD, etc) - yet the progress is ongoing >>>>> on and on, and nobody comes back to CD or to DVD audio or to SD >>>>> (standard definition video). >>>>> Finally, 8K and DSD per se are requirements of just bandwidth. The need >>>>> of latency should be exposed there, and that is not straightforward. >>>>> But higher bandwidths will come with lower latencies anyways. >>>> [SM] How that? Capacity and latency are largely independent... think a >>>> semi truck full of harddisks from NYC to LA has decent >>>> capacity/'bandwidth' but lousy latency... >>> >>> I agree with you: two distinct parameters, bandwidth and latency. But >>> they evolve simultenously, relatively bound by a constant relationship. >>> For any particular link technology (satcom is one) the bandwidth and >>> latency are in a constant relationship. One grows, the other diminishes. >>> There are exceptions too, in some details. >>> >>> (as for the truck full of harddisks, and jumbo jets full of DVDs - they >>> are just concepts: striking good examples of how enormous bandwidths are >>> possible, but still to see in practice; physicsts also talked about a >>> train transported by a train transported by a train and so on, to overcome >>> the speed of light: another striking example, but not in practice). >> >> [SM] Not any more, but Amazon did offer a a storage truck (for latency >> insensitive transfers of huge data) >> h++ps://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/17/aws-stops-selling-snowmobile-truck-for-c >> h++loud-migrations.html >> so this is more than just a concept... >> >>> >>> Alex >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The quest of latency requirements might be, in fact, a quest to see how >>>>> one could use that low latency technology that is possible and available >>>>> anyways. >>>>> Alex >>>>> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:00, Colin_Higbie via Starlink a écrit : >>>>>> David Fernández, those bitrates are safe numbers, but many streams >>>>>> could get by with less at those resolutions. H.265 compression is at a >>>>>> variable bit rate with simpler scenes requiring less bandwidth. Note >>>>>> that 4K with HDR (30 bits per pixel rather than 24) consistently also >>>>>> fits within 25Mbps. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Lang, HDR is a requirement for 4K programming. That is not to say >>>>>> that all 4K streams are in HDR, but in setting a required bandwidth, >>>>>> because 4K signals can include HDR, the required bandwidth must >>>>>> accommodate and allow for HDR. That said, I believe all modern 4K >>>>>> programming on Netflix and Amazon Prime is HDR. Note David Fernández' >>>>>> point that Spain independently reached the same conclusion as the US >>>>>> streaming services of 25Mbps requirement for 4K. >>>>>> >>>>>> Visually, to a person watching and assuming an OLED (or microLED) >>>>>> display capable of showing the full color and contrast gamut of HDR >>>>>> (LCD can't really do it justice, even with miniLED backlighting), the >>>>>> move to HDR from SDR is more meaningful in most situations than the >>>>>> move from 1080p to 4K. I don't believe going to further resolutions, >>>>>> scenes beyond 4K (e.g., 8K), will add anything meaningful to a movie or >>>>>> television viewer over 4K. Video games could benefit from the added >>>>>> resolution, but lens aberration in cameras along with focal length and >>>>>> limited depth of field render blurriness of even a sharp picture >>>>>> greater than the pixel size in most scenes beyond about 4K - 5.5K. >>>>>> Video games don’t suffer this problem because those scenes are >>>>>> rendered, eliminating problems from camera lenses. So video games may >>>>>> still benefit from 8K resolution, but streaming programming won’t. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is precedent for this in the audio streaming world: audio >>>>>> streaming bitrates have retracted from prior peaks. Even though 48kHz >>>>>> and higher bitrate audio available on DVD is superior to the audio >>>>>> quality of 44.1kHz CDs, Spotify and Apple and most other streaming >>>>>> services stream music at LOWER quality than CD. It’s good enough for >>>>>> most people to not notice the difference. I don’t see much push in the >>>>>> foreseeable future for programming beyond UHD (4K + HDR). That’s not to >>>>>> say never, but there’s no real benefit to it with current camera tech >>>>>> and screen sizes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Conclusion: for video streaming needs over the next decade or so, >>>>>> 25Mbps should be appropriate. As David Fernández rightly points out, >>>>>> H.266 and other future protocols will improve compression capabilities >>>>>> and reduce bandwidth needs at any given resolution and color bit depth, >>>>>> adding a bit more headroom for small improvements. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Colin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Starlink On Behalf >>>>>> Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 9:31 AM >>>>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Message: 2 >>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:54:20 +0200 >>>>>> From: David Fernández >>>>>> To: starlink >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC >>>>>> Message-ID: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>>> >>>>>> Last February, TV broadcasting in Spain left behind SD definitively and >>>>>> moved to HD as standard quality, also starting to regularly broadcast a >>>>>> channel with 4K quality. >>>>>> >>>>>> A 4K video (2160p) at 30 frames per second, handled with the HEVC >>>>>> compression codec (H.265), and using 24 bits per pixel, requires 25 >>>>>> Mbit/s. >>>>>> >>>>>> Full HD video (1080p) requires 10 Mbit/s. >>>>>> >>>>>> For lots of 4K video encoded at < 20 Mbit/s, it may be hard to >>>>>> distinguish it visually from the HD version of the same video (this was >>>>>> also confirmed by SBTVD Forum Tests). >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, 8K will come, eventually, requiring a minimum of ~32 Mbit/s: >>>>>> https://dvb.org/news/new-generation-of-terrestrial-services-taking- >>>>>> shape-in-europe >>>>>> >>>>>> The latest codec VVC (H.266) may reduce the required data rates by at >>>>>> least 27%, at the expense of more computing power required, but somehow >>>>>> it is claimed it will be more energy efficient. >>>>>> https://dvb.org/news/dvb-prepares-the-way-for-advanced-4k-and-8k-br >>>>>> oadcast-and-broadband-television >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> David >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink --228850167-575963348-1714523470=:111574 Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: <38398pn3-563s-s129-s1n7-6r08qo486216@ynat.uz> Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KU3Rhcmxpbmsg bWFpbGluZyBsaXN0ClN0YXJsaW5rQGxpc3RzLmJ1ZmZlcmJsb2F0Lm5ldApodHRwczovL2xpc3Rz LmJ1ZmZlcmJsb2F0Lm5ldC9saXN0aW5mby9zdGFybGluawo= --228850167-575963348-1714523470=:111574--