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For one, 4K can be considered outdated for those who look forward to 8K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
