From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (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 3AAF73B29D for ; Wed, 15 May 2024 02:52:21 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1715755936; x=1716360736; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=SdzOHF0TaGFjcxqoLH2dzlsA6+XWY+nxMp5BbNlQ4nk=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From: In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id: References:To:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from: message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=GfvRrsi1Lrb5HlulVNxz8lQ3VArzKbnNN24nq3mDaa+ksRFUbLCEP3m89G99wrk+ HGQzCgq+Ar1TYSMbQ+4Y/32p9jkMfXtMxJm6FNtrAj6hO0PjQ25OIIRnVaKGIXay+ NEc2gbXjCinweVD8YQVes6/TZB12wKACZ0YXCyzAa6oXq5YOAdzOt87eHxxQ1PwXg vDTDhu/FnvO3l6dMNePy2SfFdfNLZdReX7s2TmMfnNVVFdCJxMvoAeCiR76PK3Puf N4pUDhT7tEPozIsNokAj+DYrSGsDdxtihYm5Goh2q47bLOZBzFtaLldOVIlq4qm4U pNlhOi4/sCj7IFAgoQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1McpNo-1sh1DG1aWw-00ZuoL; Wed, 15 May 2024 08:52:16 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 08:52:06 +0200 Cc: Alexandre Petrescu , Frantisek Borsik , "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <298126c9-7854-47c5-a965-c0f89a855939@gmail.com> To: Colin_Higbie X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Zj21JOr68GJ2AF60djm8OdB+UbeDYywC0KYE+NKqEo3MnUL6Qa5 A/4nhch4oYrtI38xu9P/ZE3Fp6Ayve7+5DYbmAKqH9/pT5f6TCo/+fxdybqs42fkejEGiMy 1nnH2yGbQ3PKL9svw4yB1x/81FPD0AHJxjtlZU2JvzNwT7WF1WDoeEZ8o+gGndiQpVRKtle psBeFj9Ms5eb2J6DJ1xjw== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:VK1IWR4ALPQ=;G8aX3UJAdesc0EfaR2tDv2rokQl xgIdRT3zGaHD2alYmUjO5VvWtDRiKIWtlMZG60v7iYYPgOfUNPFnuJeqc7DhcCWHvYbNtfjsh Cen3GJbCPNEoUpSCEF8wlV0cn+b/b0Zf6r2yBNAUX93bEP6moXhiYMJkbu3uVtZKPeC44OB06 cKCOY/i007IwyyG0TnB3sASwY1yYrnfAnbxfsNMhdNeSM4iiwjKi3KBnc+GEbv2YsyZXKLAhO neJuyawGCYOv6jsQeS+mF/tre4AyLlsQKa/D2Mvv1sSTH9BcZzVovvjrgK6V26wzR9rG/kyE9 wbIzIWfk6MNj9ObNWNH7Gz7Z64xJQvKud7TFHLk/mfDtanoKSlgQ04gdi2gBeJfjOgohDJB7Y qsiO+dYJgRy08cNlXLUq8L2fZxTlOvexHdCKYoxEBFtHyib6Aab83NmS6nugspDTL0zsHiopG kEHzh/IvIPmje90fx9257M69DkxGE9vqXw2R/VDEdF1mg4aN1Lb+maI6czXgq7ToFmqf0wkLA 2JxfCAqA3/WWcBd31K+/8DoaCz0Gupf13YFHbF8p70iXiX0S8Sv8G6kIP3h1a6GXO0nmhMnOI 4A/86UflzKMSvyu99kBYzSmVr9NhgT3MLYB8Qf6B3w+ZLArCQKaL3Ny+pFVYnfwwPFal8KQLa DctqmwQJFulE/i21veIYh8p13kVCIDmhkuGD4lqbHyiQRXHjqE4TfHNQQXp5SJUelq126caOp jyS+ca7BMCWYjDkLmAiIwwe4EmmYQ3DULyjUld+isno4ZkKQjW2fgXP+B00GyCl7Zz51NiJZw /rWvfVjvJ1bIqAjr6Ojr+kJOaXHuNdg2gBU9pEcBziItE= Subject: Re: [Starlink] =?utf-8?q?It=E2=80=99s_the_Latency=2C_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, 15 May 2024 06:52:21 -0000 Hi Colin, since you bring this up again, I want to address a few points below... > On 14. May 2024, at 21:23, Colin_Higbie via Starlink = wrote: >=20 > Apologies, these had been routed to my junk folder. Just saw them, so = this is a bit behind. > Nothing wrong with musings and opinions (we all do it and have them) = but frustrated by the reluctance to accept data and when people try to = replace data with their opinions with comments like, =E2=80=9CThis means = that probably ISPs are inclined to do more than that 4K over the = Internet, maybe 8K, to distinguish their service from DVB.=E2=80=9D > ISP=E2=80=99s do NOT provide any significant portion of streaming = video. That comes from Netflix, Disney, Amazon Prime, MAX, Hulu, = Paramount Plus, Peacock, and other commercial streaming services that = distribute TV shows and movies. The ISP needs to offer a bandwidth level = sufficient to meet those content providers requirements. [SM] This is not how this works IMHO, as long as the streaming providers = do not pay the ISPs they can not bring their requirements to the ISPs = directly. I assume however you allow for an indirect path via the ISP's = end customers. But at that point the requirement is already diluted, as = that end customer might not care for UHD quality. > Again, I would feel like I=E2=80=99m beating a dead horse here, = except that people keep resuscitating the horse by posting as if that = bandwidth requirement is just my opinion. That bandwidth requirement is = 25Mbps and not my opinion. Alex wrote: =E2=80=9C- 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).=E2=80=9D [SM] I fully agree with the lossy compression versus 'raw' argument, = even a measly VGA stream at 30 Hz would eat (640*480*30*3*8)/(1000^2) =3D = 221.184 Mbps, so uncompressed video is still neither desired by the end = customer (in the mass market, individual exceptions might exiost but = IMHO are not relevant here) nor by the content providers, as these have = to pay for traffic capacity. > Yes, if you put a UHD disc in a Blu-ray player or convey gaming video = at 4K HDR10 120fps, it will send an UNCOMPRESSED video signal that uses = an 18 - 48Gbps cable (small =E2=80=98b=E2=80=99 =3D bits, capital = =E2=80=98B=E2=80=99 =3D bytes in these abbreviations). That has nothing = to do with streaming bandwidth, which is COMPRESSED video using, = primarily these days, H.265/HEVC. H.265 is an amazingly efficient = compression system (effectively reducing stream size by a factor of = several hundred, approaching 1,000 over the raw uncompressed stream). I = don=E2=80=99t doubt there will be further improvements in the future, = but I would not expect dramatic additional bandwidth savings. H.265 is a = lossy compression scheme with a variable bitrate that depends on the = scene and amount of movement. The requirement the streamers have for = 25Mbps is a reasonably safe upper limit for 4K HDR video compressed via = H.265. I believe (not 100% sure and somewhat subjective) that the most = intensive scenes start to noticeably lose fidelity to fit within 25Mbps, = but with buffering it=E2=80=99s never a real-world problem. Far more = important, that=E2=80=99s all moot: what one person may WANT in terms of = bandwidth or picture quality is completely irrelevant. THIS IS DICTATED = BY THE MARKET. [SM] Let me gently push back here... this assumes ption assumes a = perfect market, but that is an economists phantasy and does not exist in = real life. > I don=E2=80=99t know if it=E2=80=99s because this is primarily an = academic group that drives a reluctance here to accept the market as the = definitive answer to what=E2=80=99s required, but if you=E2=80=99re = target is consumer Internet and not the DOD for military use, then the = MARKET IS THE ONLY FACTOR THAT MATTERS in determining what bandwidth is = needed. [SM] Let's talk data, we would need to know: a) the percentage of streams >=3D 4K versus <4K, as far as I can tell = that number is not public for individual streaming services let alone = for all together b) the fraction of these streams that are accidentally 4K compered to = consciously selected. c) as a proxy we might be tempted to look at the capabilities of the = different streaming tiers and the percentage these are booked; however = we run into to show stopper quickly, 1) we do not know the number of = customers per tier and streaming service 2) these tier die not only = differ in maximum video quality but often also in things like number of = parallel streams, so we would also need to know the break down of why = customers selected a 4K-capable tier IMHO this is enough uncertainty to make any 'the market has spoken' = argument somewhat sub optimal, it might have uttered something, but = unfortunately mumbled so badly it is has to make sense out of this. What IMHO is clear, all/most streaming providers offer 4K tiers and = hence do have an interest in this tier being usable by their customers = (but clearly not bad enough to actually talk to those that are expected = to make this happen*). *) And that is OK with me, as end customer I expect my ISP to deliver on = its contracted rates and otherwise get out of the way of my traffic, = asking content poviders for extra money per customer would be double = dipping I am opposed to. What I could accept is streaming providers = granting lump sums to ISPs to improve the connectivity of the = under-served areas, to enlarge the set of potential streaming customers, = but I digress. > Alex wrote: =E2=80=9Ca 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.=E2=80=9D > This also doesn=E2=80=99t matter if there is no 8K content available = from studios. [SM] OK, since you seem to be in the know, is it true that movie = production is limited to 4-5K cameras, I thought I read somewhere that = 8K cameras are used in movie production. Snd I naively? assumed they = would have the money to get equipment like lenses that actually work at = that resolution (IIUC movie gear is often rented, so can be amortised = over many productions, which would allow for 'glog-plated' lenses). > That means it=E2=80=99s equivalent to the demo 8K, 12K, and 16K HDR = content you can already stream from YouTube, which can (depending on = motion of the scene =E2=80=93 you=E2=80=99ll generally notice those = high-resolution demos are brightly lit and very slow-moving) require = more than 25Mbps, but that=E2=80=99s not market-demanded content from a = production studio. These are just tech demos. > The only mainstream content provider testing 8K streaming is Warner = Bros Discovery for their MAX channel as a special set of trailers in = conjunction Samsung to help Samsung sell 8K TVs. Currently, this is = intended for store demos of those Samsung 8K TVs, not for home use, but = this is the first indicator that 8K streaming MIGHT be coming to home = use sooner than I had argued in my prior messages. If you believe 8K = content is something ISP=E2=80=99s need to support with sufficient = bandwidth, that would be the most compelling data point to reference. > The other would be game streaming (different from Eugene=E2=80=99s = esports, which does not stream the video and only needs a few Mbps, = often less than 1Mbps). Please note that game STREAMING is different = from game PLAYING. Game Streaming means all the gameplay work is handled = remotely. The gamer just has a controller and a dumb terminal (like a = smart TV), which sends the controller data to the server and then = receives the streaming video of the game. Game streaming can exceed = 25Mbps even at 4K, because gamers want to play at 120fps, which is = bandwidth equivalent to 8K @ 30fps. [SM] Pretty sure that is not how that works for pre rendered streaming = content... 8K does not seem to require 4 times the bandwidth of 4K at = equal framerate and equal perceptual quality. For on-line rendered = material in games however that might be correct, given relative tight = latency requirements there is little buffer space/time to employ clever = encoding tricks. > The text and other HUD elements in games are also more susceptible to = compression artifacts than TV/movie scenes, so they don=E2=80=99t = compress as well as streaming video. > Important for this group: Latency is absolutely critical to gaming = (especially esports, but important for other forms of gaming too). > I don=E2=80=99t personally believe there will be much market interest = in 8K streaming in the next few years, because: > =20 > =E2=80=A2 a viewer can=E2=80=99t tell the difference between 4K = and 8K on a standard size television and normal view distances [SM] Fully agree, but then I also argue this for 1K versus 4K, where the = difference for many users is not important... (over here cable TV still = tops out at 1K, and viewers do not seem to quantitatively switch to = streaming providers). Then most video material tells a story, and if = that is compelling enough viewers are willing to suspend their = disbelieve... that worked in the old SD (0.5K?) days and will still work = today. > =E2=80=A2 camera lenses and sensors (film or digital) are not good = enough to capture a notably clearer picture at 8K over 4K (actually, = they can capture up to about 5.5K, so that is slightly better than 4K) = except in bright sunlight =E2=80=93 so that next Max Max movie, = classically having most scenes recorded in very bright environments, = might be a good example for an 8K movie[] [SM] See above. I would have thought that this is primarily a question = of money, and which lens sizes one is willing to accept? > =E2=80=A2 8K TV=E2=80=99s still cost quite a bit more than 4K = TV=E2=80=99s [SM] But that is their whole reason to exist, to 'justify' the higher = prices of the top end TVs... if 8K became mainstream, we still would = need something novel for the top end... > and are just starting to hit the market, while content providers want = to know that at least a reasonable % of the viewing market will watch on = 8K before they go through the expense of trying to create it [this is = the least of these factors, as high-end purchases of 8K TVs are growing = and streaming services do try to appeal to the high end, provided it = will be market driving and not just bragging rights with a few = videophiles] > =E2=80=A2 For gaming, the esports players don=E2=80=99t = particularly care about resolution, they care about refresh rates and = latency, happily playing 1080p at 120+ FPS with a sub-10ms (they=E2=80=99d= prefer sub-5ms) latency.=20 [SM] I have no reliable numbers on this, but this sounds reasonable. > =E2=80=A2 For the other side of gaming, game streaming, this is = mostly a cost-savings solution, which means the people doing the = streaming tend not to have the latest display tech so also won=E2=80=99t = use 8K, but just happen to live where high-speed Internet is readily = available =E2=80=93 e.g., inner cities. > In spite of D and E above, my expectation is that 8K on a TV will be = used for gaming significantly before it=E2=80=99s a widely supported = streaming standard like 4K, [SM] Given the use of assisted upsampling already used in games it is = not a stretch tor expect this to happen for 8K as well, how decent that = looks in the end is a different question... > but that=E2=80=99s my opinion (informed from working in this space, = but still just my opinion) and subject to error. With gaming, the camera = and recording problems don=E2=80=99t exist. I expect the next Xbox and = PS6 will support 8K gaming. [SM] Which IMHO is likely, but would not tell that the customer demands = that, but would simply be an easy differentiator to use to set the new = models apart from their predecessors, no? > Alex also wrote, =E2=80=9CStill, 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.=E2=80=9D > I strongly agree with that statement. Due to the ease of buffering = video (but not gaming), latency and even jitter are largely irrelevant = to streaming video (again, not for gaming though). [SM] This is, to my surprise, a contentious point. I tend to agree that = the latency requirements are milder than in gaming, I do hear folks that = argue that the delay in switching channels, jumping around in a timeline = or fast forwarding/reversing makes streaming video latency sensitive. = (My take is that for normal video consumption these should be rare = events, and video production where I would ecpectr that to happen often, = probably should not happen over the internet ;) ). > My point in pushing the 25Mbps floor for a new top-tier offering from = an ISP [SM] I might have misunderstood the discussion, I thought we where = discussing the minimal requirement here, not the top end? > (i.e., they may offer cheaper plans that don=E2=80=99t reach that = speed, but must at least offer a 25Mbps or higher tier) is to ensure = that members of this group trying to persuade those ISPs to adopt Cake = and FQ-Codel and anything else that improves latency under load are = armed with that knowledge so you appear well-informed on the interests = of the ISPs AND to reduce the risk of anyone inadvertently leading some = ill-informed ISP to actually adding new services that fall short of = 25Mbps, hurting the people in those regions for years to come, due to = infrequent upgrades in the places that still today lack high speed = Internet access. =20 [SM] Pretty sure no ISP will need any of us to understand 'capacity = sells', after all that is what they have been marketing on for the last = two decades. What I expect is that some ISPs might switch from more and = more meaningless numbers and will market something like 4K-streaming = capable. Regards Sebastian > I=E2=80=99m sure all things being equal, with no change to cost, = we=E2=80=99d all rather have more bandwidth and lower latency. 25Mbps is = not great. It=E2=80=99s only enough for one 4K HDR stream plus some = modest additional activity in the background. But it=E2=80=99s a = sufficient minimum to do all the mainstream activities that the market = provides over the Internet. And that=E2=80=99s the key. > - Colin > From: Alexandre Petrescu > Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 7:19 AM > To: Frantisek Borsik ; Colin_Higbie = > Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=E2=80=99s the Latency, FCC > Le 02/05/2024 =C3=A0 21:50, Frantisek Borsik a =C3=A9crit : > Thanks, Colin. This was just another great read on video (and audio - = in the past emails from you) bullet-proofing for the near future. > To be honest, the consensus on the bandwidth overall in the = bufferbloat related circles was in the 25/3 - 100/20 ballpark > To continue on this discussion of 25mbit/s (mbyte/s ?) of 4k, and 8k, = here are some more thoughts: > - 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). > - 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. > - 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. > To me, that reflects a direction of growth of the 4K to 8K capability = requirement from the Internet. > 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. > Alex > , 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: > https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc > 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. >=20 > All the best, > Frank > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714=20 > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 > Skype: casioa5302ca > frantisek.borsik@gmail.com > On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:47=E2=80=AFPM Colin_Higbie via Starlink = wrote: > 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.=20 >=20 > 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 =E2=80=93 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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". >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. =46rom a pixel moving perspective, that would translate to 30fps = at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 =3D 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP = should be developing (at least in developed countries =E2=80=93 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Cheers, > Colin >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Starlink On Behalf Of = starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net > Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 5:22 AM > To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 38, Issue 13 >=20 > Today's Topics: >=20 > 1. Re: It=E2=80=99s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu) >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200 > From: Alexandre Petrescu > To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=E2=80=99s the Latency, FCC > Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8; format=3Dflowed >=20 >=20 > Le 30/04/2024 =C3=A0 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a =C3=A9crit = : > > Hi Colin, > > [...] > > > >> A lot of responses like "but 8K is coming" (it's not, only=20 > >> experimental YouTube videos showcase these resolutions to the = general=20 > >> public, no studio is making 8K content and no streaming service=20 > >> offers anything in 8K or higher) > > [SM] Not my claim. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Alex >=20 > > > >> and "I don't need to watch 4K, 1080p is sufficient for me, > > [SM] That however is my claim ;) > > > >> so it should be for everyone else too" > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink