Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin Higbie]

> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed" 
> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to second, use, 
> once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I succeeding? I lost the 25/10 
> battle, and keep pointing at really terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses 
> for many existing 100/20 services today.

While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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. 

So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams. 

For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:

Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some intensive gaming
(I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)

Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video streaming

Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k

Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams

So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.

Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023). 

Cheers,
Colin

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed" 
> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing 100/20 services today.

While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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. 

So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams. 

For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:

Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)

Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video streaming

Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k

Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams

So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.

Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023). 

Cheers,
Colin

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Spencer Sevilla]

Your comment about 4k HDR TVs got me thinking about the bandwidth “arms race” between infrastructure and its clients. It’s a particular pet peeve of mine that as any resource (bandwidth in this case, but the same can be said for memory) becomes more plentiful, software engineers respond by wasting it until it’s scarce enough to require optimization again. Feels like an awkward kind of malthusian inflation that ends up forcing us to buy newer/faster/better devices to perform the same basic functions, which haven’t changed almost at all.

I completely agree that no one “needs” 4K UHDR, but when we say this I think we generally mean as opposed to a slightly lower codec, like regular HDR or 1080p. In practice, I’d be willing to bet that there’s at least one poorly programmed TV out there that doesn’t downgrade well or at all, so the tradeoff becomes "4K UHDR or endless stuttering/buffering.” Under this (totally unnecessarily forced upon us!) paradigm, 4K UHDR feels a lot more necessary, or we’ve otherwise arms raced ourselves into a TV that can’t really stream anything. A technical downgrade from literally the 1960s.

See also: The endless march of “smart appliances” and TVs/gaming systems that require endless humongous software updates. My stove requires natural gas and 120VAC, and I like it that way. Other stoves require… how many Mbps to function regularly? Other food for thought, I wonder how increasing minimum broadband speed requirements across the country will encourage or discourage this behavior among network engineers. I sincerely don’t look forward to a future in which we all require 10Gbps to the house but can’t do much with it cause it’s all taken up by lightbulb software updates every evening /rant.

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:41, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed" 
>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing 100/20 services today.
> 
> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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. 
> 
> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams. 
> 
> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
> 
> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
> 
> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video streaming
> 
> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
> 
> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
> 
> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.
> 
> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023). 
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

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. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Sevilla 
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 3:54 PM
To: Colin_Higbie 
Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

Your comment about 4k HDR TVs got me thinking about the bandwidth “arms race” between infrastructure and its clients. It’s a particular pet peeve of mine that as any resource (bandwidth in this case, but the same can be said for memory) becomes more plentiful, software engineers respond by wasting it until it’s scarce enough to require optimization again. Feels like an awkward kind of malthusian inflation that ends up forcing us to buy newer/faster/better devices to perform the same basic functions, which haven’t changed almost at all.

I completely agree that no one “needs” 4K UHDR, but when we say this I think we generally mean as opposed to a slightly lower codec, like regular HDR or 1080p. In practice, I’d be willing to bet that there’s at least one poorly programmed TV out there that doesn’t downgrade well or at all, so the tradeoff becomes "4K UHDR or endless stuttering/buffering.” Under this (totally unnecessarily forced upon us!) paradigm, 4K UHDR feels a lot more necessary, or we’ve otherwise arms raced ourselves into a TV that can’t really stream anything. A technical downgrade from literally the 1960s.

See also: The endless march of “smart appliances” and TVs/gaming systems that require endless humongous software updates. My stove requires natural gas and 120VAC, and I like it that way. Other stoves require… how many Mbps to function regularly? Other food for thought, I wonder how increasing minimum broadband speed requirements across the country will encourage or discourage this behavior among network engineers. I sincerely don’t look forward to a future in which we all require 10Gbps to the house but can’t do much with it cause it’s all taken up by lightbulb software updates every evening /rant.

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:41, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed" 
>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing 100/20 services today.
> 
> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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. 
> 
> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams. 
> 
> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
> 
> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency 
> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for 
> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down 
> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be 
> able to tell the difference)
> 
> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
> streaming
> 
> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
> 
> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, 
> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
> 
> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.
> 
> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023). 
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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.  8K is delivered from space 
already by a japanese provider, but not on IP.  So, if we discuss TV 
resolutions we should look at these (8K, 16K, and why not 3D 16K for 
ever more strength testing).

Second, 4K etc. are for TV.  In TV the latency is rarely if ever an 
issue.  There are some rare cases where latency is very important in TV 
(I could think of betting in sports, time synch of clocks) but they dont 
look at such low latency as in our typical visioconference or remote 
surgery or group music playing use-cases on Internet starlink.

So, I dont know how much 4K, 8K, 16K might be imposing any new latency 
requirement on starlink.

Alex

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Sevilla
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 3:54 PM
> To: Colin_Higbie
> Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>
> Your comment about 4k HDR TVs got me thinking about the bandwidth “arms race” between infrastructure and its clients. It’s a particular pet peeve of mine that as any resource (bandwidth in this case, but the same can be said for memory) becomes more plentiful, software engineers respond by wasting it until it’s scarce enough to require optimization again. Feels like an awkward kind of malthusian inflation that ends up forcing us to buy newer/faster/better devices to perform the same basic functions, which haven’t changed almost at all.
>
> I completely agree that no one “needs” 4K UHDR, but when we say this I think we generally mean as opposed to a slightly lower codec, like regular HDR or 1080p. In practice, I’d be willing to bet that there’s at least one poorly programmed TV out there that doesn’t downgrade well or at all, so the tradeoff becomes "4K UHDR or endless stuttering/buffering.” Under this (totally unnecessarily forced upon us!) paradigm, 4K UHDR feels a lot more necessary, or we’ve otherwise arms raced ourselves into a TV that can’t really stream anything. A technical downgrade from literally the 1960s.
>
> See also: The endless march of “smart appliances” and TVs/gaming systems that require endless humongous software updates. My stove requires natural gas and 120VAC, and I like it that way. Other stoves require… how many Mbps to function regularly? Other food for thought, I wonder how increasing minimum broadband speed requirements across the country will encourage or discourage this behavior among network engineers. I sincerely don’t look forward to a future in which we all require 10Gbps to the house but can’t do much with it cause it’s all taken up by lightbulb software updates every evening /rant.
>
>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:41, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed"
>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing 100/20 services today.
>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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.
>>
>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>
>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>
>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down
>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be
>> able to tell the difference)
>>
>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>> streaming
>>
>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>
>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing,
>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>
>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.
>>
>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

I retract the message, sorry, it is true that some teleoperation and 
visioconf also use 4K. So the latency is important there too.

A visioconf with 8K and 3D 16K might need latency reqs too.

Le 16/03/2024 à 18:18, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a écrit :
>
> 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.  8K is delivered from 
> space already by a japanese provider, but not on IP.  So, if we 
> discuss TV resolutions we should look at these (8K, 16K, and why not 
> 3D 16K for ever more strength testing).
>
> Second, 4K etc. are for TV.  In TV the latency is rarely if ever an 
> issue.  There are some rare cases where latency is very important in 
> TV (I could think of betting in sports, time synch of clocks) but they 
> dont look at such low latency as in our typical visioconference or 
> remote surgery or group music playing use-cases on Internet starlink.
>
> So, I dont know how much 4K, 8K, 16K might be imposing any new latency 
> requirement on starlink.
>
> Alex
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Spencer Sevilla
>> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 3:54 PM
>> To: Colin_Higbie
>> Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>
>> Your comment about 4k HDR TVs got me thinking about the bandwidth 
>> “arms race” between infrastructure and its clients. It’s a particular 
>> pet peeve of mine that as any resource (bandwidth in this case, but 
>> the same can be said for memory) becomes more plentiful, software 
>> engineers respond by wasting it until it’s scarce enough to require 
>> optimization again. Feels like an awkward kind of malthusian 
>> inflation that ends up forcing us to buy newer/faster/better devices 
>> to perform the same basic functions, which haven’t changed almost at 
>> all.
>>
>> I completely agree that no one “needs” 4K UHDR, but when we say this 
>> I think we generally mean as opposed to a slightly lower codec, like 
>> regular HDR or 1080p. In practice, I’d be willing to bet that there’s 
>> at least one poorly programmed TV out there that doesn’t downgrade 
>> well or at all, so the tradeoff becomes "4K UHDR or endless 
>> stuttering/buffering.” Under this (totally unnecessarily forced upon 
>> us!) paradigm, 4K UHDR feels a lot more necessary, or we’ve otherwise 
>> arms raced ourselves into a TV that can’t really stream anything. A 
>> technical downgrade from literally the 1960s.
>>
>> See also: The endless march of “smart appliances” and TVs/gaming 
>> systems that require endless humongous software updates. My stove 
>> requires natural gas and 120VAC, and I like it that way. Other stoves 
>> require… how many Mbps to function regularly? Other food for thought, 
>> I wonder how increasing minimum broadband speed requirements across 
>> the country will encourage or discourage this behavior among network 
>> engineers. I sincerely don’t look forward to a future in which we all 
>> require 10Gbps to the house but can’t do much with it cause it’s all 
>> taken up by lightbulb software updates every evening /rant.
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:41, Colin_Higbie via Starlink 
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download 
>>>> "speed"
>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing 
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 
>>> 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K 
>>> users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>
>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my 
>>> own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care 
>>> about:
>>>
>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down
>>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be
>>> able to tell the difference)
>>>
>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>> streaming
>>>
>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>
>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing,
>>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>>
>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 
>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Sebastian Moeller]

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....

> 8K is delivered from space already by a japanese provider, but not on IP.  So, if we discuss TV resolutions we should look at these (8K, 16K, and why not 3D 16K for ever more strength testing).

[SM] This might work as a gimmick for marketing, but if 16K does not deliver clearly superior experience why bother putting in the extra effort and energy (and storage size and network capacity) to actually deliver something like that?

> 
> Second, 4K etc. are for TV.  In TV the latency is rarely if ever an issue.  There are some rare cases where latency is very important in TV (I could think of betting in sports, time synch of clocks) but they dont look at such low latency as in our typical visioconference or remote surgery

[SM] Can we please bury this example please, "remote surgery" over the best effort internet, is really really a stupid idea, or something that should only ever be attempted as the very last effort. As a society we already failed if we need to rely somthing like that.


> or group music playing use-cases

[SM] That IMHO is a great example for a realistic low latency use-case (exactly because the failure mode is not as catastrophic as in tele surgery, so this seems acceptable for a best effort network).


> on Internet starlink.
> 
> So, I dont know how much 4K, 8K, 16K might be imposing any new latency requirement on starlink.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Spencer Sevilla
>> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 3:54 PM
>> To: Colin_Higbie
>> Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> 
>> Your comment about 4k HDR TVs got me thinking about the bandwidth “arms race” between infrastructure and its clients. It’s a particular pet peeve of mine that as any resource (bandwidth in this case, but the same can be said for memory) becomes more plentiful, software engineers respond by wasting it until it’s scarce enough to require optimization again. Feels like an awkward kind of malthusian inflation that ends up forcing us to buy newer/faster/better devices to perform the same basic functions, which haven’t changed almost at all.
>> 
>> I completely agree that no one “needs” 4K UHDR, but when we say this I think we generally mean as opposed to a slightly lower codec, like regular HDR or 1080p. In practice, I’d be willing to bet that there’s at least one poorly programmed TV out there that doesn’t downgrade well or at all, so the tradeoff becomes "4K UHDR or endless stuttering/buffering.” Under this (totally unnecessarily forced upon us!) paradigm, 4K UHDR feels a lot more necessary, or we’ve otherwise arms raced ourselves into a TV that can’t really stream anything. A technical downgrade from literally the 1960s.
>> 
>> See also: The endless march of “smart appliances” and TVs/gaming systems that require endless humongous software updates. My stove requires natural gas and 120VAC, and I like it that way. Other stoves require… how many Mbps to function regularly? Other food for thought, I wonder how increasing minimum broadband speed requirements across the country will encourage or discourage this behavior among network engineers. I sincerely don’t look forward to a future in which we all require 10Gbps to the house but can’t do much with it cause it’s all taken up by lightbulb software updates every evening /rant.
>> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:41, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed"
>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing 100/20 services today.
>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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.
>>> 
>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>> 
>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>> 
>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down
>>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be
>>> able to tell the difference)
>>> 
>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>> streaming
>>> 
>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>> 
>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing,
>>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>> 
>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.
>>> 
>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- 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

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 6025 bytes --]

one person's 'wasteful resolution' is another person's 'large enhancement'

going from 1080p to 4k video is not being wasteful, it's opting to use the 
bandwidth in a different way.

saying that it's wasteful for someone to choose to do something is saying that 
you know better what their priorities should be.

I agree that increasing resources allow programmers to be lazier and write apps 
that are bigger, but they are also writing them in less time.

What right do you have to say that the programmer's time is less important than 
the ram/bandwidth used?

I agree that it would be nice to have more people write better code, but 
everything, including this, has trade-offs.

David Lang

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Spencer Sevilla via Starlink wrote:

> Your comment about 4k HDR TVs got me thinking about the bandwidth “arms race” between infrastructure and its clients. It’s a particular pet peeve of mine that as any resource (bandwidth in this case, but the same can be said for memory) becomes more plentiful, software engineers respond by wasting it until it’s scarce enough to require optimization again. Feels like an awkward kind of malthusian inflation that ends up forcing us to buy newer/faster/better devices to perform the same basic functions, which haven’t changed almost at all.
>
> I completely agree that no one “needs” 4K UHDR, but when we say this I think we generally mean as opposed to a slightly lower codec, like regular HDR or 1080p. In practice, I’d be willing to bet that there’s at least one poorly programmed TV out there that doesn’t downgrade well or at all, so the tradeoff becomes "4K UHDR or endless stuttering/buffering.” Under this (totally unnecessarily forced upon us!) paradigm, 4K UHDR feels a lot more necessary, or we’ve otherwise arms raced ourselves into a TV that can’t really stream anything. A technical downgrade from literally the 1960s.
>
> See also: The endless march of “smart appliances” and TVs/gaming systems that require endless humongous software updates. My stove requires natural gas and 120VAC, and I like it that way. Other stoves require… how many Mbps to function regularly? Other food for thought, I wonder how increasing minimum broadband speed requirements across the country will encourage or discourage this behavior among network engineers. I sincerely don’t look forward to a future in which we all require 10Gbps to the house but can’t do much with it cause it’s all taken up by lightbulb software updates every evening /rant.
>
>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:41, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed" 
>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing 100/20 services today.
>> 
>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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. 
>> 
>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams. 
>> 
>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>> 
>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>> 
>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video streaming
>> 
>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>> 
>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>> 
>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.
>> 
>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023). 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

Beautifully said, David Lang. I completely agree.

At the same time, I do think if you give people tools where latency is rarely an issue (say a 10x improvement, so perception of 1/10 the latency), developers will be less efficient UNTIL that inefficiency begins to yield poor UX. For example, if I know I can rely on latency being 10ms and users don't care until total lag exceeds 500ms, I might design something that uses a lot of back-and-forth between client and server. As long as there are fewer than 50 iterations (500 / 10), users will be happy. But if I need to do 100 iterations to get the result, then I'll do some bundling of the operations to keep the total observable lag at or below that 500ms. 

I remember programming computer games in the 1980s and the typical RAM users had increased. Before that, I had to contort my code to get it to run in 32kB. After the increase, I could stretch out and use 48kB and stop wasting time shoehorning my code or loading-in segments from floppy disk into the limited RAM. To your point: yes, this made things faster for me as a developer, just as the latency improvements ease the burden on the client-server application developer who needs to ensure a maximum lag below 500ms.

In terms of user experience (UX), I think of there as being "good enough" plateaus based on different use-cases. For example, when web browsing, even 1,000ms of latency is barely noticeable. So any web browser application that comes in under 1,000ms will be "good enough." For VoIP, the "good enough" figure is probably more like 100ms. For video conferencing, maybe it's 80ms (the ability to see the person's facial expression likely increases the expectation of reactions and reduces the tolerance for lag). For some forms of cloud gaming, the "good enough" figure may be as low as 5ms. 

That's not to say that 20ms isn't better for VoIP than 100 or 500ms isn't better than 1,000 for web browsing, just that the value for each further incremental reduction in latency drops significantly once you get to that good-enough point. However, those further improvements may open entirely new applications, such as enabling VoIP where before maybe it was only "good enough" for web browsing (think geosynchronous satellites).

In other words, more important than just chasing ever lower latency, it's important to provide SUFFICIENTLY LOW latency for users to perform their intended applications. Getting even lower is still great for opening things up to new applications we never considered before, just like faster CPU's, more RAM, better graphics, etc. have always done since the first computer. But if we're talking about measuring what people need today, this can be done fairly easily based on intended applications. 

Bandwidth scales a little differently. There's still a "good enough" level driven by time for a web page to load of about 5s (as web pages become ever more complex and dynamic, this means that bandwidth needs increase), 1Mbps for VoIP, 7Mbps UL/DL for video conferencing, 20Mbps DL for 4K streaming, etc. In addition, there's also a linear scaling to the number of concurrent users. If 1 user needs 15Mbps to stream 4K, 3 users in the household will need about 45Mbps to all stream 4K at the same time, a very real-world scenario at 7pm in a home. This differs from the latency hit of multiple users. I don't know how latency is affected by users, but I know if it's 20ms with 1 user, it's NOT 40ms with 2 users, 60ms with 3, etc. With the bufferbloat improvements created and put forward by members of this group, I think latency doesn't increase by much with multiple concurrent streams.

So all taken together, there can be fairly straightforward descriptions of latency and bandwidth based on expected usage. These are not mysterious attributes. It can be easily calculated per user based on expected use cases. 

Cheers,
Colin

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm> 
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 7:08 PM
To: Spencer Sevilla <spencer.builds.networks@gmail.com>
Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>; Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

one person's 'wasteful resolution' is another person's 'large enhancement'

going from 1080p to 4k video is not being wasteful, it's opting to use the bandwidth in a different way.

saying that it's wasteful for someone to choose to do something is saying that you know better what their priorities should be.

I agree that increasing resources allow programmers to be lazier and write apps that are bigger, but they are also writing them in less time.

What right do you have to say that the programmer's time is less important than the ram/bandwidth used?

I agree that it would be nice to have more people write better code, but everything, including this, has trade-offs.

David Lang

Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

[Sebastian Moeller]

> On 16. Mar 2024, at 19:45, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Beautifully said, David Lang. I completely agree.
> 
> At the same time, I do think if you give people tools where latency is rarely an issue (say a 10x improvement, so perception of 1/10 the latency), developers will be less efficient UNTIL that inefficiency begins to yield poor UX. For example, if I know I can rely on latency being 10ms and users don't care until total lag exceeds 500ms, I might design something that uses a lot of back-and-forth between client and server. As long as there are fewer than 50 iterations (500 / 10), users will be happy. But if I need to do 100 iterations to get the result, then I'll do some bundling of the operations to keep the total observable lag at or below that 500ms. 
> 
> I remember programming computer games in the 1980s and the typical RAM users had increased. Before that, I had to contort my code to get it to run in 32kB. After the increase, I could stretch out and use 48kB and stop wasting time shoehorning my code or loading-in segments from floppy disk into the limited RAM. To your point: yes, this made things faster for me as a developer, just as the latency improvements ease the burden on the client-server application developer who needs to ensure a maximum lag below 500ms.
> 
> In terms of user experience (UX), I think of there as being "good enough" plateaus based on different use-cases. For example, when web browsing, even 1,000ms of latency is barely noticeable. So any web browser application that comes in under 1,000ms will be "good enough." For VoIP, the "good enough" figure is probably more like 100ms. For video conferencing, maybe it's 80ms (the ability to see the person's facial expression likely increases the expectation of reactions and reduces the tolerance for lag). For some forms of cloud gaming, the "good enough" figure may be as low as 5ms. 
> 
> That's not to say that 20ms isn't better for VoIP than 100 or 500ms isn't better than 1,000 for web browsing, just that the value for each further incremental reduction in latency drops significantly once you get to that good-enough point. However, those further improvements may open entirely new applications, such as enabling VoIP where before maybe it was only "good enough" for web browsing (think geosynchronous satellites).
> 
> In other words, more important than just chasing ever lower latency, it's important to provide SUFFICIENTLY LOW latency for users to perform their intended applications. Getting even lower is still great for opening things up to new applications we never considered before, just like faster CPU's, more RAM, better graphics, etc. have always done since the first computer. But if we're talking about measuring what people need today, this can be done fairly easily based on intended applications. 
> 
> Bandwidth scales a little differently. There's still a "good enough" level driven by time for a web page to load of about 5s (as web pages become ever more complex and dynamic, this means that bandwidth needs increase), 1Mbps for VoIP, 7Mbps UL/DL for video conferencing, 20Mbps DL for 4K streaming, etc. In addition, there's also a linear scaling to the number of concurrent users. If 1 user needs 15Mbps to stream 4K, 3 users in the household will need about 45Mbps to all stream 4K at the same time, a very real-world scenario at 7pm in a home. This differs from the latency hit of multiple users. I don't know how latency is affected by users, but I know if it's 20ms with 1 user, it's NOT 40ms with 2 users, 60ms with 3, etc. With the bufferbloat improvements created and put forward by members of this group, I think latency doesn't increase by much with multiple concurrent streams.
> 
> So all taken together, there can be fairly straightforward descriptions of latency and bandwidth based on expected usage. These are not mysterious attributes. It can be easily calculated per user based on expected use cases.

Well, for most applications there is an absolute lower capacity limit below which it does not work, and for most there is also an upper limit beyond which any additional capacity will not result in noticeable improvements. Latency tends to work differently, instead of a hard cliff there tends to be a slow increasing degradation...
And latency over the internet is never guaranteed, just as network paths outside a single AS rarely are guaranteed... 
Now for different applications there are different amounts of delay that users find acceptable, for reaction time gates games this will be lower, for correspondence chess with one move per day this will be higher. Conceptually this can be thought of as a latency budget that one can spend on different components (access latency, transport latency, latency variation buffers...), and and latency in the immediate access network will eat into this budget irrevocably ... and that e.g. restricts the "conus" of the world that can be reached/communicated within the latency budget. But due to the lack of a hard cliff, it is always easy to argue that any latency number is good enough and hard to claim that any random latency number is too large.

Regards
Sebastian




> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm> 
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 7:08 PM
> To: Spencer Sevilla <spencer.builds.networks@gmail.com>
> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>; Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
> 
> one person's 'wasteful resolution' is another person's 'large enhancement'
> 
> going from 1080p to 4k video is not being wasteful, it's opting to use the bandwidth in a different way.
> 
> saying that it's wasteful for someone to choose to do something is saying that you know better what their priorities should be.
> 
> I agree that increasing resources allow programmers to be lazier and write apps that are bigger, but they are also writing them in less time.
> 
> What right do you have to say that the programmer's time is less important than the ram/bandwidth used?
> 
> I agree that it would be nice to have more people write better code, but everything, including this, has trade-offs.
> 
> David Lang
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

Sebastian,

Not sure if we're saying the same thing here or not. While I would agree with the statement that all else being equal, lower latency is always better than higher latency, there are definitely latency (and bandwidth) requirements, where if the latency is higher (or the bandwidth lower) than those requirements, the application becomes non-viable. That's what I mean when I say it falls short of being "good enough."

For example, you cannot have a pleasant phone call with someone if latency exceeds 1s. Yes, the call may go through, but it's a miserable UX. For VoIP, I would suggest the latency ceiling, even under load, is 100ms. That's a bit arbitrary and I'd accept any number roughly in that ballpark. If a provider's latency gets worse than that for more than a few percent of packets, then that provider should not be able to claim that their Internet supports VoIP.

If the goal is to ensure that Internet providers, including Starlink, are going to provide Internet to meet the needs of users, it is essential to understand the good-enough levels for the expected use cases of those users. 

And we can do that based on the most common end-user applications:

Web browsing
VoIP
Video Conferencing
HD Streaming
4K HDR Streaming
Typical Gaming
Competitive Gaming
And maybe throw in to help users: time to DL and UL a 1GB file

Similarly, if we're going to evaluate the merits of government policy for defining latency and bandwidth requirements to qualify for earning taxpayer support, that comes down essentially to understanding those good-enough levels. 

Cheers,
Colin

-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> 
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 3:10 PM
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>; Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

>...

Well, for most applications there is an absolute lower capacity limit below which it does not work, and for most there is also an upper limit beyond which any additional capacity will not result in noticeable improvements. Latency tends to work differently, instead of a hard cliff there tends to be a slow increasing degradation...
And latency over the internet is never guaranteed, just as network paths outside a single AS rarely are guaranteed... 
Now for different applications there are different amounts of delay that users find acceptable, for reaction time gates games this will be lower, for correspondence chess with one move per day this will be higher. Conceptually this can be thought of as a latency budget that one can spend on different components (access latency, transport latency, latency variation buffers...), and and latency in the immediate access network will eat into this budget irrevocably ... and that e.g. restricts the "conus" of the world that can be reached/communicated within the latency budget. But due to the lack of a hard cliff, it is always easy to argue that any latency number is good enough and hard to claim that any random latency number is too large.

Regards
Sebastian

Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Colin,


> On 16. Mar 2024, at 20:26, Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name> wrote:
> 
> Sebastian,
> 
> Not sure if we're saying the same thing here or not. While I would agree with the statement that all else being equal, lower latency is always better than higher latency, there are definitely latency (and bandwidth) requirements, where if the latency is higher (or the bandwidth lower) than those requirements, the application becomes non-viable. That's what I mean when I say it falls short of being "good enough."
> 
> For example, you cannot have a pleasant phone call with someone if latency exceeds 1s. Yes, the call may go through, but it's a miserable UX.

[SM] That is my point, miserable but still funktional, while running a 100Kbps constant bitrate VoIP stream over a 50 Kbps link where the loss will make thinks completely imperceivable...


> For VoIP, I would suggest the latency ceiling, even under load, is 100ms. That's a bit arbitrary and I'd accept any number roughly in that ballpark. If a provider's latency gets worse than that for more than a few percent of packets, then that provider should not be able to claim that their Internet supports VoIP.

[SM] Interestingly the ITU claims that one way mouth-to-ear delay up to 200ms (aka 400ms RTT) results in very satisfied and up to 300ms OWD in satisfied telephony customers (ITU-T Rec. G.114 (05/2003)). That is considerably above your 100ms RTT. Now, I am still trying to find the actual psychophysics studies the ITU used to come to that conclusion (as I do not believe the numbers are showing what they are claimed to show), but policy makers still look at these numbers an take them as valid references.


> If the goal is to ensure that Internet providers, including Starlink, are going to provide Internet to meet the needs of users, it is essential to understand the good-enough levels for the expected use cases of those users. 
> 
> And we can do that based on the most common end-user applications:
> 
> Web browsing
> VoIP
> Video Conferencing
> HD Streaming
> 4K HDR Streaming
> Typical Gaming
> Competitive Gaming
> And maybe throw in to help users: time to DL and UL a 1GB file

[SM] Only if we think of latency as a budget, if I can competitively play with a latency up to 100ms, any millisecond of delay I am spending on the access link is not going to restrict my "cone" of players I can match radius with by approximately 100Km...


> Similarly, if we're going to evaluate the merits of government policy for defining latency and bandwidth requirements to qualify for earning taxpayer support, that comes down essentially to understanding those good-enough levels.

[SM] Here is the rub, for 100 Kbps VoIP it is pretty simple to understand that it needs capacity >= 100 Kbps, but if competitive gaming needs an RTT <= 100 ms, what is an ecceptable split between access link and distance?


> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> 
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 3:10 PM
> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>; Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
> 
>> ...
> 
> Well, for most applications there is an absolute lower capacity limit below which it does not work, and for most there is also an upper limit beyond which any additional capacity will not result in noticeable improvements. Latency tends to work differently, instead of a hard cliff there tends to be a slow increasing degradation...
> And latency over the internet is never guaranteed, just as network paths outside a single AS rarely are guaranteed... 
> Now for different applications there are different amounts of delay that users find acceptable, for reaction time gates games this will be lower, for correspondence chess with one move per day this will be higher. Conceptually this can be thought of as a latency budget that one can spend on different components (access latency, transport latency, latency variation buffers...), and and latency in the immediate access network will eat into this budget irrevocably ... and that e.g. restricts the "conus" of the world that can be reached/communicated within the latency budget. But due to the lack of a hard cliff, it is always easy to argue that any latency number is good enough and hard to claim that any random latency number is too large.
> 
> Regards
> Sebastian
> 
> 

Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:

> At the same time, I do think if you give people tools where latency is rarely 
> an issue (say a 10x improvement, so perception of 1/10 the latency), 
> developers will be less efficient UNTIL that inefficiency begins to yield poor 
> UX. For example, if I know I can rely on latency being 10ms and users don't 
> care until total lag exceeds 500ms, I might design something that uses a lot 
> of back-and-forth between client and server. As long as there are fewer than 
> 50 iterations (500 / 10), users will be happy. But if I need to do 100 
> iterations to get the result, then I'll do some bundling of the operations to 
> keep the total observable lag at or below that 500ms.

I don't think developers think about latency at all (as a general rule)

they develop and test over their local lan, and assume it will 'just work' over 
the Internet.

> In terms of user experience (UX), I think of there as being "good enough" 
> plateaus based on different use-cases. For example, when web browsing, even 
> 1,000ms of latency is barely noticeable. So any web browser application that 
> comes in under 1,000ms will be "good enough." For VoIP, the "good enough" 
> figure is probably more like 100ms. For video conferencing, maybe it's 80ms 
> (the ability to see the person's facial expression likely increases the 
> expectation of reactions and reduces the tolerance for lag). For some forms of 
> cloud gaming, the "good enough" figure may be as low as 5ms.

1 second for the page to load is acceptable (ot nice), but one second delay in 
reacting to a clip is unacceptable.

As I understand it, below 100ms is considered 'instantanious response' for most 
people.

> That's not to say that 20ms isn't better for VoIP than 100 or 500ms isn't 
> better than 1,000 for web browsing, just that the value for each further 
> incremental reduction in latency drops significantly once you get to that 
> good-enough point. However, those further improvements may open entirely new 
> applications, such as enabling VoIP where before maybe it was only "good 
> enough" for web browsing (think geosynchronous satellites).

the problem is that latency stacks, you click on the web page, you do a dns 
lookup for the page, then a http request for the page contents, which triggers a 
http request for a css page, and possibly multiple dns/http requests for 
libraries

so a 100ms latency on the network can result in multiple second page load times 
for the user (even if all of the content ends up being cached already)

<snip a bunch of good discussion>

> So all taken together, there can be fairly straightforward descriptions of 
> latency and bandwidth based on expected usage. These are not mysterious 
> attributes. It can be easily calculated per user based on expected use cases.

however, the lag between new uses showing up and changes to the network driven 
by those new uses is multiple years long, so the network operators and engineers 
need to be proactive, not reactive.

don't wait until the users are complaining before upgrading bandwidth/latency

David Lang

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

David,

Just on that one point that you "don't think developers think about latency at all," what developers (en masse, and as managed by their employers) care about is the user experience. If they don't think latency is an important part of the UX, then indeed they won't think about it. However, if latency is vital to the UX, such as in gaming or voice and video calling, it will be a focus. 

Standard QA will include use cases that they believe reflect the majority of their users. We have done testing with artificially high latencies to simulate geosynchronous satellite users, back when they represented a notable portion of our userbase. They no longer do (thanks to services like Starlink and recent proliferation of FTTH and even continued spreading of slower cable and DSL availability into more rural areas), so we no longer include those high latencies in our testing. This does indeed mean that our services will probably become less tolerant of higher latencies (and if we still have any geosynchronous satellite customers, they may resent this possible degradation in service). Some could call this lazy on our part, but it's just doing what's cost effective for most of our users. 

I'm estimating, but I think probably about 3 sigma of our users have typical latency (unloaded) of under 120ms. You or others on this list probably know better than I what fraction of our users will suffer severe enough bufferbloat to push a perceptible % of their transactions beyond 200ms. 

Fortunately, in our case, even high latency shouldn't be too terrible, but as you rightly point out, if there are many iterations, 1s minimum latency could yield a several second lag, which would be poor UX for almost any application. Since we're no longer testing for that on the premise that 1s minimum latency is no longer a common real-world scenario, it's possible those painful lags could creep into our system without our knowledge.

This is rational and what we should expect and want application and solution developers to do. We would not want developers to spend time, and thereby increase costs, focusing on areas that are not particularly important to their users and customers. 

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm> 
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 7:06 PM
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: RE: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:

> At the same time, I do think if you give people tools where latency is 
> rarely an issue (say a 10x improvement, so perception of 1/10 the 
> latency), developers will be less efficient UNTIL that inefficiency 
> begins to yield poor UX. For example, if I know I can rely on latency 
> being 10ms and users don't care until total lag exceeds 500ms, I might 
> design something that uses a lot of back-and-forth between client and 
> server. As long as there are fewer than
> 50 iterations (500 / 10), users will be happy. But if I need to do 100 
> iterations to get the result, then I'll do some bundling of the 
> operations to keep the total observable lag at or below that 500ms.

I don't think developers think about latency at all (as a general rule)

[Starlink] Sidebar to It’s the Latency, FCC: Measure it?

[Dave Collier-Brown]

On 2024-03-17 11:47, Colin_Higbie via Starlink wrote:

> Fortunately, in our case, even high latency shouldn't be too terrible, but as you rightly point out, if there are many iterations, 1s minimum latency could yield a several second lag, which would be poor UX for almost any application. Since we're no longer testing for that on the premise that 1s minimum latency is no longer a common real-world scenario, it's possible those painful lags could creep into our system without our knowledge.

Does that suggest that you should have an easy way to see if you're
unexpectedly delivering a slow service? A tool that reports your RTT to
customers and an alert on it being high for a significant period might
be something all ISPs want, even ones like mine, who just want it to be
able to tell a customer "you don't have a network problem" (;-))

And the FCC might find the data illuminating

--dave

--
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com |              -- Mark Twain


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER : This telecommunication, including any and all attachments, contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and delete the message from your inbox and deleted items folders. This telecommunication does not constitute an express or implied agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means, nor does it constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment or an acceptance of a contract offer. Contract terms contained in this telecommunication are subject to legal review and the completion of formal documentation and are not binding until same is confirmed in writing and has been signed by an authorized signatory.

Re: [Starlink] It?s the Latency, FCC

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 04:07:54PM -0700, David Lang via Starlink wrote:
> What right do you have to say that the programmer's time is less important
> than the ram/bandwidth used?

A single computer programmer saving some two hours in not optimizing code,
costing 1 extra minute for each of a million of users.

Bad trade-off in lifetime well-spent.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer,
                                           Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: [Starlink] It?s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

if that one programmer's code is used by millions of users, you are correct, but 
if it's used by dozens of users, not so much.

David Lang

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 04:07:54PM -0700, David Lang via Starlink wrote:
>> What right do you have to say that the programmer's time is less important
>> than the ram/bandwidth used?
>
> A single computer programmer saving some two hours in not optimizing code,
> costing 1 extra minute for each of a million of users.
>
> Bad trade-off in lifetime well-spent.
>
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
>

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3755 bytes --]

hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't want to 
support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too much 
other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)

David Lang


On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:

> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> 
>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed"
>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to second, use,
>> once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I succeeding? I lost the 25/10
>> battle, and keep pointing at really terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses
>> for many existing 100/20 services today.
>
> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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.
>
> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>
> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>
> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some intensive gaming
> (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>
> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video streaming
>
> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>
> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>
> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.
>
> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming 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.

Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality the 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).

I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest 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.

It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest to 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.

Cheers,
Colin



-----Original Message-----
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm> 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't want to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)

David Lang


On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:

> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> 
>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed"
>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing 100/20 services today.
>
> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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.
>
> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>
> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>
> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency 
> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for 
> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down 
> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be 
> able to tell the difference)
>
> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
> streaming
>
> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>
> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, 
> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>
> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.
>
> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6673 bytes --]

Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)

David Lang

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:

> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
> 
> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming 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.
>
> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality the 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).
>
> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest 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.
>
> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest to 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>
> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't want to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)
>
> David Lang
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>
>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download "speed"
>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing 100/20 services today.
>>
>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how 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.
>>
>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20 would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>
>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>
>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down
>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be
>> able to tell the difference)
>>
>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>> streaming
>>
>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>
>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing,
>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>
>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have 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.
>>
>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Fernández]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6257 bytes --]

" there is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating video quality (at
least not one of which I’m aware"

What about ITU-T BT.500? https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.500
Well, AFAIK, Netflix invented VMAF because ITU methods are very expensive
to implement, not automated and PSNR was not good enough.

"I have no doubt that there exist today and will exist even more so in the
future superior compression that could lower the bitrate needed"
Yes, 25 Mbit/s is for HEVC (H.265), but the successor H.266 (VVC) is
already here and it reduces the data rate required by ~20%, but it seems
that Netflix may prefer AV1, which is between HEVC and VVC in terms of
performance.

Regards,

David F.

Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 15:22:04 +0000
From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
To: Nathan Owens <nathan@nathan.io>, Alexandre Petrescu
        <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>,
        "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID:
        <
MN2PR16MB3391A263E084AE9B74C2DE5FF11C2@MN2PR16MB3391.namprd16.prod.outlook.com
>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Nathan,

While you hit the point in your second paragraph, namely that Apple
REQUIRES 25Mbps (as do others of the major streaming services, including
Netflix today), your first paragraph misses it. It doesn’t matter what is
POSSIBLE (unless you have the ability to persuade all streaming services to
implement those technologies and ensure they work for the lion’s share of
installed end-user equipment and 4K HDR streams, in which case, well done
and I would agree that a lower bitrate is sufficient). The ONLY factor that
matters in terms of required bandwidth to be considered a fully capable ISP
service is what the market demands for the mainstream Internet services.
That is 25Mbps.

As the article you linked to points out, those lower bitrates are NOT for
4K HDR (10-bit color depth per pixel). For those, even in the authors’
chosen examples, and possibly only at 8-bit color (not clear), the article
claims to only get down to a low of about 17Mbps for the highest quality.
I’ve seen other reports that say anything below 20Mbps will occasionally
fail on particular complex scenes that don’t compress well. Add a little
bit of overhead or assume some additional traffic (an important
consideration, given the raison d’être of this group – reduce latency under
load from multiple streams), and you’re back to 25Mbps on needed bandwidth
to support multiple concurrent activities.

While I concede there is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating
video quality (at least not one of which I’m aware), I dislike that Y axis
(Quality) on their graphs has no metric, especially without a definition
for how they define quality – is it based on lost data, % of pixels
expressing compression artifacts, pixel color drift, or something else they
created for the purpose of making their case? I would say that NONE of the
photos shown constitute a good or excellent quality level, where all show
significant compression artifacts at the high-contrast boundaries. These
are distinct from natural focal problems with analog systems that are not
contrast-dependent. Further, these all appear to be relatively static
scenes with just a few small moving objects – the kinds of frames and
scenes that compress extremely well. Again, this is why we must look to the
market to determine what it needs, not individual proposals.

The article also acknowledges that the graph points represent the average,
meaning some frames are better and some are worse. This is bad because with
any lossy compression system, there is a (subjective) “good enough” level,
where values above that don’t add much, but frames that are worse will
stand out as bad. You can’t just watch the average – you’re forced to also
watch the bad frames. In real-world usage, these will be the frames during
high-speed image changes – explosions in action movies or a fast-panning
scene), often the times when preserving fidelity are most important (e.g.,
you lose track of the football during the fast pan downfield, or you really
want to see the detail in the X-wing fighters as the dogfight leads to
explosions around them).

Further, that article is really targeting mobile usage for cellular
bandwidth, where many of these viewing issues are fundamentally different
from the 65” living room TV. The mobile display may offer 120Hz, but
showing a movie or show at 30Hz (except for some sports) is still the
standard.

Now, to be fair, I have no doubt that there exist today and will exist even
more so in the future superior compression that could lower the bitrate
needed at any given resolution and quality level. The one described in the
article could be an important step in that direction. No doubt Netflix
already has multiple economic incentives to reduce required bandwidth –
their own bandwidth costs, which are a substantial % of their total
operating costs, access to customers who can’t get 25Mbps connections,
competition from other streaming services if they can claim that their
streams are less affected by what others in the house are doing or are
higher quality at any given bandwidth, etc. As noted above, however, that
is all moot unless all of the major streamers adopt comparable bandwidth
reduction technologies and ALSO that all major existing home equipment can
support it today (i.e., without requiring people replace their TV’s or
STB’s). Absent that, it’s just a technical novelty that may or may not take
hold, like Betamax videotapes or HD-DVD.

On the contrary, what we see today is that the major streaming services
REQUIRE users to have 25Mbps connections in order to offer the 4K HDR
streams. Yes, users can lie and may find they can watch most of the 4K
content they wish with only 20Mbps or in some cases 15Mbps connections, but
that’s clearly not a reason why an ISP should say, “We don’t need to offer
25Mbps for our customers to be able to access any major streaming service.”

Cheers,
Colin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7188 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Fernández]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2163 bytes --]

For " I dont know what MPEG codec is it, at what mbit/s speed" you may
check this:
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/2024-April/002706.html

From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>, Colin_Higbie
        <CHigbie1@higbie.name>
Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <298126c9-7854-47c5-a965-c0f89a855939@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"


Le 02/05/2024 à 21:50, Frantisek Borsik a écrit :
> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2999 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It's the Latency, FCC

[David Fernández]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4255 bytes --]

Recent video codecs are very efficient denoisers, removing film grain from
old movies, so they don't look like the originals when decoded (and
disappointing some people).

There are ideas for solving this going on, like characterizing the film
grain with a model with some parameters. Then, the model and its
parameters, not the actual pixels with the noise, are transmitted and
generated at the decoder. with a processing that will make them ressemble
the originals (without being exactly the originals).

That is somehow a kind of semantic communication, in which instead of the
actual information, you transmit the meaningful information, not the pixels
at bit resolution. I see it a bit like using vector graphics instead of
pixels for images (SVG vs. PNG), to be able to generate images of arbitrary
resolution from the meaningful info. This is a way of breaking Shanon
capacity limits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 13:48:37 +1200
From: Ulrich Speidel <u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz>
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <77d8f31e-860b-478e-8f93-30cb6e0730ac@auckland.ac.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

There's also the not-so-minor issue of video compression, which
generally has the effect of removing largely imperceptible detail from
your video frames so your high-res video will fit through the pipeline
you've got to squeeze it through.

But this is a bit of a snag in its own right, as I found out about two
decades ago when I was still amazed at the fact that you could use the
parsing algorithms underpinning universal data compression to get an
estimate of how much information a digital object (say, a CCD image
frame) contained. So I set about with two Japanese colleagues to look at
the reference image sequences that pretty much everyone used to
benchmark their video compressors against. One of the surprising finds
was that the odd-numbered frames in the sequences had a distinctly
different amount of information in them than the even-numbered ones, yet
you couldn't tell from looking at the frames.

We more or less came to the conclusion that the camera that had been
used to record the world's most commonly used reference video sequences
had added a small amount of random noise to every second image. - the
effect (and estimated information content) dropped noticeably when we
progressively dropped the least significant bits in the pixels. We
published this:

KAWAHARADA, K., OHZEKI, K., SPEIDEL, U. 'Information and Entropy
Measurements on Video Sequences', 5th International Conference on
Information, Communications and Signal Processing (ICICS2005), Bangkok,
6-9 December 2005, p.1150-1154, DOI 10.1109/ICICS.2005.1689234

Did the world take notice? Of course not. But it still amuses me no end
that some people spent entire careers trying to optimise the compression
of these image sequences - and all that because of an obscure hardware
flaw that the cameras which their algorithms ended up on may not have
even suffered from.

Which brings me back to the question of how important bandwidth is. The
answer is: probably more important in the future. We're currently
relying mostly on CDNs for video delivery, but I can't fail but notice
the progress that's being made by AI-based video generation. Four or
five years ago, Gen-AI could barely compose a credible image. A couple
of years ago, it could do video sequences of a few seconds. Now we're up
to videos in the minutes.

If that development is sustained, you'll be able to tell your personal
electronic assistant / spy to dream up a personalised movie, say an
operatic sci-fi Western with car chases on the Titanic floating in
space, and it'll have it generated in no time starring the actors you
like. ETA: Around 2030 maybe?

But these things will be (a) data-heavy and (b) aren't well suited for
CDN delivery because you may be the only one to every see a particular
movie, so you'll either need to move the movie generation to the edge,
or you need to build bigger pipes across the world. I'm not sure how
feasible either option is.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4957 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

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. 

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 – 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.

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.

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". 

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).

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.

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. From a pixel moving perspective, that would translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.

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.

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.

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.

So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed


Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
> Hi Colin,
> [...]
>
>> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Alex

>
>> 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"

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13079 bytes --]

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, 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.

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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.
>
> 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 – 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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. From a pixel moving perspective,
> that would translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP
> should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
> Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
> > Hi Colin,
> > [...]
> >
> >> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Alex
>
> >
> >> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15320 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15626 bytes --]


Le 02/05/2024 à 21:50, Frantisek Borsik a écrit :
> 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.
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM Colin_Higbie via Starlink 
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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.
>
>     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 – 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.
>
>     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.
>
>     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".
>
>     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).
>
>     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.
>
>     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. From
>     a pixel moving perspective, that would translate to 30fps at 8K
>     (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new
>     ISP should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Colin
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>
>     Today's Topics:
>
>        1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Message: 1
>     Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
>     From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>     To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>     Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>     Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
>     Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
>     > Hi Colin,
>     > [...]
>     >
>     >> 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.
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     Alex
>
>     >
>     >> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 22912 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Nathan Owens]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15992 bytes --]

You really don’t need 25Mbps for decent 4K quality - depends on the
content. Netflix has some encodes that go down to 1.8Mbps with a very high
VMAF:
https://netflixtechblog.com/optimized-shot-based-encodes-for-4k-now-streaming-47b516b10bbb

Apple TV has the highest bitrate encodes of any mainstream streaming
service, and those do top out at ~25Mbps. Could they be more efficient?
Probably…

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 7:19 AM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

>
> Le 02/05/2024 à 21:50, Frantisek Borsik a écrit :
>
> 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.
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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.
>>
>> 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 – 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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. From a pixel moving perspective,
>> that would translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP
>> should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
>> > Hi Colin,
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> >
>> >> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 23031 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5678 bytes --]

Nathan,

While you hit the point in your second paragraph, namely that Apple REQUIRES 25Mbps (as do others of the major streaming services, including Netflix today), your first paragraph misses it. It doesn’t matter what is POSSIBLE (unless you have the ability to persuade all streaming services to implement those technologies and ensure they work for the lion’s share of installed end-user equipment and 4K HDR streams, in which case, well done and I would agree that a lower bitrate is sufficient). The ONLY factor that matters in terms of required bandwidth to be considered a fully capable ISP service is what the market demands for the mainstream Internet services. That is 25Mbps.

As the article you linked to points out, those lower bitrates are NOT for 4K HDR (10-bit color depth per pixel). For those, even in the authors’ chosen examples, and possibly only at 8-bit color (not clear), the article claims to only get down to a low of about 17Mbps for the highest quality. I’ve seen other reports that say anything below 20Mbps will occasionally fail on particular complex scenes that don’t compress well. Add a little bit of overhead or assume some additional traffic (an important consideration, given the raison d’être of this group – reduce latency under load from multiple streams), and you’re back to 25Mbps on needed bandwidth to support multiple concurrent activities.

While I concede there is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating video quality (at least not one of which I’m aware), I dislike that Y axis (Quality) on their graphs has no metric, especially without a definition for how they define quality – is it based on lost data, % of pixels expressing compression artifacts, pixel color drift, or something else they created for the purpose of making their case? I would say that NONE of the photos shown constitute a good or excellent quality level, where all show significant compression artifacts at the high-contrast boundaries. These are distinct from natural focal problems with analog systems that are not contrast-dependent. Further, these all appear to be relatively static scenes with just a few small moving objects – the kinds of frames and scenes that compress extremely well. Again, this is why we must look to the market to determine what it needs, not individual proposals.

The article also acknowledges that the graph points represent the average, meaning some frames are better and some are worse. This is bad because with any lossy compression system, there is a (subjective) “good enough” level, where values above that don’t add much, but frames that are worse will stand out as bad. You can’t just watch the average – you’re forced to also watch the bad frames. In real-world usage, these will be the frames during high-speed image changes – explosions in action movies or a fast-panning scene), often the times when preserving fidelity are most important (e.g., you lose track of the football during the fast pan downfield, or you really want to see the detail in the X-wing fighters as the dogfight leads to explosions around them).

Further, that article is really targeting mobile usage for cellular bandwidth, where many of these viewing issues are fundamentally different from the 65” living room TV. The mobile display may offer 120Hz, but showing a movie or show at 30Hz (except for some sports) is still the standard.

Now, to be fair, I have no doubt that there exist today and will exist even more so in the future superior compression that could lower the bitrate needed at any given resolution and quality level. The one described in the article could be an important step in that direction. No doubt Netflix already has multiple economic incentives to reduce required bandwidth – their own bandwidth costs, which are a substantial % of their total operating costs, access to customers who can’t get 25Mbps connections, competition from other streaming services if they can claim that their streams are less affected by what others in the house are doing or are higher quality at any given bandwidth, etc. As noted above, however, that is all moot unless all of the major streamers adopt comparable bandwidth reduction technologies and ALSO that all major existing home equipment can support it today (i.e., without requiring people replace their TV’s or STB’s). Absent that, it’s just a technical novelty that may or may not take hold, like Betamax videotapes or HD-DVD.

On the contrary, what we see today is that the major streaming services REQUIRE users to have 25Mbps connections in order to offer the 4K HDR streams. Yes, users can lie and may find they can watch most of the 4K content they wish with only 20Mbps or in some cases 15Mbps connections, but that’s clearly not a reason why an ISP should say, “We don’t need to offer 25Mbps for our customers to be able to access any major streaming service.”

Cheers,
Colin

From: Nathan Owens <nathan@nathan.io>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 9:44 AM
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>; Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

You really don’t need 25Mbps for decent 4K quality - depends on the content. Netflix has some encodes that go down to 1.8Mbps with a very high VMAF:
https://netflixtechblog.com/optimized-shot-based-encodes-for-4k-now-streaming-47b516b10bbb

Apple TV has the highest bitrate encodes of any mainstream streaming service, and those do top out at ~25Mbps. Could they be more efficient? Probably…


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9564 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 23905 bytes --]

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, “This means that probably ISPs are inclined to do more than that 4K over the Internet, maybe 8K, to distinguish their service from DVB.”

ISP’s 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.

Again, I would feel like I’m 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: “- 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).”

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 ‘b’ = bits, capital ‘B’ = 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’t 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’s never a real-world problem.

Far more important, that’s all moot: what one person may WANT in terms of bandwidth or picture quality is completely irrelevant. THIS IS DICTATED BY THE MARKET. I don’t know if it’s because this is primarily an academic group that drives a reluctance here to accept the market as the definitive answer to what’s required, but if you’re 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.

Alex wrote: “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.”

This also doesn’t matter if there is no 8K content available from studios. That means it’s equivalent to the demo 8K, 12K, and 16K HDR content you can already stream from YouTube, which can (depending on motion of the scene – you’ll generally notice those high-resolution demos are brightly lit and very slow-moving) require more than 25Mbps, but that’s 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’s 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’s 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. The text and other HUD elements in games are also more susceptible to compression artifacts than TV/movie scenes, so they don’t 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’t personally believe there will be much market interest in 8K streaming in the next few years, because:


  1.  a viewer can’t tell the difference between 4K and 8K on a standard size television and normal view distances
  2.  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 – so that next Max Max movie, classically having most scenes recorded in very bright environments, might be a good example for an 8K movie
  3.  8K TV’s still cost quite a bit more than 4K TV’s 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]
  4.  For gaming, the esports players don’t particularly care about resolution, they care about refresh rates and latency, happily playing 1080p at 120+ FPS with a sub-10ms (they’d prefer sub-5ms) latency.
  5.  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’t use 8K, but just happen to live where high-speed Internet is readily available – 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’s a widely supported streaming standard like 4K, but that’s 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’t exist. I expect the next Xbox and PS6 will support 8K gaming.

Alex also wrote, “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.”

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). My point in pushing the 25Mbps floor for a new top-tier offering from an ISP (i.e., they may offer cheaper plans that don’t 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.

I’m sure all things being equal, with no change to cost, we’d all rather have more bandwidth and lower latency. 25Mbps is not great. It’s only enough for one 4K HDR stream plus some modest additional activity in the background. But it’s a sufficient minimum to do all the mainstream activities that the market provides over the Internet. And that’s the key.

- Colin





From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 7:19 AM
To: Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>; Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC



Le 02/05/2024 à 21:50, Frantisek Borsik a écrit :
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.

All the best,

Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
Skype: casioa5302ca
frantisek.borsik@gmail.com<mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>


On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> 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.

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 – 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.

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.

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".

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).

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.

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. From a pixel moving perspective, that would translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.

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.

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.

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.

So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 5:22 AM
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 38, Issue 13

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com<mailto:94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed


Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
> Hi Colin,
> [...]
>
>> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Alex

>
>> 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<mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 35409 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Sebastian Moeller]

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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> 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, “This means that probably ISPs are inclined to do more than that 4K over the Internet, maybe 8K, to distinguish their service from DVB.”
>  ISP’s 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’m 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: “- 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).”

[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) = 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 ‘b’ = bits, capital ‘B’ = 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’t 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’s never a real-world problem.  Far more important, that’s 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’t know if it’s because this is primarily an academic group that drives a reluctance here to accept the market as the definitive answer to what’s required, but if you’re 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 >= 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: “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.”
>  This also doesn’t 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’s equivalent to the demo 8K, 12K, and 16K HDR content you can already stream from YouTube, which can (depending on motion of the scene – you’ll generally notice those high-resolution demos are brightly lit and very slow-moving) require more than 25Mbps, but that’s 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’s 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’s 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’t 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’t personally believe there will be much market interest in 8K streaming in the next few years, because:
>  
>     • a viewer can’t 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.


>     • 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 – 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?

>     • 8K TV’s still cost quite a bit more than 4K TV’s

[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]
>     • For gaming, the esports players don’t particularly care about resolution, they care about refresh rates and latency, happily playing 1080p at 120+ FPS with a sub-10ms (they’d prefer sub-5ms) latency. 

[SM] I have no reliable numbers on this, but this sounds reasonable.

>     • 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’t use 8K, but just happen to live where high-speed Internet is readily available – 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’s 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’s 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’t 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, “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.”
>  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’t 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.  

[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’m sure all things being equal, with no change to cost, we’d all rather have more bandwidth and lower latency. 25Mbps is not great. It’s only enough for one 4K HDR stream plus some modest additional activity in the background. But it’s a sufficient minimum to do all the mainstream activities that the market provides over the Internet. And that’s the key.
>  - Colin
>      From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 7:19 AM
> To: Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>; Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>   Le 02/05/2024 à 21:50, Frantisek Borsik a écrit :
> 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.
> 
> All the best,
>  Frank
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>  https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>   On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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. 
> 
> 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 – 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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".
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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. From a pixel moving perspective, that would translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> 
> Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
> > Hi Colin,
> > [...]
> >
> >> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Alex
> 
> >
> >> 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

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

Sebastian,

You are, of course, correct that content providers have no contractual or other direct CONTROL over ISPs in terms of bandwidth. The term I've been using is that the MARKET dictates the bandwidth requirements an ISP must meet to be considered operating at a market-acceptable level. If that sounds like it's a self-fulfilling tautology, in a way it is. The market determines what it needs and all the players need to deliver what the market demands to be effective participants. That requirement can (and will) change over time, but at any given moment, to participate in the market as a serious player, the entrant must meet those market requirements, or recognize that they aren't a serious player relative to the competition.

It's the same thing in the commodity industry. If I grow corn or mine gold, I would have to meet, within a few percent, the specs of everyone else and sell it for the same price (or sell for a little bit less to massively out-earn my competitor providers, which results in the market price dropping for everyone). Far from a perfect analogy, of course, because a commodity is defined as a market where suppliers have no control over it, which is quite different from the semi-monopolistic market for ISP services. Still, it helps to illustrate the notion of market standard requirements.

I would say anyone who sells or releases products or defines go-to-market strategy in any industry would agree with the statement that the market dictates the minimum requirements for their industry. The market isn't any good at innovation (a realm where engineers and some academics shine), but it's the peerless best at establishing its own requirements. 

That doesn't mean someone can't come along and deliver less in particular cases: if customers are desperate with no alternatives or the alternatives are expensive in a certain region, those customers may accept a service that falls short of general market requirements because it's still better than their alternatives. 

But in order to provide market-standard service, ISPs need to meet the market standards on bandwidth just as much as on latency (and reliability and other features, e.g., market standard is a variable IP4 address – many of us may want a static IP#, but that's not a standard). And the market standard on bandwidth is established by the mainstream services that customers can get via the Internet. Those are set by the streaming services in the aggregate (not by any one company dictating it).

Note that they are NOT set in a vacuum. The streaming services have set 25Mbps because a significant enough portion of their customers already have access to 25Mbps or greater bandwidth, compression algorithms allow for 4K HDR to be delivered reliably within that 25Mbps bitrate, and movie and television studios have maxed out video resolutions and color depth at 4K HDR. No other popular service requires more bandwidth than 4K HDR video streaming, so that's the benchmark. The confluence of all these factors together have led to a market REQUIREMENT of 25Mbps. 

That required bitrate likely will increase in the future, but we can see that it will at least be years before 25Mbps will be a painful constraint for any one stream (if you have multiple family members who all need access to the same services at the same time, it's already too small), whether because eventually we will expect greater than 4K pictures, or maybe because game streaming becomes more popular (e.g., Xbox and PS consoles have a 6-8 year generation, by the end of which they seem terribly obsolete compared to their PC-gaming contemporaries; streaming would ensure gamers always have access to the latest tech), IoT takes off due to some unforeseen killer app, etc. Bandwidth needs will almost certainly increase, not decrease, over time, in spite of compression improvements. In fact, compression generally follows as needs grow faster with an assumed static capacity, so compression has never historically reduced bandwidth requirements, it just increases the quality of what can be done with existing bandwidth.

You also rightly point out that many customers don't do 4K. That's fine. And I have no objection to ISPs offering a lower bandwidth option at a lower price. What the market has definitively set is that in any region, at least in the U.S. (I know less about other parts of the world), a significant % of users will need 25Mbps service in order to access the mainstream streaming services. See above for reasoning. 

This is not debatable other than as an opinion (like saying chocolate is better than mint chip ice cream) as evidenced by the fact that ALL THE MAJOR STREAMING SERVICES are at the same place. Keep in mind that they compete with each other. If Disney thought that it could get a leg up on Netflix by saying we're better because we only require 10Mbps or 20Mbps for the same quality, they would promote that. This would give them a sales advantage over their archcompetitor in regions where bandwidths are limited. They don't because 25Mbps is market-set as the requirement. 

Again, by definition of what the market sets, it has set it.

While you are correct and I agree with you on the technical facets to this, I can't support your statement that there is "enough uncertainty" in the market. There is zero uncertainty for the reasons I have outlined above. I can drill much deeper into any of these if you like (as long as my overly-verbose emails are, they are just scratching the surface on all the reasons that can be provided), but be aware that the fact that not all customers have the same preferences is not a relevant factor. Of course, different customers have different preferences (and that's a good thing).

You asked about filming cameras and 4K vs 8K. Lens aberration is the primary concern as you get much above 4K. Original filming is done for TV now generally at HD or 4K. Movie production does tend to user higher (usually very expensive IMAX) cameras that are in the 8K area. But note that IMAX is taller (more square) than "normal" 21:9 or 16:9 cameras, so the total resolution is not as much higher as that sounds (i.e., IMAX 8K is less than four 4K images). On the film side, IMAX are said to produce up to an 12K digital equivalent. Beyond 12K, even in bright light with high-speed film, there is just too much lens aberration for more pixels to add anything to image quality. And in less than ideal lighting, especially with fast-moving scenes, the problems get worse. That is, the natural sharpness/blurriness to the image can't benefit from more pixels, because those extra pixels are just storing the blur, which does not provide any additional information.

Important industry point here though: in general (some possible occasional exceptions for Disney and Warner Bros Discovery (owns MAX) who are both movie studios and streaming services), the studios don't want home viewers to have access to picture quality as good as in theaters. 4K only became an option for home viewing as IMAX became popular for theaters. Now, to be fair, the delta in quality between home and theater have plummeted, so this argument may be fading, but these changes take time. Even if all movies were IMAX and showed 8K movies, many studios would do everything within their power to retain 8K as a theater-only experience. 

By 1K, do you mean HD - 1920x1080? If so, yeah, I strongly agree with you win that the big jump in quality up to HD. From HD to 4K is a much less noticeable jump (even 1080p from 720p is a more distinct jump than 1080p to 4K for most eyes on 65" TVs). What most people assume is the improvement between HD and 4K is actually the removal of compression artifacts. Typical cable and satellite TV channels are extremely compressed to save money in the transmission, losing a tremendous amount of data. For most of their channels, they throw out a lot more data than the streaming services (so HD Netflix looks better than HD SyFy channel). You will often see them prioritize some channels (less compression) at the expense of others (highly compressed, typically news or little-watched stations where picture quality matters less). 1080p HD can look fantastic when there are no or minimal compression artifacts. Most serious gamers game it 1080p NOT 4K, because that allows them to achieve 120+ fps, where almost every serious gamer will tell you that frames per second are more important than image quality, and 4K is a pointlessly high image quality. When they do go above 1080p, it's usually to 1440p, and only for games that can still hit at least 120fps at 1440. Many gamers prefer 240fps, but at that point, like going beyond 4K in terms of resolution, you're basically past what most human eyes can discern. (personally, I can't tell the difference between 120fps and 240fps, but younger eyes can). 

On 8K gaming, I do agree with your statement that even if it's included on both next-gen Xbox and PS6, I would not describe that as a "market requirement" in the way I describe 25Mbps for ISP bandwidth as a market requirement. In that case (assuming my prediction is correct, which it may not be), it would just be a high-end feature. Assuming next-gen Xbox and PS6 use the same technical requirements of the TV to get there, however, I would call it a standard, just not a market-required standard, YET.

Also, please note that an option anyone can address by going to the store and purchasing something (i.e, a new 8K TV) is different from the maximum available bandwidth from the ISP, which once established can't easily change in many cases for many, many years. If ISP XYZ builds-out new Internet capacity into a formerly unserved rural area at 20Mbps, they probably won't circle back to upgrade that for more than a decade. There is nothing those residents can do to fix the problem (well, they could get Starlink, but I mean there is nothing they can do with that ISP). It's the semi-permanent nature of the rollout that concerns me so much and why I say ISPs need to at least hit the market requirement in their top-tier offering, because if they don't, there's no solution for those customers with that ISP, and because many ISP's do have de facto regional monopolies, this is a serious problem.

Cheers,
Colin

-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 2:52 AM
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> 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, “This means that probably ISPs are inclined to do more than that 4K over the Internet, maybe 8K, to distinguish their service from DVB.”
>  ISP’s 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’m 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: “- 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).”

[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) = 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 ‘b’ = bits, capital ‘B’ = 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’t 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’s never a real-world problem.  Far more important, that’s 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’t know if it’s because this is primarily an academic group that drives a reluctance here to accept the market as the definitive answer to what’s required, but if you’re 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 >= 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: “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.”
>  This also doesn’t 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’s equivalent to the demo 8K, 12K, and 16K HDR content you can already stream from YouTube, which can (depending on motion of the scene – you’ll generally notice those high-resolution demos are brightly lit and very slow-moving) require more than 25Mbps, but that’s 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’s 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’s 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’t 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’t personally believe there will be much market interest in 8K streaming in the next few years, because:
>  
>     • a viewer can’t 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.


>     • 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 – 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?

>     • 8K TV’s still cost quite a bit more than 4K TV’s

[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]
>     • For gaming, the esports players don’t particularly care about resolution, they care about refresh rates and latency, happily playing 1080p at 120+ FPS with a sub-10ms (they’d prefer sub-5ms) latency. 

[SM] I have no reliable numbers on this, but this sounds reasonable.

>     • 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’t use 8K, but just happen to live where high-speed Internet is readily available – 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’s 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’s 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’t 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, “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.”
>  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’t 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.  

[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’m sure all things being equal, with no change to cost, we’d all rather have more bandwidth and lower latency. 25Mbps is not great. It’s only enough for one 4K HDR stream plus some modest additional activity in the background. But it’s a sufficient minimum to do all the mainstream activities that the market provides over the Internet. And that’s the key.
>  - Colin

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15274 bytes --]

There's also the not-so-minor issue of video compression, which 
generally has the effect of removing largely imperceptible detail from 
your video frames so your high-res video will fit through the pipeline 
you've got to squeeze it through.

But this is a bit of a snag in its own right, as I found out about two 
decades ago when I was still amazed at the fact that you could use the 
parsing algorithms underpinning universal data compression to get an 
estimate of how much information a digital object (say, a CCD image 
frame) contained. So I set about with two Japanese colleagues to look at 
the reference image sequences that pretty much everyone used to 
benchmark their video compressors against. One of the surprising finds 
was that the odd-numbered frames in the sequences had a distinctly 
different amount of information in them than the even-numbered ones, yet 
you couldn't tell from looking at the frames.

We more or less came to the conclusion that the camera that had been 
used to record the world's most commonly used reference video sequences 
had added a small amount of random noise to every second image. - the 
effect (and estimated information content) dropped noticeably when we 
progressively dropped the least significant bits in the pixels. We 
published this:

KAWAHARADA, K., OHZEKI, K., SPEIDEL, U. 'Information and Entropy 
Measurements on Video Sequences', 5th International Conference on 
Information, Communications and Signal Processing (ICICS2005), Bangkok, 
6-9 December 2005, p.1150-1154, DOI 10.1109/ICICS.2005.1689234

Did the world take notice? Of course not. But it still amuses me no end 
that some people spent entire careers trying to optimise the compression 
of these image sequences - and all that because of an obscure hardware 
flaw that the cameras which their algorithms ended up on may not have 
even suffered from.

Which brings me back to the question of how important bandwidth is. The 
answer is: probably more important in the future. We're currently 
relying mostly on CDNs for video delivery, but I can't fail but notice 
the progress that's being made by AI-based video generation. Four or 
five years ago, Gen-AI could barely compose a credible image. A couple 
of years ago, it could do video sequences of a few seconds. Now we're up 
to videos in the minutes.

If that development is sustained, you'll be able to tell your personal 
electronic assistant / spy to dream up a personalised movie, say an 
operatic sci-fi Western with car chases on the Titanic floating in 
space, and it'll have it generated in no time starring the actors you 
like. ETA: Around 2030 maybe?

But these things will be (a) data-heavy and (b) aren't well suited for 
CDN delivery because you may be the only one to every see a particular 
movie, so you'll either need to move the movie generation to the edge, 
or you need to build bigger pipes across the world. I'm not sure how 
feasible either option is.

On 3/05/2024 2:47 am, 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.
>
> 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 – 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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. From a pixel moving perspective, that would translate to 30fps 
> at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP 
> should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
> Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
> > Hi Colin,
> > [...]
> >
> >> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Alex
>
> >
> >> 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 
> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>

-- 
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18116 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Jeremy Austin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2447 bytes --]

Comments inline.

[image: Company logo] <https://preseem.com/>
*Jeremy Austin*
Sr. Product Manager
*Preseem | Aterlo Networks*
Book a call: https://app.hubspot.com/meetings/jeremy548
1-833-773-7336 ext 718 <18337737336718> *|* 1-907-803-5422 <19078035422>
jeremy@aterlo.com <email%7D>


On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 5:48 PM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

>
> Which brings me back to the question of how important bandwidth is. The
> answer is: probably more important in the future. We're currently relying
> mostly on CDNs for video delivery, but I can't fail but notice the progress
> that's being made by AI-based video generation. Four or five years ago,
> Gen-AI could barely compose a credible image. A couple of years ago, it
> could do video sequences of a few seconds. Now we're up to videos in the
> minutes.
>
> If that development is sustained, you'll be able to tell your personal
> electronic assistant / spy to dream up a personalised movie, say an
> operatic sci-fi Western with car chases on the Titanic floating in space,
> and it'll have it generated in no time starring the actors you like. ETA:
> Around 2030 maybe?
>
> But these things will be (a) data-heavy and (b) aren't well suited for CDN
> delivery because you may be the only one to every see a particular movie,
> so you'll either need to move the movie generation to the edge, or you need
> to build bigger pipes across the world. I'm not sure how feasible either
> option is.
>

<snip>

Why shouldn’t the advances in GPU, CPU and storage substitute for
bandwidth? Given how compact symbol libraries are today, why shouldn’t one
be able to generate this high quality, customized movie entirely locally,
streaming characters, backgrounds, and kinematics from a large library?
Preloading their library is how image generation, transcription, etc.
 works today. This surely must be less total real-time bandwidth than the
alternative, which pre-renders elsewhere. With each target customized,
there will be a little incentive to pre-render elsewhere.

Offset against this potential bandwidth savings — clearly the next step in,
say, audiobook generation — is that eventually we will want full
stereoscopic 360 environments a la Apple headsets. Plausibly this is in the
16k range at a minimum. The Vegas Sphere is approximately this resolution.

My $.02
Jeremy Austin

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6431 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 03/05/2024 à 03:48, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
>
> There's also the not-so-minor issue of video compression, which 
> generally has the effect of removing largely imperceptible detail from 
> your video frames so your high-res video will fit through the pipeline 
> you've got to squeeze it through.
>
> But this is a bit of a snag in its own right, as I found out about two 
> decades ago when I was still amazed at the fact that you could use the 
> parsing algorithms underpinning universal data compression to get an 
> estimate of how much information a digital object (say, a CCD image 
> frame) contained. So I set about with two Japanese colleagues to look 
> at the reference image sequences that pretty much everyone used to 
> benchmark their video compressors against. One of the surprising finds 
> was that the odd-numbered frames in the sequences had a distinctly 
> different amount of information in them than the even-numbered ones, 
> yet you couldn't tell from looking at the frames.
>
> We more or less came to the conclusion that the camera that had been 
> used to record the world's most commonly used reference video 
> sequences had added a small amount of random noise to every second 
> image. - the effect (and estimated information content) dropped 
> noticeably when we progressively dropped the least significant bits in 
> the pixels. We published this:
>
> KAWAHARADA, K., OHZEKI, K., SPEIDEL, U. 'Information and Entropy 
> Measurements on Video Sequences', 5th International Conference on 
> Information, Communications and Signal Processing (ICICS2005), 
> Bangkok, 6-9 December 2005, p.1150-1154, DOI 10.1109/ICICS.2005.1689234
>
> Did the world take notice? Of course not. But it still amuses me no 
> end that some people spent entire careers trying to optimise the 
> compression of these image sequences - and all that because of an 
> obscure hardware flaw that the cameras which their algorithms ended up 
> on may not have even suffered from.
>
> Which brings me back to the question of how important bandwidth is. 
> The answer is: probably more important in the future. We're currently 
> relying mostly on CDNs for video delivery, but I can't fail but notice 
> the progress that's being made by AI-based video generation. Four or 
> five years ago, Gen-AI could barely compose a credible image. A couple 
> of years ago, it could do video sequences of a few seconds. Now we're 
> up to videos in the minutes.
>
> If that development is sustained, you'll be able to tell your personal 
> electronic assistant / spy to dream up a personalised movie, say an 
> operatic sci-fi Western with car chases on the Titanic floating in 
> space, and it'll have it generated in no time starring the actors you 
> like. ETA: Around 2030 maybe?
>
For that ETA (estimated time of arrival), I would prepare to be ready in 
the more immediate, in the next couple of years, rather than in year 
2030, to see such easy accessibility to personalised movies.   It is 
already easy to generate presuasively-looking photos out of keywords; 
further, some organisations authoring text generation tools announced 
just recently they work towards goals of such video generation.

One great advantage of these generated pics, videos and text is that 
they are easily liked by many of us: the color balance, the softness of 
sound, the great text rolling, make it that myself too are very inclined 
to digest them very easily, and to even like them more than content 
recording reality.  To such a point to prefer them to the reality, or 
even believe that generated content are a genuine expression of reality.

To distinguish what is generated from what is recorded from reality will 
become more and more of a challenge.  It is a challenge for all in the 
chain of distribution, not just for consumers.

To give an example of imediateness from this starlink list, sorry if I 
disgress: recently there was discussion on this email list about clock 
synch; in other simultaneous news there was announcement of a Nature 
article, famously authored, about new methods of even more precise 
clocks.  Now, even in such context (Nature, famous author), one can find 
AI-generated text.  Should that be trusted?  Is it right or wrong, 
ethical or non-ethical? Further to the complication - is the 
identification tool correct to tell that that introductory paragraph is 
100% generated? Because I know that computationally it is hard to detect 
AI-generated text.  It will probably be even more complicated to detect 
whether video is AI-generated or recorded from reality.

Alex


> But these things will be (a) data-heavy and (b) aren't well suited for 
> CDN delivery because you may be the only one to every see a particular 
> movie, so you'll either need to move the movie generation to the edge, 
> or you need to build bigger pipes across the world. I'm not sure how 
> feasible either option is.
>
> On 3/05/2024 2:47 am, 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.
>>
>> 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 – 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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. From a pixel moving perspective, that would 
>> translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP 
>> should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
>> > Hi Colin,
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> >
>> >> 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
> -- 
> ****************************************************************
> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>
> School of Computer Science
>
> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>
> The University of Auckland
> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 02/05/2024 à 16:47, Colin_Higbie a écrit :
> 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.
>
> 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 – 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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. From a pixel moving perspective, that would translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

I ack these (8K) are projected future needs rather than present day needs.

Alex


>
> 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.
>
> So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
> Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
>> Hi Colin,
>> [...]
>>
>>> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Alex
>
>>> 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"

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 02/05/2024 à 16:47, Colin_Higbie a écrit :
> 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.
>
> 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 – 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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. From a pixel moving perspective, that would translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP should be developing (at least in developed countries – 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.
>
> 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.

25Mbps looks like a too precise and single figure.  It looks too 
simplistic.  It is great to have just one figure, but are we sure about it.

Is it mega-byte or -bit per second?

Is it constant 25mbit/s , or variable 10-50 depending on content, is it 
lossy or not lossy, is it the only std available codec or just  one of 
many.  Is the algorithm proprietary, open source, licensed, what is the 
licensing scheme.

But I agree with you that going with just one figure as a requirement is 
a good starting point.

(for  my part, if it were for my systems, I would require the bandwidth 
that is not compressed at all - the raw data).

Alex

>   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.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a63099e1@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
> Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
>> Hi Colin,
>> [...]
>>
>>> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Alex
>
>>> 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"

Re: [Starlink] It's the Latency, FCC

[David Fernández]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5160 bytes --]

I always find this list interesting to get updated on what is happening
with policies for Internet access deployments in the U.S. and elsewhere,
and what role is Starlink getting.

Starlink was conceived for having Internet access fast in remote areas, for
leisure, surprisingly fast for SATCOM standards, even compared to 4G/5G
mobile networks and DSL, almost like having FTTH. Then, it has become a
tactical communications network, with military applications that cannot be
ignored, triggering the development of IRIS2 in Europe (as OneWeb was
already owned by the UK, not in the EU nowadays).

In Spain, telco operators are switching off the copper network, no more
dial-up or DSL possible, moving exclusively to FTTH, 5G NSA and then there
is GEO satellite Internet access (subsidized by Government) for rural
areas, now at 200 Mbit/s. I think that there is no fixed Internet access
below 100 Mbit/s in the market, nowadays in Spain.

Latest movement I have seen is a drastic price reduction in Spain for the
Starlink Basic option, becoming cheaper than the Government subsidized GEO
Internet access (via Hispasat): 29 euro/month vs. 35 euro/month.
https://www.starlink.com/es/service-plans

Regards,

David F.

Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 15:13:14 +0000
From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
Message-ID:
        <
MN2PR16MB3391FCBE610E11DF886FE0A6F1192@MN2PR16MB3391.namprd16.prod.outlook.com
>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

David,

I'm not thinking about an urban rollout. My default perspective is rural.
The closest house to my farm is about a half mile away, only 330 people in
our whole town, which is geographically large. This is what drove my need
for Starlink in the first place – I had previously been paying $330/mo for
a bunch of DSL lines and 2 T-1s aggregated via an SD-WAN solution. Starlink
gave me much more download bandwidth and a hair more on upload, lower
latency, vastly improved reliability, and cut my costs by almost 3/4
(72.7%).

Then, in a surprise move, our power company rolled out a fiber network to
its rural customers, which is even better on bandwidth at 1Gbps both up and
down and provides comparable latency. I can say as a user that at
comparable latency, the UX boost with 1Gbps U and D compared with
Starlink's connection is dramatic for work. Large file uploads and
downloads are nearly instant, significantly increasing productivity. I can
also now video conference without worrying about disruption on the sending
signal due to family members being on the Internet at the same time. I have
also changed the settings on family gaming and PC systems so they can watch
YouTube at full resolution, where with Starlink, to avoid congestion on
bandwidth (not bufferbloat) if everyone happened to be using the Internet
at the same time, I had locked everyone else down to 480p or 720p streams.

My goal in saying that it's better to do a slower rollout if needed to
provide at least 25Mbps is to maximize end user experience and be efficient
with constructions costs. This is my perspective because it's the
perspective ISPs will have and therefore the necessary mindset to influence
them. It's the perspective I have, and everyone who runs a business has,
when people approach us telling us how to run our businesses. When you
charge them waving data like an academic, an approach you appear to use in
many of these emails (though to be fair, maybe you're different with this
mailing list than you would be during a pitch to government or industry),
you only alienate the audience and reduce the likelihood of anything
getting done.

In rural areas in the U.S., the long term harm to rushing out low-bandwidth
solutions is significant. It would be better for them to have nothing new
for another year or two and then get a 25+ Mbps connection that get a
10Mbps connection now, then get no upgrades for another 10-15 years, which
is the likely outcome for many. Keep in mind that in the U.S., nearly all
residents already have at least dial-up access for email and other
trickle-in connections and most have some form of DSL, even if sub-1Mbps.
Of course, now there is also Starlink, though w/Starlink, cost can be a
barrier for some.

However, and perhaps this is what you meant, I am admittedly thinking about
this as a U.S. citizen. I would acknowledge that in other parts of the
world where it's a not a matter of just waiting an extra couple of years to
get an upgrade from dial-up or DSL, the situation may be different.
Infrastructure costs at 25Mbps could be prohibitive in those markets, where
a single feed to a village could be a significant upgrade from their
current state of no Internet access for dozens or hundreds of miles. I
accept my pushing for a recognition of 25Mbps floor for the top speed
offered refers to 1st world markets where we have the luxury of being able
to do it right in the first place to save money in the long run.

 - Colin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5928 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It's the Latency, FCC

[David Fernández]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 626 bytes --]

Nobody watches 4K on the mobile when using TikTok, which reduces the
quality at peak hours to save bandwidth (money).

See attached picture.

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>,
        "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It?s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <4206ro7p-213r-so60-14s7-r23n39009p6p@ynat.uz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

another note on video quality, how many people are watching '4k video' on a
6-8"
mobile device?

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1178 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: VideoResolutionsMobileTikTok.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 258166 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin Higbie]

Sebastian,

Great points. I mostly agree and especially take your point on lower latency increasing the effective "range" of remote sites/services that become accessible based on their own added latency due to distance. That's a great point I was not considering. As an American, I tend to think of everything as "close enough" that no sites have latency problems, but you are clearly correct that's not fair to project as a universal perspective, especially to users in other countries who have to reach servers in the U.S. (and I'm sure some users in the U.S. also need to reach servers in other countries too, just not very often in my experience).

However, two points of slight disagreement, or at least desire to get in the last word ;-)

1. You are correct that many users do NOT pay for 4K access. I don't have reliable current data on the % that do, but I would stipulate that it is likely under 50%. However, unless it's a trivially small number (under ~3%), the fact remains that 4K services are a standard and a growing one as nearly all TVs sold today are 4K TVs. Some of the smaller streaming services, like Starz, don't offer 4K and they acknowledge that they lose customers for this and are working hard to add this capability. In other words, *IT'S A MARKET REQUIREMENT*

2. Using a Remote Desktop can be a great solution to solve some of the bandwidth problems if the files can start and end on the remote systems. However, even then it's a very specific solution and not always an option. Just to use myself as an example, I do media work with a team of people. We are geographically dispersed. There are common servers for storing the data (OneDrive and Amazon S3 and RDS and our own custom Linux systems to run various media adjustments automatically), but they are not local to anyone. The bulk of the work must be done locally. I suppose you could work on a media file via a remote desktop function with sufficient bandwidth to provide real-time 4K or 5K streaming and super low latency (often need to make changes in fraction-of-a-second increments, hit pause/play at exactly the right moment, etc.). But even if you had the high speeds already to do that remotely, you would still need to upload the file in the first place from wherever you are with the microphones and cameras. Raw video files, which are still uncompressed or, at best, compressed using lossless compression, are HUGE (many GBs). Even raw straight audio files are typically in the hundreds of MBs and sometimes a few GBs. Further, if the mics and cameras are connected directly to the computer, there are many real-time changes that can be made DURING the recording, which would be impossible on a remote system.

Same applies for anyone who wants to post to YouTube. Many will to do most of their video editing locally before uploading to YouTube. Those that do their editing in the cloud still have to upload it to the cloud. An active YouTuber might upload multiple many-GB video files every day. 

Similarly, for gaming, yes, with high enough bandwidth and low-enough latency, you could pay a monthly fee for a game service and get decent graphics and latency, but it's still not as good as a high-end system locally (or if you just want to avoid the monthly fee). There's always a mushiness to the latency and generally some compression artifacts in the graphics that are not there when the screen is being rendered locally with no compression using a multi-Gbps connection between system and monitor/TV.

In another case, we built an electronic medical records system for physicians. The performance using remote desktop to a virtual machine even on the same LAN was too slow. It wasn't unusably slow, but it was slow enough that users who had opted that route to save money routinely upgraded to more performant Windows tablets for the performance boost of the native UI. To be fair, this was back at 820.11n, when Wi-Fi LAN speeds topped out at about 40Mbps from most locations in the offices (higher if really close to the AP, but those ideal conditions were rare). When the tablets the doctors used ran the UI natively, not as dumb terminals, performance UX and customer feedback was far better. When using a pen/stylus, even a 20ms lag is enough to make the writing feel wrong. A few tens of ms to redraw the screen when trying to shuttle through pages of notes in a few seconds to skim for a specific piece of data is painfully slow.

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 4:06 PM
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 18


Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:05:21 +0200
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <EFD8322F-8549-4430-BE8C-6D6D85AA1EE8@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8

Hi Colin,


> On 30. Apr 2024, at 20:05, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> [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...
> 
> 
> 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...

> 
> 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.... 

> 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... 

> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...
> 
> 
>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>> 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-s
>>> h
>>> ape-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-bro
>>> a
>>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>> 
>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>> 
>>> David Lang
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that 
>>>> streaming
>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower 
>>>> quality the
>>>> 
>>> 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).
>>> 
>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the 
>>>> simplest
>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' 
>>>> interest to
>>>> 
>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they 
>>>> didn't want
>>>> 
>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there 
>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed 
>>> was a problem)
>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that 
>>>>>> download
>>>>>> 
>>> "speed"
>>> 
>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many 
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> 
>>> 100/20 services today.
>>> 
>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 
>>>>> 100/20
>>>>> 
>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>> 
>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just 
>>>>> my own
>>>>> 
>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>> 
>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded 
>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an 
>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency 
>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the 
>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>>>>> streaming
>>>>> 
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>> 
>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video 
>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound 
>>>>> streams
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather 
>>>>> have
>>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids 
>>>>> watching
>>>>> 
>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL: 
>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>> 3
>>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> 
> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
>> Hi Alexandre,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).
> 
> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> 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-
>>>> s
>>>> hape-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
>>>> o
>>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> 
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>> 
>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that 
>>>>> streaming
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower 
>>>>> quality the
>>>>> 
>>>> 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).
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the 
>>>>> simplest
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' 
>>>>> interest to
>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they 
>>>>> didn't want
>>>>> 
>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there 
>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed 
>>>> was a problem)
>>>> 
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that 
>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>> 
>>>> "speed"
>>>> 
>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second 
>>>>>>> to second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. 
>>>>>>> Am I succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at 
>>>>>>> really terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many 
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>> 
>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>> 
>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>> 
>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just 
>>>>>> my own
>>>>>> 
>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded 
>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an 
>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency 
>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the 
>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video 
>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound 
>>>>>> streams
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids 
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>> 
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>>>> scrubbed...
>>>> URL: 
>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240
>>>> 4
>>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
> ****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


------------------------------

End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 18
****************************************

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

Sebastian,

Great points. I mostly agree and especially take your point on lower latency increasing the effective "range" of remote sites/services that become accessible based on their own added latency due to distance. That's a great point I was not considering. As an American, I tend to think of everything as "close enough" that no sites have latency problems, but you are clearly correct that's not fair to project as a universal perspective, especially to users in other countries who have to reach servers in the U.S. (and I'm sure some users in the U.S. also need to reach servers in other countries too, just not very often in my experience).

However, two points of slight disagreement, or at least desire to get in the last word ;-)

1. You are correct that many users do NOT pay for 4K access. I don't have reliable current data on the % that do, but I would stipulate that it is likely under 50%. However, unless it's a trivially small number (under ~3%), the fact remains that 4K services are a standard and a growing one as nearly all TVs sold today are 4K TVs. Some of the smaller streaming services, like Starz, don't offer 4K and they acknowledge that they lose customers for this and are working hard to add this capability. In other words, *IT'S A MARKET REQUIREMENT*

2. Using a Remote Desktop can be a great solution to solve some of the bandwidth problems if the files can start and end on the remote systems. However, even then it's a very specific solution and not always an option. Just to use myself as an example, I do media work with a team of people. We are geographically dispersed. There are common servers for storing the data (OneDrive and Amazon S3 and RDS and our own custom Linux systems to run various media adjustments automatically), but they are not local to anyone. The bulk of the work must be done locally. I suppose you could work on a media file via a remote desktop function with sufficient bandwidth to provide real-time 4K or 5K streaming and super low latency (often need to make changes in fraction-of-a-second increments, hit pause/play at exactly the right moment, etc.). But even if you had the high speeds already to do that remotely, you would still need to upload the file in the first place from wherever you are with the microphones and cameras. Raw video files, which are still uncompressed or, at best, compressed using lossless compression, are HUGE (many GBs). Even raw straight audio files are typically in the hundreds of MBs and sometimes a few GBs. Further, if the mics and cameras are connected directly to the computer, there are many real-time changes that can be made DURING the recording, which would be impossible on a remote system.

Same applies for anyone who wants to post to YouTube. Many will to do most of their video editing locally before uploading to YouTube. Those that do their editing in the cloud still have to upload it to the cloud. An active YouTuber might upload multiple many-GB video files every day. 

Similarly, for gaming, yes, with high enough bandwidth and low-enough latency, you could pay a monthly fee for a game service and get decent graphics and latency, but it's still not as good as a high-end system locally (or if you just want to avoid the monthly fee). There's always a mushiness to the latency and generally some compression artifacts in the graphics that are not there when the screen is being rendered locally with no compression using a multi-Gbps connection between system and monitor/TV.

In another case, we built an electronic medical records system for physicians. The performance using remote desktop to a virtual machine even on the same LAN was too slow. It wasn't unusably slow, but it was slow enough that users who had opted that route to save money routinely upgraded to more performant Windows tablets for the performance boost of the native UI. To be fair, this was back at 820.11n, when Wi-Fi LAN speeds topped out at about 40Mbps from most locations in the offices (higher if really close to the AP, but those ideal conditions were rare). When the tablets the doctors used ran the UI natively, not as dumb terminals, performance UX and customer feedback was far better. When using a pen/stylus, even a 20ms lag is enough to make the writing feel wrong. A few tens of ms to redraw the screen when trying to shuttle through pages of notes in a few seconds to skim for a specific piece of data is painfully slow.

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 4:06 PM
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 18


Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:05:21 +0200
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <EFD8322F-8549-4430-BE8C-6D6D85AA1EE8@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8

Hi Colin,


> On 30. Apr 2024, at 20:05, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> [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...
> 
> 
> 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...

> 
> 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.... 

> 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... 

> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...
> 
> 
>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>> 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-s
>>> h
>>> ape-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-bro
>>> a
>>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>> 
>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>> 
>>> David Lang
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that 
>>>> streaming
>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower 
>>>> quality the
>>>> 
>>> 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).
>>> 
>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the 
>>>> simplest
>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' 
>>>> interest to
>>>> 
>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they 
>>>> didn't want
>>>> 
>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there 
>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed 
>>> was a problem)
>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that 
>>>>>> download
>>>>>> 
>>> "speed"
>>> 
>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many 
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> 
>>> 100/20 services today.
>>> 
>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 
>>>>> 100/20
>>>>> 
>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>> 
>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just 
>>>>> my own
>>>>> 
>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>> 
>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded 
>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an 
>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency 
>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the 
>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>>>>> streaming
>>>>> 
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>> 
>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video 
>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound 
>>>>> streams
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather 
>>>>> have
>>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids 
>>>>> watching
>>>>> 
>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL: 
>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>> 3
>>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> 
> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
>> Hi Alexandre,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).
> 
> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> 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-
>>>> s
>>>> hape-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
>>>> o
>>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> 
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>> 
>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that 
>>>>> streaming
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower 
>>>>> quality the
>>>>> 
>>>> 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).
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the 
>>>>> simplest
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' 
>>>>> interest to
>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they 
>>>>> didn't want
>>>>> 
>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there 
>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed 
>>>> was a problem)
>>>> 
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that 
>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>> 
>>>> "speed"
>>>> 
>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second 
>>>>>>> to second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years.
>>>>>>> Am I succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at 
>>>>>>> really terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many 
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>> 
>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>> 
>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>> 
>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just 
>>>>>> my own
>>>>>> 
>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded 
>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an 
>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency 
>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the 
>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video 
>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound 
>>>>>> streams
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids 
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>> 
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>>>> scrubbed...
>>>> URL: 
>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240
>>>> 4
>>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
> ****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


------------------------------

End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 18
****************************************

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 45081 bytes --]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:

> Great points. I mostly agree and especially take your point on lower latency increasing the effective "range" of remote sites/services that become accessible based on their own added latency due to distance. That's a great point I was not considering. As an American, I tend to think of everything as "close enough" that no sites have latency problems, but you are clearly correct that's not fair to project as a universal perspective, especially to users in other countries who have to reach servers in the U.S. (and I'm sure some users in the U.S. also need to reach servers in other countries too, just not very often in my experience).
>
> However, two points of slight disagreement, or at least desire to get in the last word ;-)

> the fact remains that 4K services are a standard and a growing one as nearly 
> all TVs sold today are 4K TVs.

really? then why was walmart still have almost 200 tv models at 1080p or below


> 2. Using a Remote Desktop can be a great solution to solve some of the 
> bandwidth problems if the files can start and end on the remote systems. 
> However, even then it's a very specific solution and not always an option. 
> Just to use myself as an example, I do media work with a team of people. We 
> are geographically dispersed. There are common servers for storing the data 
> (OneDrive and Amazon S3 and RDS and our own custom Linux systems to run 
> various media adjustments automatically), but they are not local to anyone. 
> The bulk of the work must be done locally. I suppose you could work on a media 
> file via a remote desktop function with sufficient bandwidth to provide 
> real-time 4K or 5K streaming and super low latency (often need to make changes 
> in fraction-of-a-second increments, hit pause/play at exactly the right 
> moment, etc.). But even if you had the high speeds already to do that 
> remotely, you would still need to upload the file in the first place from 
> wherever you are with the microphones and cameras. Raw video files, which are 
> still uncompressed or, at best, compressed using lossless compression, are 
> HUGE (many GBs). Even raw straight audio files are typically in the hundreds 
> of MBs and sometimes a few GBs. Further, if the mics and cameras are connected 
> directly to the computer, there are many real-time changes that can be made 
> DURING the recording, which would be impossible on a remote system.

hardly your typical remote worker.

We are not saying that nobody needs higher bandwidth, just that pointing at 
things like this and saying that the minimum connection should support them is 
not reasonable.

> Same applies for anyone who wants to post to YouTube. Many will to do most of 
> their video editing locally before uploading to YouTube. Those that do their 
> editing in the cloud still have to upload it to the cloud. An active YouTuber 
> might upload multiple many-GB video files every day.

you do realize that a lot of '25Mb connections' only upload at 10Mb or slower, 
right? I pay for a 600Mb cablemodem and that only gives me 30Mb upload?

> Similarly, for gaming, yes, with high enough bandwidth and low-enough latency, 
> you could pay a monthly fee for a game service and get decent graphics and 
> latency, but it's still not as good as a high-end system locally (or if you 
> just want to avoid the monthly fee). There's always a mushiness to the latency 
> and generally some compression artifacts in the graphics that are not there 
> when the screen is being rendered locally with no compression using a 
> multi-Gbps connection between system and monitor/TV.

so let gamers pay for higher bandwidth if they need it? but is the problem 
really bandwidth, or is it latency being papered over with bandwidth?

> In another case, we built an electronic medical records system for physicians. 
> The performance using remote desktop to a virtual machine even on the same LAN 
> was too slow. It wasn't unusably slow, but it was slow enough that users who 
> had opted that route to save money routinely upgraded to more performant 
> Windows tablets for the performance boost of the native UI. To be fair, this 
> was back at 820.11n, when Wi-Fi LAN speeds topped out at about 40Mbps from 
> most locations in the offices (higher if really close to the AP, but those 
> ideal conditions were rare). When the tablets the doctors used ran the UI 
> natively, not as dumb terminals, performance UX and customer feedback was far 
> better. When using a pen/stylus, even a 20ms lag is enough to make the writing 
> feel wrong. A few tens of ms to redraw the screen when trying to shuttle 
> through pages of notes in a few seconds to skim for a specific piece of data 
> is painfully slow.

again, not a minimal home user experience.

David Lang

> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 4:06 PM
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 18
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:05:21 +0200
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <EFD8322F-8549-4430-BE8C-6D6D85AA1EE8@gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>
> Hi Colin,
>
>
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 20:05, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> [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...
>>
>>
>> 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...
>
>>
>> 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....
>
>> 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...
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...
>>
>>
>>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>> 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-s
>>>> h
>>>> ape-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-bro
>>>> a
>>>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>
>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>> streaming
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>> quality the
>>>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>> simplest
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services'
>>>>> interest to
>>>>>
>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they
>>>>> didn't want
>>>>>
>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>> was a problem)
>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>
>>>> "speed"
>>>>
>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>
>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>
>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>
>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just
>>>>>> my own
>>>>>>
>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>
>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded
>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an
>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency
>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the
>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>
>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>> scrubbed...
>>>> URL:
>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>>> 3
>>>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).
>>
>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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-
>>>>> s
>>>>> hape-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
>>>>> o
>>>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>>> quality the
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>>> simplest
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services'
>>>>>> interest to
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they
>>>>>> didn't want
>>>>>>
>>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>>> was a problem)
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "speed"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second
>>>>>>>> to second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years.
>>>>>>>> Am I succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at
>>>>>>>> really terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many
>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>>
>>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just
>>>>>>> my own
>>>>>>>
>>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded
>>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an
>>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency
>>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the
>>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>>
>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>>> scrubbed...
>>>>> URL:
>>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240
>>>>> 4
>>>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
>> ****************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 18
> ****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

Gene,

I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able to perform standard Internet functions. 

To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they don't plan based on bad assumptions.

For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and likely will remain at that level for the next several years.

I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.

While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.

With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)

How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
(I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)

Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Eugene Y Chang]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3960 bytes --]

Colin,
I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent latency.
I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?

Am I asking too much?

Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang
IEEE Life Senior Member




> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Gene,
> 
> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able to perform standard Internet functions.
> 
> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they don't plan based on bad assumptions.
> 
> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
> 
> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
> 
> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.
> 
> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)
> 
> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
> 
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8435 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4923 bytes --]

Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.

Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data
plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech
on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that
matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)

Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I
think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the
waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in
the wind...



On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Colin,
> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent
> latency.
> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or
> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume
> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP
> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>
> Am I asking too much?
>
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on
> this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I
> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because
> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not
> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I
> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able
> to perform standard Internet functions.
>
> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to try
> to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people
> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to
> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they
> don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>
> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be
> at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard
> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the
> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K
> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and
> likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>
> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR
> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be
> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised
> mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The
> discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>
> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch
> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer
> bloat and high latency.
>
> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could
> have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response
> could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and
> working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more
> people.)
>
> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8510 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6264 bytes --]

Here are the tests Dave was talking about:

[image: image.png]
rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
<https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/8e/3WTCbgSVMmPJBl0orVwjo8_q/rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
<https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/5e/mBHcvB2O-G4VByXrl_tZuLY0/tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
<https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/9b/rN7DZy6-0xEuPkb0N9pwoIRU/tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>
> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data
> plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech
> on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that
> matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>
> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I
> think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the
> waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in
> the wind...
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> Colin,
>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent
>> latency.
>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or
>> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume
>> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP
>> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>
>> Am I asking too much?
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> Gene,
>>
>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on
>> this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I
>> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because
>> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not
>> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I
>> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able
>> to perform standard Internet functions.
>>
>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to
>> try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people
>> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to
>> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they
>> don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>
>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be
>> at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard
>> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the
>> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K
>> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and
>> likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>
>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR
>> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be
>> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
>> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become.
>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care
>> about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>
>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch
>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer
>> bloat and high latency.
>>
>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could
>> have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response
>> could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and
>> working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more
>> people.)
>>
>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 12396 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 732492 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6717 bytes --]

he also had a waveform result as best as I recall. Simpler than running
flent.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:23 PM Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here are the tests Dave was talking about:
>
> [image: image.png]
> rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
> <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/8e/3WTCbgSVMmPJBl0orVwjo8_q/rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
> tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
> <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/5e/mBHcvB2O-G4VByXrl_tZuLY0/tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
> tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
> <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/9b/rN7DZy6-0xEuPkb0N9pwoIRU/tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>>
>> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data
>> plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech
>> on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that
>> matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>>
>> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I
>> think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the
>> waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in
>> the wind...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Colin,
>>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent
>>> latency.
>>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or
>>> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume
>>> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP
>>> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>>
>>> Am I asking too much?
>>>
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gene,
>>>
>>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on
>>> this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I
>>> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because
>>> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not
>>> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I
>>> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able
>>> to perform standard Internet functions.
>>>
>>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to
>>> try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people
>>> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to
>>> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they
>>> don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>>
>>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to
>>> be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard
>>> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the
>>> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K
>>> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and
>>> likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>>
>>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR
>>> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be
>>> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
>>> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become.
>>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care
>>> about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>>
>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch
>>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer
>>> bloat and high latency.
>>>
>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user
>>> could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive
>>> response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email
>>> and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more
>>> people.)
>>>
>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>>
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s Waves Podcast
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 12721 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 732492 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7405 bytes --]

Oh, the image from waveform was late to load. In the past months starlink
has gone from hundreds of ms of bufferbloat related latency to zero on the
upload and a mere 31ms on the download. For those that don´t know: that is
better than comcast, most fiber, all dsl, and most (non-libreqos or preseem
using) FWA, by a mile.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:02 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> he also had a waveform result as best as I recall. Simpler than running
> flent.
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 2:23 PM Frantisek Borsik <
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here are the tests Dave was talking about:
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>> rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
>> <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/8e/3WTCbgSVMmPJBl0orVwjo8_q/rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
>> tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
>> <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/5e/mBHcvB2O-G4VByXrl_tZuLY0/tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
>> tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
>> <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/9b/rN7DZy6-0xEuPkb0N9pwoIRU/tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>>>
>>> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their
>>> data plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every
>>> tech on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that
>>> matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>>>
>>> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I
>>> think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the
>>> waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in
>>> the wind...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Colin,
>>>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or
>>>> consistent latency.
>>>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or
>>>> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume
>>>> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP
>>>> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>>>
>>>> Am I asking too much?
>>>>
>>>> Gene
>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>> Eugene Chang
>>>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
>>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gene,
>>>>
>>>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here)
>>>> on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I
>>>> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because
>>>> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not
>>>> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I
>>>> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able
>>>> to perform standard Internet functions.
>>>>
>>>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to
>>>> try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people
>>>> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to
>>>> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they
>>>> don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to
>>>> be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard
>>>> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the
>>>> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K
>>>> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and
>>>> likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR
>>>> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be
>>>> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
>>>> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>>>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>
>>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become.
>>>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care
>>>> about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>>>
>>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch
>>>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer
>>>> bloat and high latency.
>>>>
>>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user
>>>> could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive
>>>> response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email
>>>> and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more
>>>> people.)
>>>>
>>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>>>
>>>> Gene
>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>> Eugene Chang
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>
>>
>
> --
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s Waves Podcast
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>


-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s Waves Podcast
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 13756 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 732492 bytes --]

[Starlink] Fwd: It’s the Latency, FCC

[Rich Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8333 bytes --]

> Eugene Y. Change writes...
>
> A public promotion (campaign) of modern best practices is needed. Then I need to have this campaign spill over to the subscriber community. The business community needs to be educated that their productivity will improve. The social leaders need to learn that their community will get better service. Then, and only then, can I see the ISP feeling the need to improve. It helps if the improvement is just open-source software on their hardware investment.

Another "pressure point" : Dave points out that after Starlink fq_codeled the Wi-Fi and did some other AQM work, their speeds are good and the latency is just fine. 

That's going to Outer Space, for gosh sakes, Outer Space! Why can't your $ISP do better?

Rich

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Frantisek Borsik via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Date: April 30, 2024 at 5:22:33 PM EDT
> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@higbie.name>, libreqos <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Reply-To: Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> Sender: "Starlink" <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> 
> Here are the tests Dave was talking about:
> 
> 
> rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/8e/3WTCbgSVMmPJBl0orVwjo8_q/rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
> tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/5e/mBHcvB2O-G4VByXrl_tZuLY0/tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
> tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/9b/rN7DZy6-0xEuPkb0N9pwoIRU/tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Frank
> 
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
>  
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik <https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 
> 
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> 
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> 
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
> 
> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
> 
> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in the wind...
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
> Colin,
> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent latency.
> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
> 
> Am I asking too much?
> 
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> Gene,
>> 
>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able to perform standard Internet functions. 
>> 
>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>> 
>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>> 
>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org <mailto:eugene.chang@ieee.org>>
>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name <mailto:CHigbie1@Higbie.name>>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org <mailto:438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>> 
>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.
>> 
>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)
>> 
>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>> 
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 20054 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 732492 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Fwd: It’s the Latency, FCC

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8654 bytes --]

I think that the starlink results will create competitive pressure on the
landline ISPs (and starlink will continue their rapid growth, being that
they drop their next hop direct into multiple cdns).

That´s why I sank 3 years into this project, and this list, working for
free, and I hope it pays off with better internet for everyone.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:05 PM Rich Brown via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> > Eugene Y. Change writes...
> >
> > A public promotion (campaign) of modern best practices is needed. Then I
> need to have this campaign spill over to the subscriber community. The
> business community needs to be educated that their productivity will
> improve. The social leaders need to learn that their community will get
> better service. Then, and only then, can I see the ISP feeling the need to
> improve. It helps if the improvement is just open-source software on their
> hardware investment.
>
> Another "pressure point" : Dave points out that after Starlink fq_codeled
> the Wi-Fi and did some other AQM work, their speeds are good and the
> latency is just fine.
>
> That's going to Outer Space, for gosh sakes, Outer Space! Why can't your
> $ISP do better?
>
> Rich
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Frantisek Borsik via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> *Subject: **Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC*
> *Date: *April 30, 2024 at 5:22:33 PM EDT
> *To: *Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Dave Taht via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> *Cc: *Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@higbie.name>, libreqos <
> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> *Reply-To: *Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> *Sender: *"Starlink" <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>
> Here are the tests Dave was talking about:
>
> [image: image.png]
> rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
> <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/8e/3WTCbgSVMmPJBl0orVwjo8_q/rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
> tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
> <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/5e/mBHcvB2O-G4VByXrl_tZuLY0/tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
> tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz
> <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/9b/rN7DZy6-0xEuPkb0N9pwoIRU/tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>>
>> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data
>> plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech
>> on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that
>> matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>>
>> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I
>> think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the
>> waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in
>> the wind...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Colin,
>>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent
>>> latency.
>>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or
>>> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume
>>> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP
>>> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>>
>>> Am I asking too much?
>>>
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gene,
>>>
>>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on
>>> this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I
>>> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because
>>> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not
>>> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I
>>> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able
>>> to perform standard Internet functions.
>>>
>>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to
>>> try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people
>>> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to
>>> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they
>>> don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>>
>>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to
>>> be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard
>>> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the
>>> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K
>>> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and
>>> likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>>
>>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR
>>> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be
>>> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
>>> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become.
>>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care
>>> about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>>
>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch
>>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer
>>> bloat and high latency.
>>>
>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user
>>> could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive
>>> response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email
>>> and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more
>>> people.)
>>>
>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>>
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>


-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFWSyMp3xg&t=1098s Waves Podcast
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 17877 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 732492 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Rich Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 590 bytes --]


> On Apr 30, 2024, at 6:10 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think that the starlink results will create competitive pressure on the landline ISPs (and starlink will continue their rapid growth, being that they drop their next hop direct into multiple cdns). 

Of course, it's important to remember that Starlink "cheated" - they are using science! (Even if we did have to browbeat them to pay attention...)

> That´s why I sank 3 years into this project, and this list, working for free, and I hope it pays off with better internet for everyone.


Thanks, Dave!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1875 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1009 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 3:42 PM Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Apr 30, 2024, at 6:10 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that the starlink results will create competitive pressure on the
> landline ISPs (and starlink will continue their rapid growth, being that
> they drop their next hop direct into multiple cdns).
>
>
> Of course, it's important to remember that Starlink "cheated" - they are
> using science! (Even if we did have to browbeat them to pay attention...)
>
> That´s why I sank 3 years into this project, and this list, working for
> free, and I hope it pays off with better internet for everyone.
>
>
> Thanks, Dave!
>

And all I asked Elon for was a new motor and batteries for my boat. And a
Christmas card....

https://youtu.be/c9gLo6Xrwgw?si=RyLWEtIWISEFX1kw

I don't think a tesla semi engine is needed to push 36 tons through the
water or not, but I do hope to get some help also on the design and install
thrown in.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2482 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Eugene Y Chang]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9787 bytes --]

I need some technical peers to participate in performance-related publicity to get the story out.
I am very aware that I can’t handle all the roles alone. Sharing the good news needs a team of experts.

I am building an alliance with the eSports league. Of course, they want better latency.

I really need to teach the business community they are paying a performance penalty with the status quo. The needs of the business community will have more urgency than eSports.

I will note that most of the local networking experts (especially those working for the state) were developed at the local telco. They all have serious ISP-itis.

Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang
IEEE Life Senior Member




> On Apr 30, 2024, at 12:05 PM, Rich Brown via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> > Eugene Y. Change writes...
> >
> > A public promotion (campaign) of modern best practices is needed. Then I need to have this campaign spill over to the subscriber community. The business community needs to be educated that their productivity will improve. The social leaders need to learn that their community will get better service. Then, and only then, can I see the ISP feeling the need to improve. It helps if the improvement is just open-source software on their hardware investment.
> 
> Another "pressure point" : Dave points out that after Starlink fq_codeled the Wi-Fi and did some other AQM work, their speeds are good and the latency is just fine.
> 
> That's going to Outer Space, for gosh sakes, Outer Space! Why can't your $ISP do better?
> 
> Rich
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Frantisek Borsik via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Date: April 30, 2024 at 5:22:33 PM EDT
>> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com <mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com>>, Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@higbie.name <mailto:CHigbie1@higbie.name>>, libreqos <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>> Reply-To: Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>>
>> Sender: "Starlink" <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>> 
>> Here are the tests Dave was talking about:
>> 
>> 
>> rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/8e/3WTCbgSVMmPJBl0orVwjo8_q/rrul_be-2024-04-28T074258.845273.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
>> tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/5e/mBHcvB2O-G4VByXrl_tZuLY0/tcp_ndown-2024-04-28T074032.855495.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
>> tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz <https://chat.libreqos.io/user_uploads/2/9b/rN7DZy6-0xEuPkb0N9pwoIRU/tcp_nup-2024-04-28T074143.785018.starlink-long-ipv4-1-flows.flent.gz>
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik <https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik>
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>> 
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>> 
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>> 
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>> 
>> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>> 
>> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in the wind...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> Colin,
>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent latency.
>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>> 
>> Am I asking too much?
>> 
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Gene,
>>> 
>>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able to perform standard Internet functions.
>>> 
>>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>> 
>>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>> 
>>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org <mailto:eugene.chang@ieee.org>>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name <mailto:CHigbie1@Higbie.name>>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org <mailto:438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>> 
>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>> 
>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.
>>> 
>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)
>>> 
>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>> 
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #1.2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 24644 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2.2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 85252 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Eugene Y Chang]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6081 bytes --]

OK. I need help teaching my ISPs that they can do this without threatening their business model.
Who can help me?

A public demo? Yes! Are you saying that if our (my) neighborhood ISP adopted the lessons from the public demo, most of the latency issues would be solved? What won’t get fixed? How do we make this a widely adopted best practice? Am I crying over issues that are already fixed? Does this simplify the issues at the FCC?

Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang
IEEE Life Senior Member




> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
> 
> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
> 
> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in the wind...
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
> Colin,
> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent latency.
> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
> 
> Am I asking too much?
> 
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> Gene,
>> 
>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able to perform standard Internet functions.
>> 
>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>> 
>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>> 
>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org <mailto:eugene.chang@ieee.org>>
>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name <mailto:CHigbie1@Higbie.name>>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org <mailto:438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>> 
>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.
>> 
>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)
>> 
>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>> 
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 13537 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6576 bytes --]

Eugene - the easiest thing in the case of your ISP would be tell him about
us: https://libreqos.io

He can take a look on it, join our support chat and get help if he won't be
able to get it up and running:
https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/

But most of the ISPs don't need to talk with us at all, it's easy to deploy.


All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:22 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> OK. I need help teaching my ISPs that they can do this without threatening
> their business model.
> Who can help me?
>
> A public demo? Yes! Are you saying that if our (my) neighborhood ISP
> adopted the lessons from the public demo, most of the latency issues would
> be solved? What won’t get fixed? How do we make this a widely adopted best
> practice? Am I crying over issues that are already fixed? Does this
> simplify the issues at the FCC?
>
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>
> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data
> plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech
> on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that
> matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>
> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I
> think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the
> waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in
> the wind...
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> Colin,
>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent
>> latency.
>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or
>> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume
>> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP
>> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>
>> Am I asking too much?
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> Gene,
>>
>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on
>> this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I
>> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because
>> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not
>> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I
>> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able
>> to perform standard Internet functions.
>>
>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to
>> try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people
>> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to
>> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they
>> don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>
>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be
>> at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard
>> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the
>> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K
>> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and
>> likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>
>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR
>> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be
>> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
>> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become.
>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care
>> about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>
>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch
>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer
>> bloat and high latency.
>>
>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could
>> have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response
>> could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and
>> working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more
>> people.)
>>
>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13458 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Eugene Y Chang]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8438 bytes --]

Frank,
Thank you. What you suggest makes sense if it was objective!

In my neighborhood, the ISP’s organization will feel they have nothing to learn from outsiders. (Worst, both major ISPs are just a subsidiary of another organization. They just implement corporate standards. The local managers are not motivated to deviate from their corporate marching orders.)

A public promotion (campaign) of modern best practices is needed. Then I need to have this campaign spill over to the subscriber community. The business community needs to be educated that their productivity will improve. The social leaders need to learn that their community will get better service. Then, and only then, can I see the ISP feeling the need to improve. It helps if the improvement is just open-source software on their hardware investment.


Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang
IEEE Life Senior Member



> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:35 AM, Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Eugene - the easiest thing in the case of your ISP would be tell him about us: https://libreqos.io <https://libreqos.io/>
> 
> He can take a look on it, join our support chat and get help if he won't be able to get it up and running: https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/ <https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/>
> 
> But most of the ISPs don't need to talk with us at all, it's easy to deploy.
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Frank
> 
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik <https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> 
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> 
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> 
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:22 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
> OK. I need help teaching my ISPs that they can do this without threatening their business model.
> Who can help me?
> 
> A public demo? Yes! Are you saying that if our (my) neighborhood ISP adopted the lessons from the public demo, most of the latency issues would be solved? What won’t get fixed? How do we make this a widely adopted best practice? Am I crying over issues that are already fixed? Does this simplify the issues at the FCC?
> 
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com <mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>> 
>> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>> 
>> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in the wind...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> Colin,
>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent latency.
>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>> 
>> Am I asking too much?
>> 
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Gene,
>>> 
>>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able to perform standard Internet functions.
>>> 
>>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>> 
>>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>> 
>>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org <mailto:eugene.chang@ieee.org>>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name <mailto:CHigbie1@Higbie.name>>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org <mailto:438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>> 
>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>> 
>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.
>>> 
>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)
>>> 
>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>> 
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 19800 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8562 bytes --]

Now you are talking about the real problem, how to get the ISPs to listen. It's 
not bandwidth.

David Lang

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink wrote:

> Frank,
> Thank you. What you suggest makes sense if it was objective!
>
> In my neighborhood, the ISP’s organization will feel they have nothing to learn from outsiders. (Worst, both major ISPs are just a subsidiary of another organization. They just implement corporate standards. The local managers are not motivated to deviate from their corporate marching orders.)
>
> A public promotion (campaign) of modern best practices is needed. Then I need to have this campaign spill over to the subscriber community. The business community needs to be educated that their productivity will improve. The social leaders need to learn that their community will get better service. Then, and only then, can I see the ISP feeling the need to improve. It helps if the improvement is just open-source software on their hardware investment.
>
>
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
>
>
>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:35 AM, Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Eugene - the easiest thing in the case of your ISP would be tell him about us: https://libreqos.io <https://libreqos.io/>
>>
>> He can take a look on it, join our support chat and get help if he won't be able to get it up and running: https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/ <https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/>
>>
>> But most of the ISPs don't need to talk with us at all, it's easy to deploy.
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik <https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik>
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:22 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> OK. I need help teaching my ISPs that they can do this without threatening their business model.
>> Who can help me?
>>
>> A public demo? Yes! Are you saying that if our (my) neighborhood ISP adopted the lessons from the public demo, most of the latency issues would be solved? What won’t get fixed? How do we make this a widely adopted best practice? Am I crying over issues that are already fixed? Does this simplify the issues at the FCC?
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com <mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>>>
>>> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>>>
>>> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in the wind...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>> Colin,
>>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent latency.
>>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>>
>>> Am I asking too much?
>>>
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gene,
>>>>
>>>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able to perform standard Internet functions.
>>>>
>>>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>>>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org <mailto:eugene.chang@ieee.org>>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name <mailto:CHigbie1@Higbie.name>>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org <mailto:438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>
>>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>>>
>>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.
>>>>
>>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)
>>>>
>>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>>>
>>>> Gene
>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>> Eugene Chang
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8497 bytes --]

Basically, Eugene, the situation you are describing is calling for a
competitor to disrupt them!

This is such an old story - so many ISPs, especially WIPSs, started just
because they either didn't have any option or all those options available
were really terrible.

Don't you want to pick up the glove? :P

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:53 PM Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
wrote:

> Frank,
> Thank you. What you suggest makes sense if it was objective!
>
> In my neighborhood, the ISP’s organization will feel they have nothing to
> learn from outsiders. (Worst, both major ISPs are just a subsidiary of
> another organization. They just implement corporate standards. The local
> managers are not motivated to deviate from their corporate marching orders.)
>
> A public promotion (campaign) of modern best practices is needed. Then I
> need to have this campaign spill over to the subscriber community. The
> business community needs to be educated that their productivity will
> improve. The social leaders need to learn that their community will get
> better service. Then, and only then, can I see the ISP feeling the need to
> improve. It helps if the improvement is just open-source software on their
> hardware investment.
>
>
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
>
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:35 AM, Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Eugene - the easiest thing in the case of your ISP would be tell him about
> us: https://libreqos.io
>
> He can take a look on it, join our support chat and get help if he won't
> be able to get it up and running:
> https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/
>
> But most of the ISPs don't need to talk with us at all, it's easy to
> deploy.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:22 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> OK. I need help teaching my ISPs that they can do this without
>> threatening their business model.
>> Who can help me?
>>
>> A public demo? Yes! Are you saying that if our (my) neighborhood ISP
>> adopted the lessons from the public demo, most of the latency issues would
>> be solved? What won’t get fixed? How do we make this a widely adopted best
>> practice? Am I crying over issues that are already fixed? Does this
>> simplify the issues at the FCC?
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>>
>> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data
>> plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech
>> on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that
>> matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>>
>> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I
>> think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the
>> waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in
>> the wind...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Colin,
>>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent
>>> latency.
>>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or
>>> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume
>>> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP
>>> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>>
>>> Am I asking too much?
>>>
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gene,
>>>
>>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on
>>> this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I
>>> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because
>>> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not
>>> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I
>>> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able
>>> to perform standard Internet functions.
>>>
>>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to
>>> try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people
>>> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to
>>> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they
>>> don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>>
>>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to
>>> be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard
>>> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the
>>> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K
>>> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and
>>> likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>>
>>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR
>>> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be
>>> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
>>> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become.
>>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care
>>> about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>>
>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch
>>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer
>>> bloat and high latency.
>>>
>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user
>>> could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive
>>> response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email
>>> and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more
>>> people.)
>>>
>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>>
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18462 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Eugene Y Chang]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10251 bytes --]

Pick up the glove?
I can be part of a team. I am not as close as to the equipment as I used to be.
I need help assembling a demo configuration that can engage the subscribers.
Building a local team for this has been very slow going.

I like helping a market #3 or #4 disrupt an incumbent. In most cases I have seen, the #2 already has a game plan for competing with #1. A distant #3 is usually the most hungry.

Gene.
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang
IEEE Life Senior Member
IEEE Communications Society & Signal Processing Society,
    Hawaii Chapter Chair
IEEE Life Member Affinity Group Hawaii Chair
IEEE Entrepreneurship, Mentor
eugene.chang@ieee.org
m 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu)



> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:27 PM, Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Basically, Eugene, the situation you are describing is calling for a competitor to disrupt them!
> 
> This is such an old story - so many ISPs, especially WIPSs, started just because they either didn't have any option or all those options available were really terrible.
> 
> Don't you want to pick up the glove? :P
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Frank
> 
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik <https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> 
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> 
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> 
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:53 PM Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org <mailto:eugene.chang@ieee.org>> wrote:
> Frank,
> Thank you. What you suggest makes sense if it was objective!
> 
> In my neighborhood, the ISP’s organization will feel they have nothing to learn from outsiders. (Worst, both major ISPs are just a subsidiary of another organization. They just implement corporate standards. The local managers are not motivated to deviate from their corporate marching orders.)
> 
> A public promotion (campaign) of modern best practices is needed. Then I need to have this campaign spill over to the subscriber community. The business community needs to be educated that their productivity will improve. The social leaders need to learn that their community will get better service. Then, and only then, can I see the ISP feeling the need to improve. It helps if the improvement is just open-source software on their hardware investment.
> 
> 
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:35 AM, Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Eugene - the easiest thing in the case of your ISP would be tell him about us: https://libreqos.io <https://libreqos.io/>
>> 
>> He can take a look on it, join our support chat and get help if he won't be able to get it up and running: https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/ <https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/>
>> 
>> But most of the ISPs don't need to talk with us at all, it's easy to deploy.
>> 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik <https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik>
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>> 
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>> 
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>> 
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:22 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> OK. I need help teaching my ISPs that they can do this without threatening their business model.
>> Who can help me?
>> 
>> A public demo? Yes! Are you saying that if our (my) neighborhood ISP adopted the lessons from the public demo, most of the latency issues would be solved? What won’t get fixed? How do we make this a widely adopted best practice? Am I crying over issues that are already fixed? Does this simplify the issues at the FCC?
>> 
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com <mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>>> 
>>> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>>> 
>>> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in the wind...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>> Colin,
>>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent latency.
>>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>> 
>>> Am I asking too much?
>>> 
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Gene,
>>>> 
>>>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able to perform standard Internet functions.
>>>> 
>>>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>>> 
>>>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>>> 
>>>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>>>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org <mailto:eugene.chang@ieee.org>>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name <mailto:CHigbie1@Higbie.name>>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org <mailto:438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>> 
>>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>>> 
>>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.
>>>> 
>>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)
>>>> 
>>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>>> 
>>>> Gene
>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>> Eugene Chang
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
> 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 25406 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9882 bytes --]

I agree the number 3s are the most motivated. For example I think mediatek
is doing a massive come from behind win vs Broadcom and Qualcomm in the
wifi ap market




On Wed, May 1, 2024, 12:26 PM Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org> wrote:

> Pick up the glove?
> I can be part of a team. I am not as close as to the equipment as I used
> to be.
> I need help assembling a demo configuration that can engage the
> subscribers.
> Building a local team for this has been very slow going.
>
> I like helping a market #3 or #4 disrupt an incumbent. In most cases I
> have seen, the #2 already has a game plan for competing with #1. A distant
> #3 is usually the most hungry.
>
> Gene.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
> IEEE Communications Society & Signal Processing Society,
>     Hawaii Chapter Chair
> IEEE Life Member Affinity Group Hawaii Chair
> IEEE Entrepreneurship, Mentor
> eugene.chang@ieee.org
> m 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu)
>
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:27 PM, Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Basically, Eugene, the situation you are describing is calling for a
> competitor to disrupt them!
>
> This is such an old story - so many ISPs, especially WIPSs, started just
> because they either didn't have any option or all those options available
> were really terrible.
>
> Don't you want to pick up the glove? :P
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:53 PM Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Frank,
>> Thank you. What you suggest makes sense if it was objective!
>>
>> In my neighborhood, the ISP’s organization will feel they have nothing to
>> learn from outsiders. (Worst, both major ISPs are just a subsidiary of
>> another organization. They just implement corporate standards. The local
>> managers are not motivated to deviate from their corporate marching orders.)
>>
>> A public promotion (campaign) of modern best practices is needed. Then I
>> need to have this campaign spill over to the subscriber community. The
>> business community needs to be educated that their productivity will
>> improve. The social leaders need to learn that their community will get
>> better service. Then, and only then, can I see the ISP feeling the need to
>> improve. It helps if the improvement is just open-source software on their
>> hardware investment.
>>
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:35 AM, Frantisek Borsik <
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Eugene - the easiest thing in the case of your ISP would be tell him
>> about us: https://libreqos.io
>>
>> He can take a look on it, join our support chat and get help if he won't
>> be able to get it up and running:
>> https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/
>>
>> But most of the ISPs don't need to talk with us at all, it's easy to
>> deploy.
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:22 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> OK. I need help teaching my ISPs that they can do this without
>>> threatening their business model.
>>> Who can help me?
>>>
>>> A public demo? Yes! Are you saying that if our (my) neighborhood ISP
>>> adopted the lessons from the public demo, most of the latency issues would
>>> be solved? What won’t get fixed? How do we make this a widely adopted best
>>> practice? Am I crying over issues that are already fixed? Does this
>>> simplify the issues at the FCC?
>>>
>>> Gene
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Eugene Chang
>>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>>>
>>> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their
>>> data plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every
>>> tech on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that
>>> matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>>>
>>> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I
>>> think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the
>>> waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in
>>> the wind...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Colin,
>>>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or
>>>> consistent latency.
>>>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or
>>>> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume
>>>> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP
>>>> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>>>
>>>> Am I asking too much?
>>>>
>>>> Gene
>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>> Eugene Chang
>>>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
>>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gene,
>>>>
>>>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here)
>>>> on this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I
>>>> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because
>>>> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not
>>>> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I
>>>> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able
>>>> to perform standard Internet functions.
>>>>
>>>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to
>>>> try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people
>>>> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to
>>>> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they
>>>> don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to
>>>> be at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard
>>>> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the
>>>> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K
>>>> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and
>>>> likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR
>>>> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be
>>>> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
>>>> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>>>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>
>>>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become.
>>>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care
>>>> about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>>>
>>>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch
>>>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer
>>>> bloat and high latency.
>>>>
>>>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user
>>>> could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive
>>>> response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email
>>>> and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more
>>>> people.)
>>>>
>>>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>>>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>>>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>>>
>>>> Gene
>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>> Eugene Chang
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 22386 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

>>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <A53E11CF-FDA1-4AAE-A6EC-51EDD3B85995@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8

Hi Alexandre,


> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:40, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> 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

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Eugene Y Chang]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16771 bytes --]

Colin,
I agree with your comments.
Where do the 3 - 8 sec pauses in my video experience fit this discussion?
An occasional pause (once an evening) pause might be overlooked. Several times in a program suggest a systemic problem.

Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang
IEEE Life Senior Member
IEEE Communications Society & Signal Processing Society,
    Hawaii Chapter Chair
IEEE Life Member Affinity Group Hawaii Chair
IEEE Entrepreneurship, Mentor
eugene.chang@ieee.org
m 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu)



> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:12 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de>
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <A53E11CF-FDA1-4AAE-A6EC-51EDD3B85995@gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
> 
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> 
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:40, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 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


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 22835 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 17052 bytes --]

unless you have fairness setup on your connection (fq_codel on the sending side 
of the bottleneck link, or cake/etc) even a multi-gb link can become saturated 
for a short time, increasing bandwith makes it less noticable, but isn't 
addressing the root problem.

David Lang

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink wrote:

> Colin,
> I agree with your comments.
> Where do the 3 - 8 sec pauses in my video experience fit this discussion?
> An occasional pause (once an evening) pause might be overlooked. Several times in a program suggest a systemic problem.
>
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
> IEEE Communications Society & Signal Processing Society,
>    Hawaii Chapter Chair
> IEEE Life Member Affinity Group Hawaii Chair
> IEEE Entrepreneurship, Mentor
> eugene.chang@ieee.org
> m 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu)
>
>
>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:12 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <A53E11CF-FDA1-4AAE-A6EC-51EDD3B85995@gmx.de>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>>
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:40, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16572 bytes --]

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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Reply-To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de>
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <A53E11CF-FDA1-4AAE-A6EC-51EDD3B85995@gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
>
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:40, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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

Re: [Starlink] It?s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 18214 bytes --]

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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Reply-To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <A53E11CF-FDA1-4AAE-A6EC-51EDD3B85995@gmx.de>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>> 
>> Hi Alexandre,
>> 
>> 
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:40, Alexandre Petrescu 
>>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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 
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

[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...


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. 

I have not seen any responses that provided a sound argument against that conclusion. 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) and "I don't need to watch 4K, 1080p is sufficient for me, so it should be for everyone else too" (personal preference should never be a substitute for market data). Neither of those arguments refutes objective industry standards: 25Mbps is the minimum required bandwidth for multiple of the biggest streaming services.

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. 

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. 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. 

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.

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.

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8

Hi Alexandre,



> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...


> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>> 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-sh
>> ape-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-broa
>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>> 
>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>> 
>> David Lang
>> 
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> 
>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that 
>>> streaming
>>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower 
>>> quality the
>>> 
>> 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).
>> 
>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the 
>>> simplest
>>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest 
>>> to
>>> 
>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> 
>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't 
>>> want
>>> 
>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there 
>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed 
>> was a problem)
>> 
>>> David Lang
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that 
>>>>> download
>>>>> 
>> "speed"
>> 
>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>> 
>> 100/20 services today.
>> 
>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 
>>>> 100/20
>>>> 
>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>> 
>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my 
>>>> own
>>>> 
>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>> 
>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency 
>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for 
>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way 
>>>> down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us 
>>>> won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>> 
>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>>>> streaming
>>>> 
>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>> 
>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video 
>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound 
>>>> streams
>>>> 
>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids 
>>>> watching
>>>> 
>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>> 
>>> 
>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>> scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/2024043
>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed


Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
> Hi Alexandre,
>
>
>
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).

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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>> 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-s
>>> hape-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-bro
>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>
>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>
>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that 
>>>> streaming
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower 
>>>> quality the
>>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the 
>>>> simplest
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' 
>>>> interest to
>>>>
>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>
>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they 
>>>> didn't want
>>>>
>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there 
>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed 
>>> was a problem)
>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that 
>>>>>> download
>>>>>>
>>> "speed"
>>>
>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many 
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>
>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>
>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>
>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>
>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just 
>>>>> my own
>>>>>
>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>
>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded 
>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an 
>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency 
>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the 
>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>>>>> streaming
>>>>>
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>
>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video 
>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound 
>>>>> streams
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather 
>>>>> have
>>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids 
>>>>> watching
>>>>>
>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL: 
>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


------------------------------

End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
****************************************

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Eugene Y Chang]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 36436 bytes --]

I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.

While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.

With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)

How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
(I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)

Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang


> On Apr 30, 2024, at 8:05 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> [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...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> I have not seen any responses that provided a sound argument against that conclusion. 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) and "I don't need to watch 4K, 1080p is sufficient for me, so it should be for everyone else too" (personal preference should never be a substitute for market data). Neither of those arguments refutes objective industry standards: 25Mbps is the minimum required bandwidth for multiple of the biggest streaming services.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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. 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
> 
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...
> 
> 
>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>> 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-sh
>>> ape-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-broa
>>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>> 
>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>> 
>>> David Lang
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>> streaming
>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>> quality the
>>>> 
>>> 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).
>>> 
>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>> simplest
>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest
>>>> to
>>>> 
>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't
>>>> want
>>>> 
>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>> was a problem)
>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>> download
>>>>>> 
>>> "speed"
>>> 
>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>>> 
>>> 100/20 services today.
>>> 
>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>> 100/20
>>>>> 
>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>> 
>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my
>>>>> own
>>>>> 
>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>> 
>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way
>>>>> down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us
>>>>> won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>> streaming
>>>>> 
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>> 
>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>> streams
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>> watching
>>>>> 
>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/2024043
>>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> 
> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
>> Hi Alexandre,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).
> 
> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>> 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-s
>>>> hape-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-bro
>>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> 
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>> 
>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>> streaming
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>> quality the
>>>>> 
>>>> 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).
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>> simplest
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services'
>>>>> interest to
>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they
>>>>> didn't want
>>>>> 
>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>> was a problem)
>>>> 
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>> 
>>>> "speed"
>>>> 
>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>> 
>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>> 
>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>> 
>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just
>>>>>> my own
>>>>>> 
>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded
>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an
>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency
>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the
>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>> streams
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>> 
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>> scrubbed...
>>>> URL:
>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
> ****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 47881 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 36530 bytes --]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink wrote:

> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>
> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.
>
> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more people.)
>
> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)

it's largely a solved problem from a technical point of view. fq_codel and cake 
solve this.

The solution is just not deployed widely, instead people argue that more 
bandwidth is needed instead.

David Lang


> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
>
>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 8:05 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> [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...
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I have not seen any responses that provided a sound argument against that conclusion. 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) and "I don't need to watch 4K, 1080p is sufficient for me, so it should be for everyone else too" (personal preference should never be a substitute for market data). Neither of those arguments refutes objective industry standards: 25Mbps is the minimum required bandwidth for multiple of the biggest streaming services.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...
>>
>>
>>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>> 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-sh
>>>> ape-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-broa
>>>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>
>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>> streaming
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>> quality the
>>>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>> simplest
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't
>>>>> want
>>>>>
>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>> was a problem)
>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>
>>>> "speed"
>>>>
>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>>>>
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>
>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>
>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>
>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my
>>>>>> own
>>>>>>
>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>
>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way
>>>>>> down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us
>>>>>> won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>
>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>> scrubbed...
>>>> URL:
>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/2024043
>>>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).
>>
>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> 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-s
>>>>> hape-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-bro
>>>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>>> quality the
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>>> simplest
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services'
>>>>>> interest to
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they
>>>>>> didn't want
>>>>>>
>>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>>> was a problem)
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "speed"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many
>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>>
>>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just
>>>>>>> my own
>>>>>>>
>>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded
>>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an
>>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency
>>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the
>>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>>
>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>>> scrubbed...
>>>>> URL:
>>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
>> ****************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 38827 bytes --]


Le 30/04/2024 à 21:04, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink a écrit :
> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become. 
> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community 
> care about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following 
> scenarios.
>
>   * While watching stream content, activating controls needed to
>     switch content sometimes (often?) have long pauses.
>
It is true.

Switching between IP video channels has a much longer latency than 
switching a dial on an analog TV tuner.   This latency is also exhibited 
on radio listening, be it analog or digital DAB.

> I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.

It has multiple sources.  I suspect the highest latency factor is that 
of digital processing compared to analog processing; the next factor of 
latency (by size) may be some buffers related to data transmission, such 
as IP.

The digital processing has huge advantages over analog processing but 
the large latency of switching between channels (aka 'tuning in') is a 
clear inconvenient.

Alex

>  *
>
>
>   * With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second
>     user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The
>     interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I
>     would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon
>     analogy probably applies to more people.)
>
>
> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
>
>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 8:05 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink 
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> [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...
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I have not seen any responses that provided a sound argument against 
>> that conclusion. 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) and "I don't need to watch 
>> 4K, 1080p is sufficient for me, so it should be for everyone else 
>> too" (personal preference should never be a substitute for market 
>> data). Neither of those arguments refutes objective industry 
>> standards: 25Mbps is the minimum required bandwidth for multiple of 
>> the biggest streaming services.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink 
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...
>>
>>
>>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>> 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-sh
>>>> ape-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-broa
>>>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>
>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>> streaming
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>> quality the
>>>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>> simplest
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service 
>>>> calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't
>>>>> want
>>>>>
>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>> was a problem)
>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>
>>>> "speed"
>>>>
>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>>>>
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>
>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>
>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users 
>>>> or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>
>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my
>>>>>> own
>>>>>>
>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>
>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way
>>>>>> down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us
>>>>>> won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>
>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>> scrubbed...
>>>> URL:
>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/2024043
>>>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink 
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).
>>
>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> 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-s
>>>>> hape-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-bro
>>>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>>> quality the
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>>> simplest
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services'
>>>>>> interest to
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service 
>>>>> calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they
>>>>>> didn't want
>>>>>>
>>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>>> was a problem)
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "speed"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many
>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>>
>>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users 
>>>>> or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just
>>>>>>> my own
>>>>>>>
>>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded
>>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an
>>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency
>>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the
>>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – no problems since 
>>>>> sometime in 2023).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>>
>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>>> scrubbed...
>>>>> URL:
>>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
>> ****************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 86356 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 42582 bytes --]


> Switching between IP video channels has a much longer latency than 
> switching a dial on an analog TV tuner.   This latency is also 
> exhibited on radio listening, be it analog or digital DAB.
>
>> I attribute that to buffer bloat and high latency.
>
> It has multiple sources.  I suspect the highest latency factor is that 
> of digital processing compared to analog processing; the next factor 
> of latency (by size) may be some buffers related to data transmission, 
> such as IP.
>
> The digital processing has huge advantages over analog processing but 
> the large latency of switching between channels (aka 'tuning in') is a 
> clear inconvenient.
>
There's a bit more than that. If you are getting your video channel via 
IP off a CDN system, then there will need to be:

  * A DNS lookup to see which CDN server is meant to serve your channel,
    based on your IP address. This is usually done via geolocation
    lookup, which can take some time.
  * Your client then needs to contact the CDN server, which may need to
    import that stream from an origin server elsewhere. To do that
    properly, it needs to get an idea as to how much sustainable
    bandwidth there is between you and the CDN server, so the CDN server
    knows which resolution to request from the origin server.
  * The CDN server will then want to buffer some of the video to make
    sure it's not going to suffer from buffer starvation if there's a
    lag in timely delivery from the remote origin server. That's so your
    video doesn't go stop-start all that often.
  * Last but not least, your client then also wants to buffer some in
    order to be able to deal with irregular deliveries from the CDN
    server in times of high jitter or packet loss. The more you buffer,
    the less likely that you'll suffer disruption later.
  * With video encoding, there's also a need to buffer a few frames just
    to be able to decode, which can add a part of a second also.

Once that's all in place, latency and bufferbloat as such shouldn't 
matter all that much theoretically, except of course that the protocol 
that's feeding your client is often still TCP, and they contribute to 
making life hell for TCP as it's struggling to match its congestion 
window to the BDP, and the BDP keeps changing due to the buffers filling 
and emptying. Most TCP connections in video streaming therefore don't 
get their cwnd anywhere near BDP, as each connection just downloads a 
chunk of video before the next one takes over for the next chunk.
>
> Alex
>
>>  *
>>
>>
>>   * With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second
>>     user could have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The
>>     interactive response could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I
>>     would be doing email and working on a shared doc. The Amazon
>>     analogy probably applies to more people.)
>>
>>
>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 8:05 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink 
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> [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...
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I have not seen any responses that provided a sound argument against 
>>> that conclusion. 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) and "I don't need to watch 
>>> 4K, 1080p is sufficient for me, so it should be for everyone else 
>>> too" (personal preference should never be a substitute for market 
>>> data). Neither of those arguments refutes objective industry 
>>> standards: 25Mbps is the minimum required bandwidth for multiple of 
>>> the biggest streaming services.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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. 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
>>> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink 
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> 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-sh
>>>>> ape-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-broa
>>>>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>>> quality the
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>>> simplest
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service 
>>>>> calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't
>>>>>> want
>>>>>>
>>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>>> was a problem)
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "speed"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>>
>>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users 
>>>>> or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>
>>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>>>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>>>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way
>>>>>>> down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us
>>>>>>> won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – no problems since 
>>>>> sometime in 2023).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>>> scrubbed...
>>>>> URL:
>>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/2024043
>>>>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
>>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink 
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).
>>>
>>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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-s
>>>>>> hape-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-bro
>>>>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>>>> quality the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>>>> simplest
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services'
>>>>>>> interest to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and 
>>>>>> service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they
>>>>>>> didn't want
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>>>> was a problem)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "speed"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many
>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K 
>>>>>> users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just
>>>>>>>> my own
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care 
>>>>>> about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded
>>>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an
>>>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency
>>>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the
>>>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 – no problems since 
>>>>>> sometime in 2023).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>>>> scrubbed...
>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>>>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
>>> ****************************************
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
-- 
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 91044 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Colin,


> On 30. Apr 2024, at 20:05, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> [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...
> 
> 
> 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...

> 
> 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.... 

> 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... 

> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...
> 
> 
>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>> 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-sh
>>> ape-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-broa
>>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>> 
>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>> 
>>> David Lang
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that 
>>>> streaming
>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower 
>>>> quality the
>>>> 
>>> 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).
>>> 
>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the 
>>>> simplest
>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest 
>>>> to
>>>> 
>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't 
>>>> want
>>>> 
>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there 
>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed 
>>> was a problem)
>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that 
>>>>>> download
>>>>>> 
>>> "speed"
>>> 
>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>>> 
>>> 100/20 services today.
>>> 
>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 
>>>>> 100/20
>>>>> 
>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>> 
>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my 
>>>>> own
>>>>> 
>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>> 
>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency 
>>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for 
>>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way 
>>>>> down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us 
>>>>> won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>>>>> streaming
>>>>> 
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>> 
>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video 
>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound 
>>>>> streams
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids 
>>>>> watching
>>>>> 
>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL: 
>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/2024043
>>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> 
> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
>> Hi Alexandre,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).
> 
> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>> 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-s
>>>> hape-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-bro
>>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> 
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>> 
>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that 
>>>>> streaming
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower 
>>>>> quality the
>>>>> 
>>>> 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).
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the 
>>>>> simplest
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' 
>>>>> interest to
>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they 
>>>>> didn't want
>>>>> 
>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there 
>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed 
>>>> was a problem)
>>>> 
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" 
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that 
>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>> 
>>>> "speed"
>>>> 
>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many 
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>> 
>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>> 
>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>> 
>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just 
>>>>>> my own
>>>>>> 
>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded 
>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an 
>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency 
>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the 
>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video 
>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound 
>>>>>> streams
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids 
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>> 
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>>>> scrubbed...
>>>> URL: 
>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
> ****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit :
> Hi Colin,
> [...]
>
>> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Alex

>
>> 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...
>
>> 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....
>
>> 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...
>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:32:51 +0200
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <D3B2FA53-589F-4F35-958C-4679EC4414D9@gmx.de>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...
>>
>>
>>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>> 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-sh
>>>> ape-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-broa
>>>> dcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>
>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>> streaming
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>> quality the
>>>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>> simplest
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't
>>>>> want
>>>>>
>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>> was a problem)
>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>
>>>> "speed"
>>>>
>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>>>>
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>
>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>
>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>
>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my
>>>>>> own
>>>>>>
>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>
>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way
>>>>>> down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us
>>>>>> won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>
>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>> scrubbed...
>>>> URL:
>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/2024043
>>>> 0/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:40:58 +0200
>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>> To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a4444a@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).
>>
>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> 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-s
>>>>> hape-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-bro
>>>>> adcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower
>>>>>> quality the
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the
>>>>>> simplest
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services'
>>>>>> interest to
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they
>>>>>> didn't want
>>>>>>
>>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there
>>>>> wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed
>>>>> was a problem)
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that
>>>>>>>> download
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "speed"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many
>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>>
>>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just
>>>>>>> my own
>>>>>>>
>>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded
>>>>>>> latency further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an
>>>>>>> exception for cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency
>>>>>>> all the way down to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the
>>>>>>> rest of us won't be able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video
>>>>>>> conferencing, higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound
>>>>>>> streams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids
>>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>>
>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>>>> scrubbed...
>>>>> URL:
>>>>> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/202404
>>>>> 30/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
>> ****************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID:
	<CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
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-broadcast-and-broadband-television

Regards,

David

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,  "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
        <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)

David Lang

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:

> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>
> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming
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.
>
> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality 
> the
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).
>
> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest
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.
>
> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest 
> to
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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>
> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't 
> want
to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)
>
> David Lang
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>
>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download
"speed"
>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
100/20 services today.
>>
>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
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.
>>
>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 
>> 100/20
would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>
>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my 
>> own
personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>
>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency 
>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for 
>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down 
>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be 
>> able to tell the difference)
>>
>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>> streaming
>>
>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>
>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, 
>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>
>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
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.
>>
>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching
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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240430/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13234 bytes --]

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.

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.  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<starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>  On Behalf Ofstarlink-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<davidfdzp@gmail.com>
> To: starlink<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
> 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-broadcast-and-broadband-television
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Lang<david@lang.hm>
> To: Colin_Higbie<CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Cc: David Lang<david@lang.hm>,"starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>          <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID:<srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>> From: Colin_Higbie<CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>> To: David Lang<david@lang.hm>
>> Cc:"starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"  <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>
>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming
> 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.
>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality
>> the
> 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).
>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest
> 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.
>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest
>> to
> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Lang<david@lang.hm>
>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>> To: Colin Higbie<colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>> Cc:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>
>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't
>> want
> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)
>> David Lang
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie<colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>> To:"starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"  <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>
>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download
> "speed"
>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
> 100/20 services today.
>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
> 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.
>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>> 100/20
> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my
>>> own
> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down
>>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be
>>> able to tell the difference)
>>>
>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>> streaming
>>>
>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>
>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing,
>>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>>
>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
> 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.
>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching
> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240430/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 19169 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Alexandre,



> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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...


> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>> 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-broadcast-and-broadband-television
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>> 
>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>> 
>> David Lang
>> 
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> 
>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming
>>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality 
>>> the
>>> 
>> 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).
>> 
>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest
>>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest 
>>> to
>>> 
>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> 
>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't 
>>> want
>>> 
>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)
>> 
>>> David Lang
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download
>>>>> 
>> "speed"
>> 
>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to 
>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I 
>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really 
>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>> 
>> 100/20 services today.
>> 
>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 
>>>> 100/20
>>>> 
>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>> 
>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my 
>>>> own
>>>> 
>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>> 
>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some 
>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency 
>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for 
>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down 
>>>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be 
>>>> able to tell the difference)
>>>> 
>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video 
>>>> streaming
>>>> 
>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, 
>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>> 
>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, 
>>>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>>> 
>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching
>>>> 
>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>> 
>>> 
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240430/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 30/04/2024 à 16:32, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
> Hi Alexandre,
>
>
>
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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).

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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>> 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-broadcast-and-broadband-television
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>
>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>
>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality
>>>> the
>>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest
>>>> to
>>>>
>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>
>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't
>>>> want
>>>>
>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)
>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download
>>>>>>
>>> "speed"
>>>
>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>>>
>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>
>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>
>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>
>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my
>>>>> own
>>>>>
>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>
>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down
>>>>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be
>>>>> able to tell the difference)
>>>>>
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>> streaming
>>>>>
>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>
>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing,
>>>>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching
>>>>>
>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240430/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Alexandre,


> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:40, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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-cloud-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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>> 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-broadcast-and-broadband-television
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> 
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>> 
>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality
>>>>> the
>>>>> 
>>>> 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).
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest
>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest
>>>>> to
>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> 
>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't
>>>>> want
>>>>> 
>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)
>>>> 
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download
>>>>>>> 
>>>> "speed"
>>>> 
>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>> 
>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>> 
>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>> 
>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my
>>>>>> own
>>>>>> 
>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down
>>>>>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be
>>>>>> able to tell the difference)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing,
>>>>>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching
>>>>>> 
>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>> 
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240430/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 30/04/2024 à 16:45, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
> Hi Alexandre,
>
>
>> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:40, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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 <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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-cloud-migrations.html
> so this is more than just a concept...

Thank you for the example.  It is good to know.  From the URL, it seems 
as if they did with that truck something that magnetic backup tapes did 
before.  Last time I checked, magnetic backup tapes still had higher 
capacity than hard disk drives at a same dimension, but I dont know now.

In a similar vein, there is also a demo of IP-over-avian-carriers RFC 
(pigeons).  It is just half fun, and useful in some sense.

This aspect of using object things (trucks, planes, pigeons) to transmit 
data, rather than electromagnetic waves, is also very relevant in a 
satcom discussion.  They talk about these ballons, cubesats, disksats, 
sails, and more.  They too might offer higher bandwidths but with huge 
latencies.  They might be useful for some application, too.

Alex


>
>> 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 <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> <CAC=tZ0rrmWJUNLvGupw6K8ogADcYLq-eyW7Bjb209oNDWGfVSA@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> 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-broadcast-and-broadband-television
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
>>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)
>>>>>
>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
>>>>>> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>>>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, 4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
>>>>>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't
>>>>>> want
>>>>>>
>>>>> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Lang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>>>>>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>>>>>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "speed"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>>>>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>>>>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>>>>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> 100/20 services today.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming.
>>>>>>> 100/20
>>>>>>>
>>>>> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 8K streams.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>
>>>>> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>>>>>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>>>>>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>>>>>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down
>>>>>>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be
>>>>>>> able to tell the difference)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>>>>>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing,
>>>>>>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>>
>>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>> URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240430/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1360 bytes --]

Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> h++ps://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/17/aws-stops-selling-snowmobile-truck-for-cloud-migrations.html
>> so this is more than just a concept...
>
> Thank you for the example.  It is good to know.  From the URL, it seems 
> as if they did with that truck something that magnetic backup tapes did 
> before.  Last time I checked, magnetic backup tapes still had higher 
> capacity than hard disk drives at a same dimension, but I dont know now.
>
> In a similar vein, there is also a demo of IP-over-avian-carriers RFC 
> (pigeons).  It is just half fun, and useful in some sense.
>
> This aspect of using object things (trucks, planes, pigeons) to transmit 
> data, rather than electromagnetic waves, is also very relevant in a 
> satcom discussion.  They talk about these ballons, cubesats, disksats, 
> sails, and more.  They too might offer higher bandwidths but with huge 
> latencies.  They might be useful for some application, too.

I think the original version was 'never underestimate the bandwidth of a station 
wagon filled with tapes driving down the freeway' :-)

tape may have a higher density, but once you include the fact that tape is more 
fragile when transported, and the time it takes to read/write the data on each 
end, the value of RAID arrays of spinning rust compared to tape is very 
attractive.

David Lang

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1694 bytes --]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:

> 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.

No, As a general rule you do not have to accept poor latency to get good speed.

at least not until the link is very close to full utilization. But below some 
figure (depending on how you are managing latency, it may be 80% utilization, 
90% utilization, or even higher), there is no bandwidth gain from lowering 
latency.

Even for media that batches traffic (wifi), the bandwidth tradeoff between 'send 
everything you have now, let anything that misses this window go out in the next 
transmission' vs 'delay sending anything just in case there is more that will 
arrive and can be sent in the same transmission slow instead of it having to 
wait' only affects the bandwidth used in the first transmission op, after that 
the bandwidth usage will be the same, but you have better latency. Now when you 
try to add fairness for something like this you may end up costing latency 
and/or bandwidth, but that's a different discussion than there being a 
latency/bandwith constant relationship like you claim.

So I very much disagree that you have to trade off latency for bandwidth.

There may be some special data link technologies were there is a 
bandwidth/latency tradeoff, but I am not aware of them (please educate me if 
there are ones that I am not aware of)

David Lang

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[David Fernández]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8227 bytes --]

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-broadcast-and-broadband-television

Regards,

David

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,  "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
        <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308608@ynat.uz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR)

David Lang

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:

> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000
> From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>
> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming
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.
>
> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality the
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).
>
> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest
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.
>
> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest to
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 – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair,
4K HDR definitely doesn’t 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
> To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
>
> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't want
to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too
much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem)
>
> David Lang
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000
>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.higbie@scribl.com>
>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>>
>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download
"speed"
>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to
>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
100/20 services today.
>>
>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how
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.
>>
>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. 100/20
would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2
8K streams.
>>
>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my own
personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about:
>>
>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some
>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency
>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for
>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down
>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be
>> able to tell the difference)
>>
>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video
>> streaming
>>
>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming,
>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k
>>
>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing,
>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams
>>
>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have
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.
>>
>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching
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 – no problems since sometime in 2023).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11814 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

Just to be clear: 4K is absolutely a standard in streaming, with that being the most popular TV being sold today. 8K is not and likely won't be until 80+" TVs become the norm. The few 8K streaming videos that exist are available primarily as YouTube curiosities, with virtually no displays on the market that support it yet and none of the big content providers like Netflix or Disney+ provide 8K streams.

Virtually all modern streaming programming on Netflix and Disney+ is 4K HDR. That is the standard to support.

The objective quality difference to the average human eye between SD and HD is huge and changes whether you see the shape of a face or the detailed expression on a face. Completely different viewing experience. The difference between HD and 4K is significant on today's larger TV displays (not so visible on the smaller displays that populated living rooms in prior decades). On an OLED TV (not so much on an LCD) the difference between SDR and HDR is bigger than the difference between HD and 4K. But because HDR generally comes with 4K and tends not to be used much on HD streams, the real standards to contrast are HD (in SDR) and 4K in HDR. 

The minimum bandwidth needed to reliably provide a 4K HDR stream is about 15Mbps. Because of the way video compression works, a simpler scene may get by with less than 10Mbps. A complex scene (fire, falling confetti like at the end of the Super Bowl) can push this up to near 20Mbps. Assuming some background activity on a typical network, safest is to think of 20Mbps as the effective minimum for 4K. Netflix says 25Mbps to add an extra safety margin.

True that latency doesn't matter much for streaming. For streaming, unlike VoIP, video conferencing, and gaming, bandwidth is more important. 

VoIP, Video conferencing, and gaming drive low-latency use cases (web browsing is also affected, but as long as the page starts to appear w/in about 1s and has mostly completed within about 5s, users don't notice the lag, which is why even geosync satellite Internet with its several hundred ms latency can be acceptable for browsing). 

Video conferencing drives high-upload (5Mbps minimum) use cases.

4K streaming drives high-download (20Mbps per user or per stream with some safety and overhead) use cases. 

These are all valid and important overall in architecting needs for an ISP, but not all will necessarily be important to every user.

Cheers,
Colin

-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 1:37 PM
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 36, Issue 20

>...

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.  8K is delivered from space already by a japanese provider, but not on IP.  So, if we discuss TV resolutions we should look at these (8K, 16K, and why not 3D 16K for ever more strength testing).

Second, 4K etc. are for TV.  In TV the latency is rarely if ever an issue.  There are some rare cases where latency is very important in TV (I could think of betting in sports, time synch of clocks) but they dont look at such low latency as in our typical visioconference or remote surgery or group music playing use-cases on Internet starlink.

So, I dont know how much 4K, 8K, 16K might be imposing any new latency requirement on starlink.

Alex

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:21:48 +0100
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <d04bf060-54e2-4828-854e-29c7f3e3de98@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

I retract the message, sorry, it is true that some teleoperation and visioconf also use 4K. So the latency is important there too.

A visioconf with 8K and 3D 16K might need latency reqs too.

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Colin,


> On 16. Mar 2024, at 20:10, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Just to be clear: 4K is absolutely a standard in streaming,

[SM] Over here the lower priced streaming tiers tend to only offer 1080p, not 4K, so 4K is certain a standard, but not the standard in streaming, no?

> with that being the most popular TV being sold today. 8K is not and likely won't be until 80+" TVs become the norm. The few 8K streaming videos that exist are available primarily as YouTube curiosities, with virtually no displays on the market that support it yet and none of the big content providers like Netflix or Disney+ provide 8K streams.
> 
> Virtually all modern streaming programming on Netflix and Disney+ is 4K HDR. That is the standard to support.
> 
> The objective quality difference to the average human eye between SD and HD is huge and changes whether you see the shape of a face or the detailed expression on a face. Completely different viewing experience. The difference between HD and 4K is significant on today's larger TV displays (not so visible on the smaller displays that populated living rooms in prior decades).

[SM] This really is a function of size of the pixels and viewing distance as the human retina has a fixed resolution in degree visual angle (around 1-2 minute of arc depending on context), it is a simple exercise in trigonometry to figure out at what distance a given screen resolution will be coarser or finer than the retina"s resolution... But this is far less important than one tends to think, we got by with SD resolution for decades and people still enjoyed the (low pass filtered) content.

> On an OLED TV (not so much on an LCD) the difference between SDR and HDR is bigger than the difference between HD and 4K. But because HDR generally comes with 4K and tends not to be used much on HD streams, the real standards to contrast are HD (in SDR) and 4K in HDR.

[SM] Not 100% sure, there is plenty of non HDR 4K material outhere, and e.g. our apple TVs defaulted to 4K SDR (but that might depend on the TV they where connected to first).

> 
> The minimum bandwidth needed to reliably provide a 4K HDR stream is about 15Mbps. Because of the way video compression works, a simpler scene may get by with less than 10Mbps. A complex scene (fire, falling confetti like at the end of the Super Bowl) can push this up to near 20Mbps. Assuming some background activity on a typical network, safest is to think of 20Mbps as the effective minimum for 4K. Netflix says 25Mbps to add an extra safety margin.

[SM] Netflix recommendation like >= 15 Mbps for 4K cover the whole internet link so are already slightly generous...

> True that latency doesn't matter much for streaming. For streaming, unlike VoIP, video conferencing, and gaming, bandwidth is more important.

[SM] It is fars forwarding, fast reversing and jumping around in the timeline where latency starts to become immediately perceptible, but these (at least for me) are not that common. 

> 
> VoIP, Video conferencing, and gaming drive low-latency use cases (web browsing is also affected, but as long as the page starts to appear w/in about 1s and has mostly completed within about 5s, users don't notice the lag, which is why even geosync satellite Internet with its several hundred ms latency can be acceptable for browsing). 
> 
> Video conferencing drives high-upload (5Mbps minimum) use cases.
> 
> 4K streaming drives high-download (20Mbps per user or per stream with some safety and overhead) use cases. 
> 
> These are all valid and important overall in architecting needs for an ISP, but not all will necessarily be important to every user.

[SM] Yes, but ISPs will need to do some planning ahead and hence by necessity need to operate with "average users" that average over all the differences in individual requirements and use-cases.

> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 1:37 PM
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 36, Issue 20
> 
>> ...
> 
> 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.  8K is delivered from space already by a japanese provider, but not on IP.  So, if we discuss TV resolutions we should look at these (8K, 16K, and why not 3D 16K for ever more strength testing).
> 
> Second, 4K etc. are for TV.  In TV the latency is rarely if ever an issue.  There are some rare cases where latency is very important in TV (I could think of betting in sports, time synch of clocks) but they dont look at such low latency as in our typical visioconference or remote surgery or group music playing use-cases on Internet starlink.
> 
> So, I dont know how much 4K, 8K, 16K might be imposing any new latency requirement on starlink.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:21:48 +0100
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <d04bf060-54e2-4828-854e-29c7f3e3de98@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> I retract the message, sorry, it is true that some teleoperation and visioconf also use 4K. So the latency is important there too.
> 
> A visioconf with 8K and 3D 16K might need latency reqs too.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 16/03/2024 à 20:10, Colin_Higbie via Starlink a écrit :
> Just to be clear: 4K is absolutely a standard in streaming, with that being the most popular TV being sold today. 8K is not and likely won't be until 80+" TVs become the norm.

I can agree screen size is one aspect pushing the higher resolutions to 
acceptance, but there are some more signs indicating that 8K is just 
round the corner, and 16K right after it.

The recording consumer devices (cameras) already do 8K recording 
cheaply, since a couple of years.

New acronyms beyond simply resolutions are always ready to come up.  HDR 
(high dynamic range) was such an acronym accompanying 4K, so for 8K 
there might be another, bringing more than just resolution, maybe even 
more dynamic range, blacker blacks, wider gamut,-for goggles, etc. for a 
same screen size.

8K and 16K playing devices might not have a surface to exhibit their 
entire power, but when such surfaces become available, these 8K and 16K 
playing devices will be ready for them, whereas 4K no.

A similar evolution is witnessed by sound and by crypto: 44KHz CD was 
enough for all, until SACD 88KHz came about, then DSD64, DSD128 and 
today DSD 1024, which means DSD 2048 tomorrow.  And the Dolby Atmos and 
11.1 outputs.   These too dont yet have the speakers nor the ears to 
take advantage of, but in the future they might.  In crypto, the 
'post-quantum' algorithms are designed to resist brute force by 
computers that dont exist publicly  (a few hundred qubit range exists, 
but 20.000 qubit range computer is needed) but when they will, these 
crypto algos will be ready.

Given that, one could imagine the bandwidth and latency by a 3D 16K 
DSD1024 quantum-resistant ciphered multi-party visio-conference with 
gloves, goggles and other interacting devices, with low latency over 
starlink.

The growth trends (4K...) can be identified and the needed latency 
numbers can be projected.

Alex

>   The few 8K streaming videos that exist are available primarily as YouTube curiosities, with virtually no displays on the market that support it yet and none of the big content providers like Netflix or Disney+ provide 8K streams.
>
> Virtually all modern streaming programming on Netflix and Disney+ is 4K HDR. That is the standard to support.
>
> The objective quality difference to the average human eye between SD and HD is huge and changes whether you see the shape of a face or the detailed expression on a face. Completely different viewing experience. The difference between HD and 4K is significant on today's larger TV displays (not so visible on the smaller displays that populated living rooms in prior decades). On an OLED TV (not so much on an LCD) the difference between SDR and HDR is bigger than the difference between HD and 4K. But because HDR generally comes with 4K and tends not to be used much on HD streams, the real standards to contrast are HD (in SDR) and 4K in HDR.
>
> The minimum bandwidth needed to reliably provide a 4K HDR stream is about 15Mbps. Because of the way video compression works, a simpler scene may get by with less than 10Mbps. A complex scene (fire, falling confetti like at the end of the Super Bowl) can push this up to near 20Mbps. Assuming some background activity on a typical network, safest is to think of 20Mbps as the effective minimum for 4K. Netflix says 25Mbps to add an extra safety margin.
>
> True that latency doesn't matter much for streaming. For streaming, unlike VoIP, video conferencing, and gaming, bandwidth is more important.
>
> VoIP, Video conferencing, and gaming drive low-latency use cases (web browsing is also affected, but as long as the page starts to appear w/in about 1s and has mostly completed within about 5s, users don't notice the lag, which is why even geosync satellite Internet with its several hundred ms latency can be acceptable for browsing).
>
> Video conferencing drives high-upload (5Mbps minimum) use cases.
>
> 4K streaming drives high-download (20Mbps per user or per stream with some safety and overhead) use cases.
>
> These are all valid and important overall in architecting needs for an ISP, but not all will necessarily be important to every user.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 1:37 PM
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 36, Issue 20
>
>> ...
> 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.  8K is delivered from space already by a japanese provider, but not on IP.  So, if we discuss TV resolutions we should look at these (8K, 16K, and why not 3D 16K for ever more strength testing).
>
> Second, 4K etc. are for TV.  In TV the latency is rarely if ever an issue.  There are some rare cases where latency is very important in TV (I could think of betting in sports, time synch of clocks) but they dont look at such low latency as in our typical visioconference or remote surgery or group music playing use-cases on Internet starlink.
>
> So, I dont know how much 4K, 8K, 16K might be imposing any new latency requirement on starlink.
>
> Alex
>
> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:21:48 +0100
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> Message-ID: <d04bf060-54e2-4828-854e-29c7f3e3de98@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> I retract the message, sorry, it is true that some teleoperation and visioconf also use 4K. So the latency is important there too.
>
> A visioconf with 8K and 3D 16K might need latency reqs too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7387 bytes --]

No matter the # of K in resolution or retina/not retina, I would aim for as
much close to or even under 20 ms as an arbitrary number for VR/AR type of
applications.

Sure, we don't need to get there next year, but we are heading this
direction, anyway.

I have read a very detail write-up of the current state of VR headsets
recently, and it touch not only latency, but also the display quality and
prerequisites for human eyes: https://hugo.blog/2024/03/11/vision-pro/

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 6:00 PM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

>
> Le 16/03/2024 à 20:10, Colin_Higbie via Starlink a écrit :
> > Just to be clear: 4K is absolutely a standard in streaming, with that
> being the most popular TV being sold today. 8K is not and likely won't be
> until 80+" TVs become the norm.
>
> I can agree screen size is one aspect pushing the higher resolutions to
> acceptance, but there are some more signs indicating that 8K is just
> round the corner, and 16K right after it.
>
> The recording consumer devices (cameras) already do 8K recording
> cheaply, since a couple of years.
>
> New acronyms beyond simply resolutions are always ready to come up.  HDR
> (high dynamic range) was such an acronym accompanying 4K, so for 8K
> there might be another, bringing more than just resolution, maybe even
> more dynamic range, blacker blacks, wider gamut,-for goggles, etc. for a
> same screen size.
>
> 8K and 16K playing devices might not have a surface to exhibit their
> entire power, but when such surfaces become available, these 8K and 16K
> playing devices will be ready for them, whereas 4K no.
>
> A similar evolution is witnessed by sound and by crypto: 44KHz CD was
> enough for all, until SACD 88KHz came about, then DSD64, DSD128 and
> today DSD 1024, which means DSD 2048 tomorrow.  And the Dolby Atmos and
> 11.1 outputs.   These too dont yet have the speakers nor the ears to
> take advantage of, but in the future they might.  In crypto, the
> 'post-quantum' algorithms are designed to resist brute force by
> computers that dont exist publicly  (a few hundred qubit range exists,
> but 20.000 qubit range computer is needed) but when they will, these
> crypto algos will be ready.
>
> Given that, one could imagine the bandwidth and latency by a 3D 16K
> DSD1024 quantum-resistant ciphered multi-party visio-conference with
> gloves, goggles and other interacting devices, with low latency over
> starlink.
>
> The growth trends (4K...) can be identified and the needed latency
> numbers can be projected.
>
> Alex
>
> >   The few 8K streaming videos that exist are available primarily as
> YouTube curiosities, with virtually no displays on the market that support
> it yet and none of the big content providers like Netflix or Disney+
> provide 8K streams.
> >
> > Virtually all modern streaming programming on Netflix and Disney+ is 4K
> HDR. That is the standard to support.
> >
> > The objective quality difference to the average human eye between SD and
> HD is huge and changes whether you see the shape of a face or the detailed
> expression on a face. Completely different viewing experience. The
> difference between HD and 4K is significant on today's larger TV displays
> (not so visible on the smaller displays that populated living rooms in
> prior decades). On an OLED TV (not so much on an LCD) the difference
> between SDR and HDR is bigger than the difference between HD and 4K. But
> because HDR generally comes with 4K and tends not to be used much on HD
> streams, the real standards to contrast are HD (in SDR) and 4K in HDR.
> >
> > The minimum bandwidth needed to reliably provide a 4K HDR stream is
> about 15Mbps. Because of the way video compression works, a simpler scene
> may get by with less than 10Mbps. A complex scene (fire, falling confetti
> like at the end of the Super Bowl) can push this up to near 20Mbps.
> Assuming some background activity on a typical network, safest is to think
> of 20Mbps as the effective minimum for 4K. Netflix says 25Mbps to add an
> extra safety margin.
> >
> > True that latency doesn't matter much for streaming. For streaming,
> unlike VoIP, video conferencing, and gaming, bandwidth is more important.
> >
> > VoIP, Video conferencing, and gaming drive low-latency use cases (web
> browsing is also affected, but as long as the page starts to appear w/in
> about 1s and has mostly completed within about 5s, users don't notice the
> lag, which is why even geosync satellite Internet with its several hundred
> ms latency can be acceptable for browsing).
> >
> > Video conferencing drives high-upload (5Mbps minimum) use cases.
> >
> > 4K streaming drives high-download (20Mbps per user or per stream with
> some safety and overhead) use cases.
> >
> > These are all valid and important overall in architecting needs for an
> ISP, but not all will necessarily be important to every user.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Colin
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 1:37 PM
> > To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 36, Issue 20
> >
> >> ...
> > 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.  8K is delivered from space
> already by a japanese provider, but not on IP.  So, if we discuss TV
> resolutions we should look at these (8K, 16K, and why not 3D 16K for ever
> more strength testing).
> >
> > Second, 4K etc. are for TV.  In TV the latency is rarely if ever an
> issue.  There are some rare cases where latency is very important in TV (I
> could think of betting in sports, time synch of clocks) but they dont look
> at such low latency as in our typical visioconference or remote surgery or
> group music playing use-cases on Internet starlink.
> >
> > So, I dont know how much 4K, 8K, 16K might be imposing any new latency
> requirement on starlink.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:21:48 +0100
> > From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> > To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
> > Message-ID: <d04bf060-54e2-4828-854e-29c7f3e3de98@gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> >
> > I retract the message, sorry, it is true that some teleoperation and
> visioconf also use 4K. So the latency is important there too.
> >
> > A visioconf with 8K and 3D 16K might need latency reqs 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10006 bytes --]

[Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Larry Press]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 61 bytes --]

https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 773 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: PageLoadVsLatency.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 48607 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: NetflixSppedTable.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 64224 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Dave Taht]

There was a statement at the end of your blog post that I did not have
privs to respond to.

Honest question: What does digital equity really mean to most people?

"Digital equity is a condition in which all individuals and
communities have the information technology capacity needed for full
participation in our society, democracy, and economy." is the topmost
definition,but there are many others.

We made a point, easily demonstrable, that a 10Mbit link with 1ms
latency (to the nearest CDN) will outperforma 10Gbit link with 50ms.
This can be shown by web PLT, and in the case of 1ms to the nearest
IXP for a voip call, you also see improvement in user experience.

I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download
"speed" means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second
to second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
100/20 services today.

https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/speedtests/

I care more about MTBF and MTTR than bandwidths greater than 25mbits.
A whole town going down, unable to conduct commerce, when the network
goes down, where does that fit into digital equity?

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:53 PM Larry Press via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Tmvv5jJKs Epik Mellon Podcast
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Michael Richardson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1083 bytes --]


Dave Taht via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
    > We made a point, easily demonstrable, that a 10Mbit link with 1ms
    > latency (to the nearest CDN) will outperforma 10Gbit link with 50ms.

Agreed.

    > I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download
    > "speed" means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second
    > to second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I
    > succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really
    > terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing
    > 100/20 services today.

Yes. The problem starts with the geeks, who in my town seem to readily go for
the 100Mb/s FTTH (GPON) link from the incompetent incumbent telco rather than
the 50/10 VDSL from a competent ISP.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [ 
	

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 658 bytes --]