Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang <david@lang.hm>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2613 bytes --]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote:

> Hi Alex...
>
>> On 16. Mar 2024, at 18:18, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le 15/03/2024 à 21:31, Colin_Higbie via Starlink a écrit :
>>> Spencer, great point. We certainly see that with RAM, CPU, and graphics power that the software just grows to fill up the space. I do think that there are still enough users with bandwidth constraints (millions of users limited to DSL and 7Mbps DL speeds) that it provides some pressure against streaming and other services requiring huge swaths of data for basic functions, but, to your point, if there were a mandate that everyone would have 100Mbps connection, I agree that would then quickly become saturated so everyone would need more.
>>> 
>>> Fortunately, the video compression codecs have improved dramatically over the past couple of decades from MPEG-1 to MPEG-2 to H.264 to VP9 and H.265. There's still room for further improvements, but I think we're probably getting to a point of diminishing returns on further compression improvements. Even with further improvements, I don't think we'll see bandwidth needs drop so much as improved quality at the same bandwidth, but this does offset the natural bloat-to-fill-available-capacity movement we see.
>> 
>> I think the 4K-latency discussion is a bit difficult, regardless of how great the codecs are.
>> 
>> For one, 4K can be considered outdated for those who look forward to 8K and why not 16K; so we should forget 4K. 
>
> [SM] Mmmh, numerically that might make sense, however increasing the resolution of video material brings diminishing returns in perceived quality (the human optical system has limits...).... I remember well how the steps from QVGA, to VGA/SD to HD (720) to FullHD (1080) each resulted in an easily noticeable improvement in quality. However now I have a hard time seeing an improvement (heck even just noticing) if I see fullHD of 4K material on our 43" screen from a normal distance (I need to do immediate A?B comparisons from short distance)....
> 	I am certainly not super sensitive/picky, but I guess others will reach the same point maybe after 4K or after 8K. My point is the potential for growth in resolution is limited by psychophysics (ultimately driven by the visual arc covered by individual photoreceptors in the fovea). And I am not sure whether for normal screen sizes and distances we do not already have past that point at 4K....

true, but go to a 70" screen, or use it for a computer display instead of a TV 
and you notice it much easier.

David Lang