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 8FE703B29D for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:05:36 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1714507532; x=1715112332; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=9ZP/xw7yPmlGl91+hsiVyUOflqx0bgsar7Z6Cghkhsw=; 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=ThN7BGmmaQQcOuxyqZIHWi8LBfI9bnSTF3WcdPMNG5Txmn3igVuVdJtjuGJ03j4s jkmIVPK75YvVQbCllX9i+/DvCak/Pkm/K0zpY5UfYDVzliezYXyXqxJUE5dszpda9 LXMDM6fXPkz4LRpvtlhG6VM5Bs3g5gfGIYmuXORuJ6O7+A174QAXmT6bv+5DN4MqN gjBHkODiDAuPpxG65ggSEJr5pl+aicu/1bOkTAogpml7N/0DHGvEQQ9PSh4ucE/c1 Se1GNVB5/JgVCoyfrLLLTpDRHqCaTI49VIBWdxfgyUmq+nFbeuQhViHCDXIycesJV iVdohYztSQBWhNfVSQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.1.87.102]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MowGU-1sRv9u18m6-00ooMp; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:05:32 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:05:21 +0200 Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Colin_Higbie X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:jEzVWpeIo1GFMW0JEdRNRJIaxqN1jONr5g5MJWu++CdD1vax1W1 1+YyOz3PFfjrz06uNpYv4Rm3iLcDBc763yzETTzhkAvBYe3kVytQPqpKfntuoCK8Bvi5mky O00GYavetfUAoPmGFPPYp9V3uAN7YYMKDhn3cNb9nzLArvdhN0rnWOVzxwUuQ+gPy2cIBZh /ZUvPmP0P6a/hjlYK8y9w== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:+Wap/w3PXsc=;/StiHG78oYc96MbNeCLeyyoQCmm RA3fnxtoLWwRWmPNNSThG6fje0ISSmfz6rrXohz8NInNVe17cJdYlAC5HLQ1/RnvYEmBYySih E7a/AASDMQY9XDypFgPHKxqnIbkRX0gisrravyU0AgyScRqBCUDllyXaymUUmca6qeWgsKMC+ P0H/rj+k+E6OuB2VcXQJMHih9MzDiUdlWRAviWJi8RyPiPNJ/u9Swa6kMNXt8s4fuIMlsjZDa rEo3a98Iao6GckzHnHMHVdvtezOodedlXsFQ/UF4TsqxqrZrLJccvwiRPFKCWuIbps04EJz5w yqBxDfgwMIxL1kmCXWhYYn8lQj2oX1uTe1AsYNpJMqF4pW9/32J1BwVP7hi1s5FVNzlwz7+4d m5GkkQ0T7aK/v6dPlr5RBvkb7QpM5PxWqjGNkPKwJ7MFduDAPvRCf2B0QglMGf4PfXC0koiAc MOrdXaAVMa26CuqdQFGBhOKaYjTE5wieW7MgQ0zKKd6C/Pa8usMvkpr8pc4iOZdOwumwaY1RA t8dNq343VonSy68szscuG+5UOIgE5elkzS36tRBpuHOlzLGPGlD9LLEFlT4pRb/ZFJx64oahf AD2QBEqNfhFd1RDBnlu8UDGOC36yY1KYy6hf8jrlSxZ16Cto5HAKkKQ7BIZbBSVHFqV0RK1qH Chzw4RULfgJTdhM6r10P0SpFNdwpMVrWGenbuaASkn60n7Z1vUo3dJK0O8EG00PF9htQ1sDnZ HOmYkuSztXP4h1EEl77dd1NRTiAnhZBY2tgKwz2nRQNSmllpwS6PVGHQBXyS3AxbaM0vdiw2I Fyv6Fg4DbXxagVJqJMPeU9wDCwwV9JQ40Qxrm6ms5srqo= 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: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:05:37 -0000 Hi Colin, > On 30. Apr 2024, at 20:05, Colin_Higbie via Starlink = wrote: >=20 > [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... >=20 >=20 > Sebastian, nothing but agreement with you that capacity and latency = are largely independent (my old dial-up modem connections 25 years ago = at ~50kbps had much lower latencies than my original geostationary = satellite connections with higher bandwidth). I also agree that both are = important in their own ways. I had originally responded (this thread = seems to have come back to life from a few months ago) to a point about = 10Mbps capacity being sufficient, and that as long as a user has a = 10Mbps connection, latency improvements would provide more benefit to = most users at that point than further bandwidth increases. I responded = that the minimum "sufficient" metric should be higher than 10Mpbs, = probably at 25Mbps to support 4K HDR, which is the streaming standard = today and likely will be for the foreseeable future. [SM] I guess we all agree that a decent internet access for a small = group of users does NOT need access capacity in the gigabit range. We = die seem to differ a bit in what we consider 'good enough', but mildly = so... compared to what the mass market ISPs try to sell both 10 or 25 = Mbps are often well below the smallest capacity they offer (exception = ISPs with considerable ADSL deployment). Personally I was under the = impression that e.g. netflix recommendation that for a 4K stream one = should have 25 Mbps internet access already allows for some cross = traffic and is not the real minimum requirement for a single 4K stream. = But that is a bit besides the point... > I have not seen any responses that provided a sound argument against = that conclusion. [SM] I actually have no idea how many users actually pay for 4K = streaming and how many are happy with 1920x1080, that might be relevant = today. Then again the direction is clear sooner or later 4K will be the = 'normal'. > A lot of responses like "but 8K is coming" (it's not, only = experimental YouTube videos showcase these resolutions to the general = public, no studio is making 8K content and no streaming service offers = anything in 8K or higher) [SM] Not my claim. > 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" [SM] Am too old to still believe that, however my argument for that is = that over here satellite, terrestrial and cable TV typically tops out at = 1920x1080 and users are still happy with the quality even on large = screens, so thee might be a bigger residual of 1080 is good enough for = me crowd than you allow for. > (personal preference should never be a substitute for market data). [SM] Maybe, but I always look at 'data' published by parties having a = pony in the race with scepticism... the numbers you publish partly = depend on your agenda... > Neither of those arguments refutes objective industry standards: = 25Mbps is the minimum required bandwidth for multiple of the biggest = streaming services. [SM] Offers might differ in other places but in Germany today: Netflix 1080, 4K only in the highest priced plan Amazon prime: defaults to 4K, on compatible devices Disney+: 1080, 4K only in the highest priced plan Paramount+: only 1080v for now respectfully, it is not clear that 4K is today 'the standard'... but I = have no doubt its prominence is going to grow... > None of this intends to suggest that we should ease off pressure on = ISPs to provide low latency connections that don't falter under load. = Just want to be sure we all recognize that the floor bandwidth should be = set no lower than 25Mbps. [SM] I tend to also think 20-30 is a decent lower limit, but less = because of 4k and more as this allows 2-3 people using interactive = applications simultaneously without massive interference, it is sort of = nice that this also covers the 4K streaming case... >=20 > However, I would say that depending on usage, for a typical family = use, where 25Mbps is "sufficient" for any single stream, even 50ms = latency (not great, but much better than a system will have with bad = bufferbloat problems that can easily fall to the hundreds of = milliseconds) is also "sufficient" for all but specialized applications = or competitive gaming. [SM] Well, if the access latency is already 50ms, you need to add all = the rest to the actual intended servers... and e.g. remote desktop = applications can become annoying quickly (for me 50ms is a OK, but e.g. = 300ms is quite nasty... I tried 300ms as the local regulator requires = acceptable internet access to have RTTs to a reference point up to = 300ms, which is clearly not much fun for remote desktop use cases.) > I would also say that if you already have latency at or below 20ms, = further gains on latency will be imperceptible to almost all users, = where bandwidth increases will at least allow for more simultaneous = connections, even if any given stream doesn't really benefit much beyond = about 25Mbps. [SM] That is not how latency works in my experience, if the access = latency is short the 'cone' of the internet that can be reached with = decent responsiveness grows... sure that is a quantitative change not a = step-wise qualitatively one, but still there is not a lower latency = number below which less latency does not improve things any more... (for = bulk transfers that is different, but these are not interactive). > I would also say that for working remotely, for those of us who work = with large audio or video files, the ability to transfer multi-hundred = MB files from a 1Gbps connection in several seconds instead of several = minutes for a 25Mbps connection is a meaningful boost to work = effectiveness and productivity, where a latency reduction from 50ms to = 10ms wouldn't really yield any material changes to our work. [SM] I keep hearing such examples, but honestly I do not buy these... = for me the only sane way to work remotely with large data sets is to use = remote desktop to a machine/VM close to the data, round trip time really = matters in such applications... And in all honesty even the work on big = files kind of use cases improves with lower latency, simple because file = systems tend not to work all that well over high latency links....=20 > Is 100Mbps and 10ms latency better than 25Mbps and 50ms latency? Of = course. Moving to ever more capacity and lower latencies is a good thing = on both fronts, but where hardware and engineering costs tend to scale = non-linearly as you start pushing against current limits, "sufficiency" = is an important metric to keep in mind. Cost matters. [SM] IMHO latency wise we are not yet cost limited, we seem more limited = by the fact that those parties that sell internet access still market it = by 'big numbers', aka capacity, and then bias these links for capacity = over latency even for links that are already deep in the diminishing = returns territory for capacity...=20 >=20 > Cheers, > Colin >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Starlink On Behalf Of = starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 10:41 AM > To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200 > From: Sebastian Moeller > To: Alexandre Petrescu > Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink > Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=E2=80=99s the Latency, FCC > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8 >=20 > Hi Alexandre, >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink = wrote: >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > [SM] Because that is how in the past we envisioned the future, see = here h++ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DhHwjceFcF2Q 'enhance'... >=20 >> 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. >=20 > [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... >=20 >=20 >> 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 =C3=A0 16:00, Colin_Higbie via Starlink a =C3=A9crit : >>> David Fern=C3=A1ndez, 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. >>>=20 >>> 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 Fern=C3=A1ndez'= point that Spain independently reached the same conclusion as the US = streaming services of 25Mbps requirement for 4K. >>>=20 >>> 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=E2=80=99t = 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=E2=80=99t.=20 >>>=20 >>> 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=E2=80=99s good enough = for most people to not notice the difference. I don=E2=80=99t see much = push in the foreseeable future for programming beyond UHD (4K + HDR). = That=E2=80=99s not to say never, but there=E2=80=99s no real benefit to = it with current camera tech and screen sizes.=20 >>>=20 >>> Conclusion: for video streaming needs over the next decade or so, = 25Mbps should be appropriate. As David Fern=C3=A1ndez 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.=20 >>>=20 >>> Cheers, >>> Colin >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Starlink On Behalf Of=20= >>> 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 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:54:20 +0200 >>> From: David Fern=C3=A1ndez >>> To: starlink >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=E2=80=99s the Latency, FCC >>> Message-ID: >>> = >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8" >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> Full HD video (1080p) requires 10 Mbit/s. >>>=20 >>> 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). >>>=20 >>> Then, 8K will come, eventually, requiring a minimum of ~32 Mbit/s: >>> = https://dvb.org/news/new-generation-of-terrestrial-services-taking-sh >>> ape-in-europe >>>=20 >>> 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-broa >>> dcast-and-broadband-television >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>>=20 >>> David >>>=20 >>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: David Lang >>> To: Colin_Higbie >>> Cc: David Lang , "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=CA=BCs the Latency, FCC >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"; Format=3D"flowed" >>>=20 >>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR) >>>=20 >>> David Lang >>>=20 >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000 >>>> From: Colin_Higbie >>>> To: David Lang >>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"=20 >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] It=CA=BCs the Latency, FCC >>>>=20 >>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that=20 >>>> streaming >>>>=20 >>> services use (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, etc.) or was it just = some YouTube 4K SDR videos? YouTube will show "HDR" on the gear icon for = content that's 4K HDR. If it only shows "4K" instead of "HDR," then = means it's SDR. >>> Note that if YouTube, if left to the default of Auto for streaming = resolution it will also automatically drop the quality to something that = fits within the bandwidth and most of the "4K" content on YouTube is = low-quality and not true UHD content (even beyond missing HDR). For = example, many smartphones will record 4K video, but their optics are not = sufficient to actually have distinct per-pixel image detail, meaning it = compresses down to a smaller image with no real additional loss in = picture quality, but only because it's really a 4K UHD stream to begin = with. >>>=20 >>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower=20 >>>> quality the >>>>=20 >>> initial image, the lower the bandwidth needed to convey the stream = w/o additional quality loss. The needed bandwidth also changes with = scene complexity. Falling confetti, like on Newy Year's Eve or at the = Super Bowl make for one of the most demanding scenes. Lots of detailed = fire and explosions with fast-moving fast panning full dynamic = backgrounds are also tough for a compressed signal to preserve (but not = as hard as a screen full of falling confetti). >>>=20 >>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the=20 >>>> simplest >>>>=20 >>> video, like cartoons or fairly static scenes like the news. Those = scenes don't require much data, but that's not the case for all 4K HDR = scenes by any means. >>>=20 >>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' = interest=20 >>>> to >>>>=20 >>> be able to sell their more expensive 4K HDR service to as many = people as possible. There's a reason they won't offer it to anyone with = less than 25Mbps =E2=80=93 they don't want the complaints and service = calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn=E2=80=99t typically = require 25Mbps, but it's to their credit that they do include a small = bandwidth buffer. In my experience monitoring bandwidth usage for 4K HDR = streaming, 15Mbps is the minimum if doing nothing else and that will = frequently fall short, depending on the 4K HDR content. >>>=20 >>>> Cheers, >>>> Colin >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: David Lang >>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM >>>> To: Colin Higbie >>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=CA=BCs the Latency, FCC >>>>=20 >>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they = didn't=20 >>>> want >>>>=20 >>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there=20 >>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed=20= >>> was a problem) >>>=20 >>>> David Lang >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000 >>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink >>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie >>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"=20 >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=E2=80=99s the Latency, FCC >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that=20 >>>>>> download >>>>>>=20 >>> "speed" >>>=20 >>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to=20= >>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I=20= >>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really=20= >>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many = existing >>>>>>=20 >>> 100/20 services today. >>>=20 >>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how >>>>>=20 >>> responsive the Internet feels to use, I do think that 10Mbit is too = low for some standard applications regardless of latency: with the more = recent availability of 4K and higher streaming, that does require a = higher minimum bandwidth to work at all. One could argue that no one = NEEDS 4K streaming, but many families would view this as an important = part of what they do with their Internet (Starlink makes this reliably = possible at our farmhouse). 4K HDR-supporting TV's are among the most = popular TVs being purchased in the U.S. today. Netflix, Amazon, Max, = Disney and other streaming services provide a substantial portion of 4K = HDR content. >>>=20 >>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.=20= >>>>> 100/20 >>>>>=20 >>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users = or a 1-2 8K streams. >>>=20 >>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just = my=20 >>>>> own >>>>>=20 >>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care = about: >>>=20 >>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some=20= >>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded = latency=20 >>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception = for=20 >>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way=20 >>>>> down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us=20= >>>>> won't be able to tell the difference) >>>>>=20 >>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video=20 >>>>> streaming >>>>>=20 >>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,=20 >>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k >>>>>=20 >>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video=20 >>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound=20= >>>>> streams >>>>>=20 >>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather = have >>>>>=20 >>> latency at 50ms (under load) and DL bandwidth of 25Mbps than latency = of 1ms with a max bandwidth of 10Mbps, because the super-low latency = doesn't solve the problem with insufficient bandwidth to watch 4K HDR = content. But, I'd also rather have latency of 20ms with 100Mbps DL, then = latency that exceeds 100ms under load with 1Gbps DL bandwidth. I think = the important thing is to reach "good enough" on both, not just excel at = one while falling short of "good enough" on the other. >>>=20 >>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids=20 >>>>> watching >>>>>=20 >>> YouTube while my wife and I watch 4K UHD Netflix, except the upload = speed occasionally tops at under 3Mbps for me, causing quality = degradation for outbound video calls (or used to, it seems to have = gotten better in recent months =E2=80=93 no problems since sometime in = 2023). >>>=20 >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Colin >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Starlink mailing list >>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was=20 >>> scrubbed... >>> URL:=20 >>> = >> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlink mailing list >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200 > From: Alexandre Petrescu > To: Sebastian Moeller > Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink > Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=E2=80=99s the Latency, FCC > Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8; format=3Dflowed >=20 >=20 > Le 30/04/2024 =C3=A0 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a =C3=A9crit : >> Hi Alexandre, >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink = wrote: >>>=20 >>> 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=3DhHwjceFcF2Q 'enhance'... >>=20 >>> 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... >=20 > 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. >=20 > (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). >=20 > Alex >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>> 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 =C3=A0 16:00, Colin_Higbie via Starlink a =C3=A9crit : >>>> David Fern=C3=A1ndez, 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. >>>>=20 >>>> 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 Fern=C3=A1ndez'= point that Spain independently reached the same conclusion as the US = streaming services of 25Mbps requirement for 4K. >>>>=20 >>>> 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=E2=80=99t = 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=E2=80=99t. >>>>=20 >>>> 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=E2=80=99s good enough = for most people to not notice the difference. I don=E2=80=99t see much = push in the foreseeable future for programming beyond UHD (4K + HDR). = That=E2=80=99s not to say never, but there=E2=80=99s no real benefit to = it with current camera tech and screen sizes. >>>>=20 >>>> Conclusion: for video streaming needs over the next decade or so, = 25Mbps should be appropriate. As David Fern=C3=A1ndez 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. >>>>=20 >>>> Cheers, >>>> Colin >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Starlink On Behalf = Of=20 >>>> 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 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Message: 2 >>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:54:20 +0200 >>>> From: David Fern=C3=A1ndez >>>> To: starlink >>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=E2=80=99s the Latency, FCC >>>> Message-ID: >>>> = >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8" >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> Full HD video (1080p) requires 10 Mbit/s. >>>>=20 >>>> 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). >>>>=20 >>>> Then, 8K will come, eventually, requiring a minimum of ~32 Mbit/s: >>>> = https://dvb.org/news/new-generation-of-terrestrial-services-taking-s >>>> hape-in-europe >>>>=20 >>>> 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-bro >>>> adcast-and-broadband-television >>>>=20 >>>> Regards, >>>>=20 >>>> David >>>>=20 >>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT) >>>> From: David Lang >>>> To: Colin_Higbie >>>> Cc: David Lang , "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=CA=BCs the Latency, FCC >>>> Message-ID: >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"; Format=3D"flowed" >>>>=20 >>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR) >>>>=20 >>>> David Lang >>>>=20 >>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000 >>>>> From: Colin_Higbie >>>>> To: David Lang >>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"=20 >>>>> >>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] It=CA=BCs the Latency, FCC >>>>>=20 >>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that=20 >>>>> streaming >>>>>=20 >>>> services use (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, etc.) or was it just = some YouTube 4K SDR videos? YouTube will show "HDR" on the gear icon for = content that's 4K HDR. If it only shows "4K" instead of "HDR," then = means it's SDR. >>>> Note that if YouTube, if left to the default of Auto for streaming = resolution it will also automatically drop the quality to something that = fits within the bandwidth and most of the "4K" content on YouTube is = low-quality and not true UHD content (even beyond missing HDR). For = example, many smartphones will record 4K video, but their optics are not = sufficient to actually have distinct per-pixel image detail, meaning it = compresses down to a smaller image with no real additional loss in = picture quality, but only because it's really a 4K UHD stream to begin = with. >>>>=20 >>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower=20 >>>>> quality the >>>>>=20 >>>> initial image, the lower the bandwidth needed to convey the stream = w/o additional quality loss. The needed bandwidth also changes with = scene complexity. Falling confetti, like on Newy Year's Eve or at the = Super Bowl make for one of the most demanding scenes. Lots of detailed = fire and explosions with fast-moving fast panning full dynamic = backgrounds are also tough for a compressed signal to preserve (but not = as hard as a screen full of falling confetti). >>>>=20 >>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the=20 >>>>> simplest >>>>>=20 >>>> video, like cartoons or fairly static scenes like the news. Those = scenes don't require much data, but that's not the case for all 4K HDR = scenes by any means. >>>>=20 >>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services'=20 >>>>> interest to >>>>>=20 >>>> be able to sell their more expensive 4K HDR service to as many = people as possible. There's a reason they won't offer it to anyone with = less than 25Mbps =E2=80=93 they don't want the complaints and service = calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn=E2=80=99t typically = require 25Mbps, but it's to their credit that they do include a small = bandwidth buffer. In my experience monitoring bandwidth usage for 4K HDR = streaming, 15Mbps is the minimum if doing nothing else and that will = frequently fall short, depending on the 4K HDR content. >>>>=20 >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Colin >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: David Lang >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM >>>>> To: Colin Higbie >>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=CA=BCs the Latency, FCC >>>>>=20 >>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they=20 >>>>> didn't want >>>>>=20 >>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there=20 >>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed=20= >>>> was a problem) >>>>=20 >>>>> David Lang >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000 >>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink >>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie >>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"=20 >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It=E2=80=99s the Latency, FCC >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that=20 >>>>>>> download >>>>>>>=20 >>>> "speed" >>>>=20 >>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second = to=20 >>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I=20= >>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really=20= >>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many=20 >>>>>>> existing >>>>>>>=20 >>>> 100/20 services today. >>>>=20 >>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how >>>>>>=20 >>>> responsive the Internet feels to use, I do think that 10Mbit is too = low for some standard applications regardless of latency: with the more = recent availability of 4K and higher streaming, that does require a = higher minimum bandwidth to work at all. One could argue that no one = NEEDS 4K streaming, but many families would view this as an important = part of what they do with their Internet (Starlink makes this reliably = possible at our farmhouse). 4K HDR-supporting TV's are among the most = popular TVs being purchased in the U.S. today. Netflix, Amazon, Max, = Disney and other streaming services provide a substantial portion of 4K = HDR content. >>>>=20 >>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. >>>>>> 100/20 >>>>>>=20 >>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users = or a 1-2 8K streams. >>>>=20 >>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just=20= >>>>>> my own >>>>>>=20 >>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care = about: >>>>=20 >>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some=20= >>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded=20 >>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an=20 >>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency=20= >>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the=20= >>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video=20 >>>>>> streaming >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,=20 >>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video=20 >>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound=20= >>>>>> streams >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather=20 >>>>>> have >>>>>>=20 >>>> latency at 50ms (under load) and DL bandwidth of 25Mbps than = latency of 1ms with a max bandwidth of 10Mbps, because the super-low = latency doesn't solve the problem with insufficient bandwidth to watch = 4K HDR content. But, I'd also rather have latency of 20ms with 100Mbps = DL, then latency that exceeds 100ms under load with 1Gbps DL bandwidth. = I think the important thing is to reach "good enough" on both, not just = excel at one while falling short of "good enough" on the other. >>>>=20 >>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids=20 >>>>>> watching >>>>>>=20 >>>> YouTube while my wife and I watch 4K UHD Netflix, except the upload = speed occasionally tops at under 3Mbps for me, causing quality = degradation for outbound video calls (or used to, it seems to have = gotten better in recent months =E2=80=93 no problems since sometime in = 2023). >>>>=20 >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Colin >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Starlink mailing list >>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>>>>=20 >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was=20 >>>> scrubbed... >>>> URL:=20 >>>> = >>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Starlink mailing list >>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlink mailing list >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 > Subject: Digest Footer >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 > End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11 > **************************************** > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink