HDBaseT Supporters Hope To Kiss HDMI Goodbye 336
arcticstoat writes "HDMI's short-lived reign over the TV cable racks could soon be over, thanks to a new usurper that combines several connections into a standard Cat5e/6 network cable with an RJ-45 connector. Designed by a coalition of consumer electronics manufacturers called the HDBaseT Alliance, which includes Sony, Samsung, LG and Valens, HDBaseT promises to not only carry video and audio signals, but also provide a network connection, a USB signal and even electricity using a single cable. The Alliance predicts that we'll start seeing the first HDBaseT equipment creeping into the shops later this year, but says the bigger wave of adoption will occur later in 2011."
One question (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think his brother works over at The Good Guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One question (Score:5, Funny)
It's not known well, but temperature and altitude affect the clarity just as much, if not more, than the cable construction methods. The colder it is the less jitter is introduced in the signal path as the molecules are not moving around so much. Closer to sea level, the predictability of the air pressure reduces the effects of signal variance. Which you can hear if your listening space is 10 degrees Celsius or cooler.
All Best Buy audio employees know this but are bound to secrecy by Monster Cable. Probably for marketing reasons.
Re:One question (Score:5, Informative)
That would be funny if it wasn't true [denon.com]. You can get it [amazon.com] from Amazon too.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be funny if it wasn't true [denon.com]. You can get it [amazon.com] from Amazon too.
Some pretty funny reviews there too :)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not Monster, but Denon already does. [denon.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One question (Score:5, Insightful)
Will Monster make a special gold-plated, oxygenated cable for it?
Of course they will. So would I, if I could manage to get through the sales speech without breaking down in hysterical laughter. Some money just deserve to be taken.
Because they don't understand enough about the physics of digital electrical signals? I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices? Your money deserves to be taken, right?
I'm of the opinion that we should be spreading information, instead of being the assholes laughing in the corner and watching Monster get richer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need to be an EE or Comp. Sci. expert to understand that digital audio/video cables can't improve the signal quality beyond 0 data loss, you just need to have managed high school level physics.
First of all, signal quality and data loss weren't part of my high school physics curriculum. Nor were they part of my college physics curriculum. That's because we're talking about digital signals, which are the realm of EE and CS.
Secondly, the point is that the advertising implies that other cables don't have zero losses. Unless you understand beyond the basics of digital signals (and let's face it, that's hardly ubiquitous knowledge right now), you're vulnerable to advertisers abusing their 'air of a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I'm skipping the rhetorical question [slashdot.org] turned pissing match [slashdot.org], but for real. Sometimes we simply lack the power to protect the willfully ignorant from their own naiveté, especially when they abuse us for our troubles [youtube.com]. Then it's the best we can do [xkcd.com] to simply hope beyond hope that they'll catch on [youtube.com].
Re:One question (Score:4, Informative)
It may be an analog signal, but that analog signal is carrying digital data, which is usually checksummed and/or even encrypted and subsequently decrypted. It's much more of an all-or-nothing situation than with pure analog signals... if your HDMI cable works, you've got a pretty good chance that you're getting pristine 100% digital picture and sound quality...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"You're either being pedantic or wrong."
More like technical beyond your means.
In fact, *EVERYTHING* is based from analog waveforms. Including your very cells.
Re:One question (Score:4, Insightful)
Why yes, I do. It's not right, but I fully expect each and every one of these persons to ignore that and screw me over. That, arguably, is the biggest problem facing our time: you can't trust people, so the separation of labour breaks down, requiring you to be an expert at everything.
Just because there's no difference doesn't mean that an audiophile can't hear it. Seriously, expect to be blown away by the very same people who you're trying to help.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why yes, I do. It's not right, but I fully expect each and every one of these persons to ignore that and screw me over. That, arguably, is the biggest problem facing our time: you can't trust people, so the separation of labour breaks down, requiring you to be an expert at everything.
However, note that the GP states the money 'deserves' to be taken. I think that crosses the line from 'need to be cautious' to 'GP is an insufferable douche-bag'.
Just because there's no difference doesn't mean that an audiophile can't hear it. Seriously, expect to be blown away by the very same people who you're trying to help.
Unfortunately, that is true. Of course, I think the average person buying a Monster HDMI cable isn't an audiophile, they're just swayed by pretty colors and lots of stickers.
And I think most people can be swayed by the 'but think of all the things that upgrade money could go to instead that will actually improve your sound/video quality' argumen
No kidding (Score:5, Informative)
Because, here's a shocker for many smug "I know everything," geek types: Cable quality DOES make a difference! When you start talking extremely high bandwidth signals, like you are talking with HDMI especially the "beyond HD" stuff you are talking some tight tolerances that are needed. This is even more true when using smaller cable for longer runs (you can solve a number of problems simply by throwing copper at it and using larger cables). So you may well find that a cable that worked just fine for an old 720p TV doesn't work at all, or has sparkles and dropouts when you hook it up to a 1080p 120Hz connection. Suddenly your bandwidth is beyond its capabilities.
So you can't just say "Ha! Cables don't matter! Anything works fine!" because that's false. As we do higher and higher bandwidth stuff, cable tolerances become more and more important. That's why you can have Cat-3/5/5e/6/6a cables all of which look fundamentally the same, yet have drastically different performance. They are all 4 pairs of unshielded twisted wire. However Cat-3 is good for maybe 16MHz whereas Cat-6a is good to 500MHz. Why? Much, MUCH tighter tolerances and specs.
So cable quality DOES matter as people can find out, but then there are assholes like Monster that rip people off with it.
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Informative)
So cable quality DOES matter as people can find out, but then there are assholes like Monster that rip people off with it.
Right, but only to a point. Once worst-case noise and signal loss are below the threshold for proper reception at operating conditions, no further improvement can be gained (except perhaps to further shield from harsh environments not typically found in a living room).
There may be cables that fail to meet specifications, but vastly surpassing those specifications (which is the problem here) provides no improvement to signal integrity. As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.
Re:No kidding (Score:5, Informative)
There's one tiny detail that throws a monkey wrench into just about *everyone's* understanding: a disturbingly large percentage of recent-vintage low-cost cable from China has been made using "copper-coated steel" (CCS) and NOT pure copper.
CCS has been used for years as the center conductor in 75-ohm coax, but its appearance in things like network cable alleged to be "cat5e" is a VERY recent phenomenon (as in, even 2 or 3 years ago, it was basically unheard of). When you throw CCS into the cable equation, everything you know about cable based upon past experience and external observances goes to hell. For the most part, it's safe to say that CCS does absolutely nothing GOOD for applications like ethernet, and has plenty of potential to do really bad things to it. I'd be shocked if the CCS cable pawned off as "cat5e" on eBay (and quite a few discount vendors online) would meet official cat5e specifications at a HUNDRED feet, let alone a thousand or more. Worst of all, unless you're making a point of watching out for CCS network cable, it actually looks BETTER upon casual inspection than decent pure-copper cable, because the wires are thicker. The problem is, the steel core does nothing for the signal, so you're basically trading a hair-thin AWG26 copper wire for a micron-thick hollow tube of copper electroplated onto a strand of steel wire, and using it in a scenario where the conductivity difference really, truly DOES matter.
Don't believe me? Go to eBay and search for "cat5e CCS" (sans quotes), checking the box to search the description as well. You'll find at least a page of results, and when you read the descriptions, you'll see that they most certainly ARE "CCS".
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the reason it's halfway-legal to sell CCS UTP cable as "cat5e Cable" is because (in America, at least), "cat5e" only has specific legal meaning if you use it in conjunction with "TIA/EIA-568-B", or make specific claims about its suitability for network use at a given speed and/or length. As long as you claim nothing beyond "AWG24 Cat5e Cable", you could probably get away with just about anything capable of conducting electricity and 4 twisted pairs of wire.
Anyway, beware. CCS "cat5e" cable is real, and is a growing problem unless you make a point of trying to avoid buying it.
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. If you have a copper cable that works just fine transferring the HD signal from your Bluray to your TV, then that's all you need. Going out and buying a $100 gold-plated cable will not make digital bits any more "bittier". 1s and 0s are 1s and 0s, and you will see no improvement.
But at what level? (Score:4, Informative)
Depending on what you are doing, it takes more bandwidth. 720p video at 60fps takes much less bandwidth than 1080p video at 120fps. So a cable that works for the lower signal may not work for the more intense one.
Now for short runs, this is generally not a problem. At 2 meters pretty much any cable will do the trick. However longer runs this becomes a real consideration. It becomes even more of a problem if you want a thin cable. The nice thin HDMI cables are 28 AWG wire. However getting a high bandwidth signal over that at a distance can be a problem and require a cable of superior construction. Belden makes such a cable (sold through Bluejeans) that will get you more bandwdith at longer range over a smaller wire gauge.
As an analogy you might be more familiar with, take GigE over Cat-5. It works just fine for many people. There are plenty of NICs and switches that say Cat-5 is fine. However, according to the spec, it isn't. You need Cat-5e. So what's up? Well, with a short run, it just isn't such a big deal. The lower tolerances of Cat-5 are fine. However if you try and do a 100m run, and try and do it near a bunch of other cables and so on you may find that it no longer works. You may even have a situation where you sync at a gig, but it doesn't give you good speed because there are bit errors.
There are in fact certifiers for this purpose from people like JDSU and Fluke. They check the analogue response of the cable and do a bit error test to see if it really is up to spec, or if there are problems. When you run your own cables at a good length, as we do at work, you want one of those.
Same shit with HDMI but even worse, as there aren't any length specs. You can make an HDMI cable as long as you like. Question is, will it work for the kind of video you want? Also will it work for the kind of video you'll want later?
Quality DOES matter in some situations. However quality means "Tight tolerances," not "Brand name and shiny connectors." So you get people like Monster ripping folks off. It is actually fairly technical to learn about all the details, and forget about testing your cables, HDMI testers are off the charts expensive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, monster cables are just overpriced. They actually are quite well made. There was a time when their stuff was crap, but not any more. Any Monster product I've encountered in recent years has been well built and did what it promised quite well. It just cost way more than a just as well built and functional product from someone else.
My objection to Monster is the overcharging and marketing as though they sell you something special. Their product quality itself is fine.
Kiss HDCP bye too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kiss HDCP bye too? (Score:5, Informative)
Can we please kill HDCP?
Nope.
Searching for hdbaset + drm turns up little of use,
but searching for hdbaset + hdmi shows us DRM has already been included
Valens Semiconductor's HDBaseT Receives HDCP Certification From Intel's DCP LLC
updated 8:58 a.m. ET March 9, 2009,
http://www.valens-semi.com/media/1526/msnbc.pdf [valens-semi.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you crazy? That guy dresses like a doofus. He looks like Steve Jobs half the time.
The reason you can't connect your monitor (Score:2)
Can we please kill HDCP? Please? There is no technical reason why my monitor should not be able to be connected to an HDMI-capable entertainment device by means of an HDMI-DVI adapter.
Yes, there is a technical reason your monitor can't be connected to your entertainment device... Your monitor doesn't support HDCP decoding. Mine does. A HDMI > DVI adaptor works fine, and I've been using my computer monitor as a television for more than a year now.
With that said, the solution works best when your monitor supports native HD resolutions.
Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there is a technical reason your monitor can't be connected to your entertainment device... Your monitor doesn't support HDCP decoding.
Then what's the technical reason to require HDCP in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
HDCP is a copy protection system. I'm all for getting rid of it, but I strongly doubt that doing so would earn any support from content creators.
If you want to know the reason for HDCP's existence, you need look no further than Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP [wikipedia.org]
Copy protection and happy gods (Score:2)
I strongly doubt that [dropping one form of copy protection] would earn any support from content creators.
Can you phrase that without reference to happy gods [gnu.org]? Words like "content" (presumably meaning "any work of authorship other than a computer program") and "creator" (comparing authors to deities) have connotations too sympathetic to the incumbent commercial publishers that demand HDCP in the first place.
If you want to know the reason for HDCP's existence, you need look no further than Wikipedia.
Which only illustrates my point. Preventing the owner of a lawfully made copy from making use of the work in a way permitted by fair use or other limitations of copyright isn't a "technical reason". HDCP is a
Re: (Score:2)
"I strongly doubt that doing so would earn any support from content creators."
s/creators/financiers
Actual creators tend to be pretty happy just knowing that somebody thought their content was cool, and if they can find some way to do it while putting food on the table they're downright ecstatic. The money guys who promise to put that food on their table if they'll please just sign on the dotted line, then often sue the actual creator into bankruptcy and forbid them from ever seeing their creation again are
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is a technical reason
You are confusing should with can. The statement is that "There is no technical reason why my monitor should not", not "There is no technical reason why my monitor cannot".
HDCP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
HDCP ...
Ending up the butt of pedobear jokes forever.
Re:HDCP (Score:5, Funny)
What on earth makes you think they're going to give up on encryption just because they're going with a connector that encourages senior citizens to plug 100W output cable boxes into their cable modems' ethernet port?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing, because I don't. But I'm also not assuming it will still be HDCP.
Re:HDCP (Score:5, Interesting)
Years ago I worked on jukeboxes that had RJ45 based audio connections.... oh the network cards we blew out when those cables got crossed.. and we were actually TRYING not to mix them up.
Re: (Score:2)
Color coding (or just putting tags on) can help with that...
Re: (Score:2)
Can't this be solved by not pushing 100w until the devices negotiate the connections and have established that the input device capable of handling the power?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[sigh] yes excuse my colloquial usage and thank you for correcting me. Good thing nothing you have said in any way changes the POINT of what I said which is the SOURCE of the power can LIMIT current flow until such time as the source of the current has established that the connected device is capable of handling it. Much like the USB standard limits current until such time as the hub has established that the device is suitable for the full power.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>Current cannot be "pushed". A device presents a load on an electrical circuit and will DRAW a certain amount of current depending on that load.
Hello. Electrical engineer here. What you just said is complete rubbish. A device does not "draw" current like a sucking vacuum. If devices could do that, we would not need power supplies or batteries. The devices would just draw the current from thin ain. The current is indeed "pushed" and the amount of push is called the voltage (measured across t
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
FTFS:
thanks to a new usurper that combines several connections into a standard Cat5e/6 network cable with an RJ-45 connector
Does that mean I can use one of the dozens of ethernet cables currently languishing in my closets?
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The possibilities are giving me a happy in my pants. Seriously. If this is the case, awesome things could be coming soon.
Side note: is it lame that I get happy in my pants over this kind of stuff? ::looks around:: nah.
Re: (Score:2)
What is lame, is that you call it "a happy in my pants". I feel ridiculous just typing that.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
A Cat5/6 cable has multiple twisted pairs. To reduce inter-signal interference, the pairs are made with different twist rates per foot. This results in slight distance differences between pairs resulting in up to 50 foot length difference internally per 1000 feet. Now, since standard video such as VGA or component video is usually separated into RBG and (maybe) sync lines, the cable length differences result in delay of one or more of the analog video signals relative to each other and this shows up as actual and visible color fringing with a normal cable. (I've seen it.) The solution is that conventional video over Cat5/6 requires active electronics (some vendors use delay lines but those are hard to time-adjust and it locks you to a known cable vendor/mfg spec) to support clean video. This raises the cost. My basis for this is that I'm involved in video conferencing systems, some using long-run video cable in a building as well as packet-based video for external destinations. If HDBaseT involves manufacturers shifting to packet-based video, it's going to be a very interesting different world, because this will require devices on each end to use codecs and video to/from packets, raising costs for consumer electronics.
Re: (Score:2)
If HDBaseT involves manufacturers shifting to packet-based video, it's going to be a very interesting different world, because this will require devices on each end to use codecs and video to/from packets, raising costs for consumer electronics.
You mean like HDMI which is packet based?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it depends on how you define a packet. You might want to read the TMDS section here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing that HD is a digital format then! (I don't think seperate sync lines are still used?)
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean I can use one of the dozens of ethernet cables currently languishing in my closets?
YES - that's the whole point of it.
See the official Technology Comparison Table [hdbaset.org] - it says "use existing network wiring."
It also says "low cost standard cat5e/6 LAN cable" - but then that's essentially what the line you quote said too.
There comes a point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... but I just want the madness to stop.
It won't. That's how technology works these days, sorry.
Aaaarrg (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm rather divided on this particular bit of news.
I'm invested in the HDMI technology already and I don't really want to replace everything. With the HDMI 1.4 spec they will address most of the current issues with the technology and provide backward compatibility with the existing devices on the market. HDMI 1.3 kinda sucks if you have an AV receiver and 5.1 setup. (Long story short video processor creates delay and without an auto-sync setup there will be issues with video and audio). This is all made possible because of the requirement for a protected path and downgraded audio on analog ports!
In theory HDMI 1.4 provides a built in protected return audio path, networking, power and a kitchen sink. Regardless, it is rather unimportant to me at this juncture because I doubt I will be upgrading my television and receiver in the near future.
The entire HDBaseT looks like they did mostly the same offerings but in an entirely new cable
which has been around for ages. I get the feeling that actually plugging the cable into a switch won't do much good.
I'm going to assume that in the end they really just get around some royalties and introduce even further market fragmentation.
Good jorb!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's what I was going to say. I love watching TV/DVDs on my free craig's list acquired 60" non HD analogue TV. No encryption problems there!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't like network connectors (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I doing something wrong, or does everyone else have similar experiences? If it's the latter, using it as the connector for this new thing sounds like a terrible idea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, spending the extra 25 cents on a quality connector (or an extra couple of bucks on a quality "pre-made" cable) is worth it.
Re:I don't like network connectors (Score:4, Informative)
Get / make cables that have the "boots" on them. (Search for Cat5e booted ends [google.com] to see what I mean).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As others have said, boots are your friend.
If you buy them premade, they are usually called "snagless"
Light Peak (Score:4, Informative)
And let the battle for a new standard begin.
I had thought Light Peak was the likely replacement technology.
10Gbps and backward compatible with USB.
"At 10Gb/s, you could transfer a full-length Blu-Ray movie in less than 30 seconds. Optical technology also allows for smaller connectors and longer, thinner, and more flexible cables than currently possible. Light Peak also has the ability to run multiple protocols simultaneously over a single cable, enabling the technology to connect devices such as peripherals, displays, disk drives, docking stations, and more."
http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/None/1813.htm [intel.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
10Gb/s over fiber isn't new or all that interesting; but, in the networking world, it isn't all that cheap. What have they done to make the equivalent of shoving a 10GbE fiber interface into random bits of cheap consumer electronics remotely viable?
Second, while neither optical cables nor optical connectors are quite in "will die if you give them a funny look" territory, they definitely won't stand up to the kind of abuse that even g
= Buy all new Tv's and Home Receivers! (Score:2)
RJ45 bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Good luck getting the average person to know the difference between all of the cables with the same connectors."
No, I don't think that's the architecture being described. It appears to me, if I read this http://www.hdbaset.org/files/HDBaseT_Comparison_Table_Nereus.pdf [hdbaset.org]chart correctly we'll be plugging everything in to one port in the media device (tv). We'll be getting our ac, ethernet, and video sigs from one cable. Kind makes me wonder what the amperage rating for 10baseT copper is...
Why? (Score:2)
/.ers who were crying for Ethernet instead of HDMI back when HDTVs were first coming out, were doing so for reasons of data sharing with PCs, cable range, price, and available peripherals (eg, switches).
If you're using some proprietary protocols, so you don't get the same range, and you can't use standard network switches to route and boost the signals, why bother? Why not use 9P9C jacks (like cheap UPSes)? All of 10 cents more expensive for a larger jack/connector, and then you wouldn't confuse the two a
They missed again (Score:2)
The proper solution was to go to fiber. They could do long runs, it would have had better expandability and provides better electrical isolation between the components. The expandability may not seem important until you spend a boat load of money burring a cable in a wall or a ceiling only to have to rip it out again later.
MPAA doesn't want you doing long runs (Score:4, Insightful)
The proper solution was to go to fiber. They could do long runs
The major U.S. motion picture distributors don't want you to do long runs. You could be doing runs to a nonsubscriber's house or doing long runs through a building that is large enough for a commercial public performance. That's why HDCP requires proximity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like Light Peak [wikipedia.org]? Maybe the video interface after this one.
Seriously, obsolescence is getting ridiculous. It used to be you could use the same video interface for a couple of decades. Heck a TV could easily last a decade or more.
Now everything gets obsolete quickly. Plasma? LCD? Perhaps OLED next? Crikey.
Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connectors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connectors? Installing ports that are physically, but not electronically compatible on consumer devices is a stupid solution.
Given that a lot of receivers and devices currently have built in Ethernet ports for network connectivity, I can't see this as being a particularly good idea... It's not as if hard wired Ethernet ports are common in residential walls...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully anything using this connector will poll the other side of the cable for its capabilities before it starts dumping 100w of power out the other end. Similar occurs with current systems using PoE and detection of 10M, 100M or 1G network speeds.
This is actually something I am very much looking forwards to. It can cut down on the expense and hassle of a half dozen different cable types. Cat5e/Cat6 is fairly cheap compared to a lot of cable types and can be custom fit.
Imagine a monitor with this and the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where that computer is a "CPU" stuff started, but I find it annoying as hell.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:for those wondering when (Score:4, Informative)
Dennon Link is Vastly Superior (Score:2, Funny)
A long as cable and sat boxes don't have this it w (Score:2)
A long as cable and sat boxes don't have this it will not take off and it can take 1-2 years for new boxes to roll out.
This makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember how parallel ATA was replaced by serial ATA? Despite fewer wires, it can handle more data, because it's easier to push a serial protocol at a very high clock rate than to get a bunch of wires to synchronize perfectly at a high clock rate. And crosstalk between signal wires is a serious issue; check a parallel ATA cable sometime and notice how many ground wires it has. (To use the fastest parallel ATA modes, you must use an 80-wire cable, and over half of those 80 wires are ground wires, just to guard against crosstalk.)
So I found it surprising that HDMI was a parallel cable spec! And I do not find it surprising at all that this new standard will be a very high clock rate serial protocol over standard Ethernet cabling.
Note that this came out of industry, and not out of an ivory-tower standards group.
steveha
Fffffffff (Score:2)
I've only just finished spending ~$600 refitting my flat from a rat's nest of VGA / component / coax / SCART cables to all-HDMI in the hopes that it would last ~25 years like VGA has :(
Dear audio / video companies, can you please stop raping us with new "standards" several times per year?
Re: (Score:2)
Plugable reviever bays? (Score:2)
Drop the power part to much that can go wrong (Score:2)
Drop the power part to much that can go wrong and 100w may be pushing it for thin e-net cables.
Just way for the day that the cable plugs this into the cable box Ethernet port that is hooked to the built in modem the blows the cable line out and not the tv out rj-45 port.
Crimp your own??? (Score:2)
Media switch (Score:2)
I'm assuming that my current 1Gbps switches will need to be replaced, or are the HDBaseT going to be Point to point only?
10.2 Gb/s? (Score:4, Informative)
The spec claims that this approach can pump 10.2Gb/s over unshielded twisted pair. So this is really 10Gb/s "Ethernet" technology. [hdbaset.org]
But only in one direction. [valens-semi.com] Like ADSL, it's high-bandwidth only from the "content source". Video travels only in one direction; the reverse direction is 100Mb/s Ethernet packets.
They don't propose to power displays via this cable. The idea is to power disk players, cable boxes and such from the big-screen display. Control them from there, too. "PC-based media servers are no longer required and CE devices are once again the emperors of the living room." If they can get the inter-device control issues figured out (something the consumer device people have a history of botching), that could accelerate acceptance.
Onion on belt (Score:2)
HDWhat?
Am I the only person that still has a TV with a picture tube that connects to that fancy DVD player via RCA jacks?
And I likes it!
Re:Damn it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I just upgraded all of my cables to HDMI, and those Monster HDMI cables are expensive.
"Don't pay more for the same thing that way. Wait...what?" -Steve Jobs
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can Trademark it, but you'll have to actually make use of that trademark or you'll lose it, and if you do trademark it, the actual inventor will just use a different name. You could patent it, but you'll have to actually invent something to do that, which would be pretty cool, but probably not that easy. Or you could just be another whiny 15 year old bitching about "imaginary property" on the internet without even the slightest concept of how patents, copyrights and trademarks work.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Forget your meds this morning? Or did you do an extra line of coke?
(reread what you just said. you completely exploded over something retarded)
Re: (Score:2)
How long until the first support call because some tool tries a regular network (or hell, even phone...) cable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go back to your hole, troll.