Cheers,
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink <starlink-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
starlink-requ...@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 <moell...@gmx.de>
To: Colin_Higbie <chigb...@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-6d6d85aa1...@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-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
starlink-requ...@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 <moell...@gmx.de>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petre...@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-4679ec441...@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-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
starlink-requ...@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 <davidf...@gmail.com>
To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID:
<CAC=tz0rrmwjunlvgupw6k8ogadcylq-eyw7bjb209ondwgf...@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 <da...@lang.hm>
To: Colin_Higbie <chigb...@higbie.name>
Cc: David Lang <da...@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308...@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 <chigb...@higbie.name>
To: David Lang <da...@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 <da...@lang.hm>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
To: Colin Higbie <colin.hig...@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.hig...@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.petre...@gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de>
Cc: Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <727b07d9-9dc3-43b7-8e17-50b6b7a44...@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-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf
Of starlink-requ...@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 <davidf...@gmail.com>
To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
Message-ID:
<CAC=tz0rrmwjunlvgupw6k8ogadcylq-eyw7bjb209ondwgf...@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 <da...@lang.hm>
To: Colin_Higbie <chigb...@higbie.name>
Cc: David Lang <da...@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net"
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308...@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 <chigb...@higbie.name>
To: David Lang <da...@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 <da...@lang.hm>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM
To: Colin Higbie <colin.hig...@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.hig...@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
