Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo, I have a year old home and spent well over $2k in just the cabling
upgrades. But that's better than not having it later.

The scenario you outline is fine if I want to put my home media center(HMC)
server in the wiring closet. I don't. You have to think of the media center
server as like the firewall/router of your Internet connection. The
connections can be in a star config, but only at or after the firewall.

Coincidently, a HMD may actually have some of firewall features within it if
it comes from one of the MSOs or RBOCs.

You have to wire such that the star config centralizes at the server, not
just at the closet, otherwise the switching is done "upstream" or on the
outside world. That's not a viable configuration.

The wireless possibilities have been hashed here frequently. Don't put too
much stock in dog and ponies at trade shows. They rarely match real world
applications and it's always "don't pay attention to the guy behind the
curtain". They're advertising wireless, but to make the display fly it's not
out of the question it was wired. I'm sure you heard the stories of the
empty Uncentric box from the '04 CES show?

If you're going to run anything wireless in the US(or the world for that
matter), it better be based on an IEEE spec. In the US, you have to go one
further and get FCC approval. There was no spec to support 100 Mbps wireless
in '02. Those CES sales geeks were pulling your leg. The XtremeSpectrum
example from '02 is highly, highly unlikely since it was probably a MPEG2
stream which means huge bandwidth needs to run multiples at the same time.

Rather than launch into a big technical rant, best if you investigate the
802.11x group of wireless protocols on your own. Read up on what the spec
says is possible, then read up on what's practical application possible.
Veeeery different. By real world, I mean you sitting in the Den watching a
wireless HDTV stream, your wife and child in another room surfing the web
with a wireless connection to the home gateway and finally your teenage
daughter yakking on the phone with your 2.4 GHz wireless telephone. That's a
real world problem these dog and ponies haven't mastered yet.

The dual codec MPEG2/MPEG4 chipsets have been a big holdup on these products
and that seems to be sorting itself out now. By next year we should see some
first generation releases of Uncentric/Motorola and others and then we'll
see who's been bluffing.

Bob








> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 2:23 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Bob,
>
> Actually most modern houses that receive cable/satellite services do have
> a place of entry where all
> the coax of each receiver/room would join the rest to meet the external
> coax of the service, that is
> usually on the basement and is the place for multiswitches on satellite or
> splitters on cable.
>
> Traditionally one of those coax feeds will go from the switcher to the
> main HT room, with the signal
> flowing in that direction.
>
> If the server will be located on that HT room, and the system would
> require the server to be the
> only entry point one could make the installation so the external service
> feed goes directly to that
> room/server, and that server would use the wire above to send the output
> to the joining place in the
> basement (in other words, using the coax in the opposite direction so it
> will meet all the other
> coax wires in the basement).
>
> However, Ucentric mentioned that servers and clients could be located on
> any place of the network,
> which means it could be like a "star" network. A daisy chain network
> (like 1394 for example) would
> actually require the rewiring that you mention because the rooms would
> receive their coax from other
> rooms, not from the central place on the basement.
>
> If Ucentric is planning to use the same approach "as their never in
> production 580 model" of
> server/clients, the one they were doing for Voom, (and I do not see why
> not, all the effort was
> done, even with the MPEG-4 upgradeability by just changing the card), they
> will be competing with
> the other cable approach demo by Scientific Atlanta server using also coax
> but with the added
> feature of a Hi Def DVD into the unit, in addition to the HD DVR, that
> unit was in prototype at CES
> 2005 (pages 11 and 93) and expected to be released in late 2005, if one
> can trust manufacturer
> projections.
>
> In the 580's case the clients could also be HD (with some limitations in
> their number), and all will
> be able to control the server from their location, in fact the star coax
> approach was one of the
> selling points of Ucentric because most modern houses are already
> prewired, and with the addition of
> an attic coax for OTA antenna. Complete coverage of how the system of
> server/clients work was on
> 2004 and 2005 reports.
>
> Panasonic and the others have already demo their wired/wireless HD
> networks as far back as 2002, the
> wireless XtremeSpectrum solution is one example, check the specs and chip
> photo on page 76 on the
> CES 2003 report (free), here is some excerpt:
>
> "XtremeSpectrum
> -----------------
> The company showed its HDTV capability, introduced in June 02, as the
> only, claimed by the company,
> wireless technology that can handle multiple streams of MPEG-2 video, and
> multiple HDTV streams,
> with the same performance as a wired system. The system uses ultra-
> wideband Trinity chipset, and
> has an aggregated data-rate of 100 Mbps."
>
> Here is JVC and Panasonic back then (almost 3 years ago):
>
> JVC (wired/wireless in short distance)
> ----
> The company showed a mockup of the MediaBank networking server that is
> expected to distribute video
> over 802.11b network using MPEG-4 compression. The company showed an
> optical wireless HDTV image
> transmission system, $N/A, TTM N/A, 1.25 Gbps for uncompressed images in
> HD, it uses laser diodes
> and high-sensitivity avalanche photodiodes, 10 meters distance for
> wireless home-theater, automatic
> adjustment between transmitter and receiver, and eye-safe technology.
>
> Panasonic
> ---------
> The company showed a wireless HD media network prototype based on 802.11a
> to transmit several
> simultaneous DTV signals at high-speed high-quality 54Mbps bandwidth using
> a 5GHz channel (1 HD
> channel at 24 Mbps or 3 SD channels at 24 Mbps). The system enables
> remote control AV equipment
> from another room, simultaneous video transmission, and high-speed
> Internet connection. Check the
> server and clients photos on pages 75 and 76 of the 2003 CES report.
>
> In other words, they have been working at that level of bandwidth for
> quite a few years already.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----



> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Bob Mankin
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:26 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
>
> The dual codec MPEG2/MPEG4 chipsets have been a big holdup on these
> products


Correction, it's actually 3 codecs because Micrsoft managed to weasel their
way in with the WM9/VC-1 requirement. For anyone making chips hoping to be a
supplier for IPTV hardware, they'll be sending royalty checks to Micrsoft
due to that little lobbying effort.

Bob



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Bob,

I agree with the comment that many of the HD network demos are to be taken with care, in fact most
of those, including Panasonic, were demo as technology statements, but they were doing that since
2002, which was my point: "they were working in that". From there to assume that one can buy it at
BB and CC is another road, I was not addressing that part.

The specs and information I provided came from press releases and actual demos, and the purpose of
my note was to inform readers, some might take the information to learn blindly what has been
announced publicly, some others as an opportunity to reject all CES announcement/demos in distrust.

I always suggest not to take either extreme and use the information to begin to monitor the
developments, some might die, some mature and become BB / CC products, by that time the people that
were open and used the information to their benefit would be in a better position than the ones that
preferred to reject it since day one.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your statements, but they seem intended to depict me as naive regarding
obtaining and disclosing company announcements and demos at CES, which I consider unfair, I could
have done nothing, but I chose to help the public with my efforts, for free.

Regarding your suggestion that I was putting the server on the closet as a leg of a star, I never
proposed that architecture, please reread the part were I was putting the server connected to the
service entry point, and have the star configuration of clients connected to the server (after it),
which is the way you are suggesting with the firewall concept. I see no point on bringing the
subject as contradicting when your proposal fits the same criteria.

However, it is still uncertain to conclude what would not work for the servers not yet released, but
it is assumed that there will be some kind of device after the server (like a router) to handle a
variable number of clients, in other words a star architecture that centralizes the clients for that
server.

My email was mainly to bring the point that:

a) your initial suggestion of the need to rewire the entire house might actually not be necessary
when typical cable-wired houses already have coax wires that join at a focal point (the basement)

b) the wireless HD technology you mentioned as away in the future was already introduced since 2002
by several companies as statements of what they were working on

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Bob Mankin
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:26 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks


----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo, I have a year old home and spent well over $2k in just the cabling
upgrades. But that's better than not having it later.

The scenario you outline is fine if I want to put my home media center(HMC)
server in the wiring closet. I don't. You have to think of the media center
server as like the firewall/router of your Internet connection. The
connections can be in a star config, but only at or after the firewall.

Coincidently, a HMD may actually have some of firewall features within it if
it comes from one of the MSOs or RBOCs.

You have to wire such that the star config centralizes at the server, not
just at the closet, otherwise the switching is done "upstream" or on the
outside world. That's not a viable configuration.

The wireless possibilities have been hashed here frequently. Don't put too
much stock in dog and ponies at trade shows. They rarely match real world
applications and it's always "don't pay attention to the guy behind the
curtain". They're advertising wireless, but to make the display fly it's not
out of the question it was wired. I'm sure you heard the stories of the
empty Uncentric box from the '04 CES show?

If you're going to run anything wireless in the US(or the world for that
matter), it better be based on an IEEE spec. In the US, you have to go one
further and get FCC approval. There was no spec to support 100 Mbps wireless
in '02. Those CES sales geeks were pulling your leg. The XtremeSpectrum
example from '02 is highly, highly unlikely since it was probably a MPEG2
stream which means huge bandwidth needs to run multiples at the same time.

Rather than launch into a big technical rant, best if you investigate the
802.11x group of wireless protocols on your own. Read up on what the spec
says is possible, then read up on what's practical application possible.
Veeeery different. By real world, I mean you sitting in the Den watching a
wireless HDTV stream, your wife and child in another room surfing the web
with a wireless connection to the home gateway and finally your teenage
daughter yakking on the phone with your 2.4 GHz wireless telephone. That's a
real world problem these dog and ponies haven't mastered yet.

The dual codec MPEG2/MPEG4 chipsets have been a big holdup on these products
and that seems to be sorting itself out now. By next year we should see some
first generation releases of Uncentric/Motorola and others and then we'll
see who's been bluffing.

Bob








> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 2:23 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Bob,
>
> Actually most modern houses that receive cable/satellite services do have
> a place of entry where all
> the coax of each receiver/room would join the rest to meet the external
> coax of the service, that is
> usually on the basement and is the place for multiswitches on satellite or
> splitters on cable.
>
> Traditionally one of those coax feeds will go from the switcher to the
> main HT room, with the signal
> flowing in that direction.
>
> If the server will be located on that HT room, and the system would
> require the server to be the
> only entry point one could make the installation so the external service
> feed goes directly to that
> room/server, and that server would use the wire above to send the output
> to the joining place in the
> basement (in other words, using the coax in the opposite direction so it
> will meet all the other
> coax wires in the basement).
>
> However, Ucentric mentioned that servers and clients could be located on
> any place of the network,
> which means it could be like a "star" network. A daisy chain network
> (like 1394 for example) would
> actually require the rewiring that you mention because the rooms would
> receive their coax from other
> rooms, not from the central place on the basement.
>
> If Ucentric is planning to use the same approach "as their never in
> production 580 model" of
> server/clients, the one they were doing for Voom, (and I do not see why
> not, all the effort was
> done, even with the MPEG-4 upgradeability by just changing the card), they
> will be competing with
> the other cable approach demo by Scientific Atlanta server using also coax
> but with the added
> feature of a Hi Def DVD into the unit, in addition to the HD DVR, that
> unit was in prototype at CES
> 2005 (pages 11 and 93) and expected to be released in late 2005, if one
> can trust manufacturer
> projections.
>
> In the 580's case the clients could also be HD (with some limitations in
> their number), and all will
> be able to control the server from their location, in fact the star coax
> approach was one of the
> selling points of Ucentric because most modern houses are already
> prewired, and with the addition of
> an attic coax for OTA antenna. Complete coverage of how the system of
> server/clients work was on
> 2004 and 2005 reports.
>
> Panasonic and the others have already demo their wired/wireless HD
> networks as far back as 2002, the
> wireless XtremeSpectrum solution is one example, check the specs and chip
> photo on page 76 on the
> CES 2003 report (free), here is some excerpt:
>
> "XtremeSpectrum
> -----------------
> The company showed its HDTV capability, introduced in June 02, as the
> only, claimed by the company,
> wireless technology that can handle multiple streams of MPEG-2 video, and
> multiple HDTV streams,
> with the same performance as a wired system. The system uses ultra-
> wideband Trinity chipset, and
> has an aggregated data-rate of 100 Mbps."
>
> Here is JVC and Panasonic back then (almost 3 years ago):
>
> JVC (wired/wireless in short distance)
> ----
> The company showed a mockup of the MediaBank networking server that is
> expected to distribute video
> over 802.11b network using MPEG-4 compression. The company showed an
> optical wireless HDTV image
> transmission system, $N/A, TTM N/A, 1.25 Gbps for uncompressed images in
> HD, it uses laser diodes
> and high-sensitivity avalanche photodiodes, 10 meters distance for
> wireless home-theater, automatic
> adjustment between transmitter and receiver, and eye-safe technology.
>
> Panasonic
> ---------
> The company showed a wireless HD media network prototype based on 802.11a
> to transmit several
> simultaneous DTV signals at high-speed high-quality 54Mbps bandwidth using
> a 5GHz channel (1 HD
> channel at 24 Mbps or 3 SD channels at 24 Mbps). The system enables
> remote control AV equipment
> from another room, simultaneous video transmission, and high-speed
> Internet connection. Check the
> server and clients photos on pages 75 and 76 of the 2003 CES report.
>
> In other words, they have been working at that level of bandwidth for
> quite a few years already.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

When done correctly, 802.11g handles High Definition streams just fine. I
am feeding a Toshiba Hi-Def monitor that I take out on the deck or move to
the guest bedroom, a Dell x50V, HP iPAQ4150, Dell Inspiron, IBM X30 Think
pad and an all-in-one printer on the wireless side of the router. Router is
the key word, as the inexpensive switching technology geared for the home
user is not always up to the task depending on whose product you choose.
The wired side feeds three home brew desk tops. Each have 1000BaseT (Gig
Ethernet) NIC cards. These all run without a problem. Internet access is
DSL into the router.

The source device for the wireless media stream is a Buffalo Technology
PC-P3LWG. I found that the internal diversity antennas were a problem for
my installation, so I use an external 12 dBi antenna (Model HD20243). I also
had to scrap my old wireless phone as I did get minor interference. I
upgraded to a 5 GHz model. Typically only used when we are out in the yard.

I also have a wiring closet for my home. The KSU unit for my telephone
system and the switch for my crappy Dish Network service reside there. All
of the A/V and data link wiring terminates on patch panels. The voice links
terminate on 110 insulation displacement (punch down) blocks. The patch
panels are configured as T568B wiring configuration. The A/V equipment is
rack mounted in the family room with the media switcher outputs run to the
wiring closet.

The wired network uses Cat 6e cable from SYSTIMAX solutions. I recently
replaced the Cat 5e that I used for the 1000BaseT and video. The Cat 6e is
based on the proposed ANSI EIA/TIA 10 Gigabit over copper standard.

My media outlets are served with two Cat 6e cables, one Cat 5e, one 3000
MHz, ComScope RG-6 quad shield coax and two single mode fibers. This is
dark fiber as a form of future-proofing.

This Cat 6e cable is used to transport 1000BaseT and A/V signals through-out
the house with the exception of the Toshiba LCD that is wireless. The Cat 5e
is used for the telephone connections.

With the proper equipment along with an installation that avoids sources of
interference; wireless high-def does work.




To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----



> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:28 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>

>
> Perhaps I misinterpreted your statements, but they seem intended to depict
> me as naive regarding
> obtaining and disclosing company announcements and demos at CES, which I
> consider unfair, I could
> have done nothing, but I chose to help the public with my efforts, for
> free.

Hold on. I'm not suggesting you are na

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Dave, thanks for the post. The Buffalo product had my interest and yours is
the first report I've read from an end user with any success.

Clearly you're a tech savvy guy, which is why you were able to work through
the issues. You've demonstrated how borderline this is with just the
addition of a 2.4 GHz phone in the mix on what is claimed to be a fast
network(54 Mbps). To give it a real test and make the comparison more
comparable to a home media center, you need to throw another video stream at
the problem. Most of what you listed is low load or more static type
products.

I don't know where else to get a number to work from, so I'll use the
DirecTV reports of 2.5 STBs/sub in their installed base. Using this, for a
typical home media center installation, we would want to be capable of at
least two, if not three simultaneous video feeds from the base station to
the clients to show the viability of a wireless HMC in a real world
installation. SD or HD. The problem is obviously more difficult with the
latter. Once you can do that in the 802.11g environment without issues, then
you've got a player! But my guess is you can't the closer you get to
saturating the network. In fact, you probably don't even need to approach
saturation, just plug in another video feed or two and watch what happens.

You could perhaps simulate this on your existing network by setting up some
large file transfers between clients. I'm talking hundreds of megs size
files that would take several minutes. I'm not sure that's exactly the same,
but it would be an interesting test. Put one or two of those in operation at
the same time you're running the video with your LCD and the games will
likely begin.

What's interesting in the Buffalo product is they list both 802.11g and
802.11b in the product literature. Wonder why the dual spec? Do you know if
it's firmware upgradeable? With the 802.11e now available, perhaps they
could update your box? The spec itself is otherwise backward compatible.

Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Dave Bowling
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:45 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> When done correctly, 802.11g handles High Definition streams just fine.
> I
> am feeding a Toshiba Hi-Def monitor that I take out on the deck or move to
> the guest bedroom, a Dell x50V, HP iPAQ4150, Dell Inspiron, IBM X30 Think
> pad and an all-in-one printer on the wireless side of the router. Router
> is
> the key word, as the inexpensive switching technology geared for the home
> user is not always up to the task depending on whose product you choose.
> The wired side feeds three home brew desk tops. Each have 1000BaseT (Gig
> Ethernet) NIC cards. These all run without a problem. Internet access is
> DSL into the router.
>
> The source device for the wireless media stream is a Buffalo Technology
> PC-P3LWG. I found that the internal diversity antennas were a problem for
> my installation, so I use an external 12 dBi antenna (Model HD20243). I
> also
> had to scrap my old wireless phone as I did get minor interference. I
> upgraded to a 5 GHz model. Typically only used when we are out in the
> yard.
>
> I also have a wiring closet for my home. The KSU unit for my telephone
> system and the switch for my crappy Dish Network service reside there.
> All
> of the A/V and data link wiring terminates on patch panels. The voice
> links
> terminate on 110 insulation displacement (punch down) blocks. The patch
> panels are configured as T568B wiring configuration. The A/V equipment is
> rack mounted in the family room with the media switcher outputs run to the
> wiring closet.
>
> The wired network uses Cat 6e cable from SYSTIMAX solutions. I recently
> replaced the Cat 5e that I used for the 1000BaseT and video. The Cat 6e
> is
> based on the proposed ANSI EIA/TIA 10 Gigabit over copper standard.
>
> My media outlets are served with two Cat 6e cables, one Cat 5e, one 3000
> MHz, ComScope RG-6 quad shield coax and two single mode fibers. This is
> dark fiber as a form of future-proofing.
>
> This Cat 6e cable is used to transport 1000BaseT and A/V signals through-
> out
> the house with the exception of the Toshiba LCD that is wireless. The Cat
> 5e
> is used for the telephone connections.
>
> With the proper equipment along with an installation that avoids sources
> of
> interference; wireless high-def does work.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Bob,

Do yourself a favor and avoid using 802.11b/g for video streaming and leave
that for your laptops and the like. Video streaming should be on its own
wired network a separate subnet (a separate data intranet) of your homes
data network and as mentioned by others preferably on a gigabit network with
Category 6 utp cable for your wiring infrastructure. Especially if streaming
to multiple locations at the same time.

I missed what kind of server your talking about but Escient, ReqQuest
Multimedia, AMX MAX, and more support multiple streams and the same time.
The MAX supports up to 25 dvd quality video streams at the same time whether
it's the same movie, same movie at different times or different movies. You
can actually run these video streams on independent Cat 5's home run to the
server but use Cat 6 for the future head room needed for HD.


Remember with 802.11g the rated @ 54mbps is a best case scenario and the
weaker your signal (farther from you access point or wireless router) and
the more users the less throughput you'll achieve. You can maximize
wireless range by using special high gain antennae, by adding multiple
access points (on different channels/same ssid through out the home) or by
modifying the gain of some access points with available open source
programs. But leave that for your laptops. Any thing that can be wired,
use wired you'll save your self a lot of headaches and free up the wireless
bandwidth for future use. Use wireless as a last resort or for those
products that benefit from portability. And as mentioned previously if
using an 802.11b/g wireless network avoid all other products in the 2.4 ghz
range. If it's a simple wireless network with 1 access point or wireless
router you can set the wireless channel to 11 and this should minimize
interference with phones but why not just convert to 5.8 ghz phones which
have better range and no problems with interference. Most wireless/portable
TV's also run at 2.4 ghz but I believe Sony has one that's switch able to
5.8ghz.

Most all 802.11 G products are backward compatible with 802.11 B products
and the only difference is speed. Well I think only G supports WPA
encryption and B does not, only WEP64 or 128.

Always run wires if you can you'll achieve much faster speeds and security,
even with WEP or WPA encryption if some one wanted to (which in most of are
cases no one would) these encryptions can be hack with open source
downloadable software in a matter of minutes






------------------------------------
Vining Audio & Video
Daniel R. Vining
LLC Member
[email protected]
30 Spring Street
Danbury, CT 06810
tel: 203 790-8450
fax: 203 790-8450
mobile: 203 470-2667
www.viningaudio.com
------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Bob Mankin
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:54 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Dave, thanks for the post. The Buffalo product had my interest and yours is
the first report I've read from an end user with any success.

Clearly you're a tech savvy guy, which is why you were able to work through
the issues. You've demonstrated how borderline this is with just the
addition of a 2.4 GHz phone in the mix on what is claimed to be a fast
network(54 Mbps). To give it a real test and make the comparison more
comparable to a home media center, you need to throw another video stream at
the problem. Most of what you listed is low load or more static type
products.

I don't know where else to get a number to work from, so I'll use the
DirecTV reports of 2.5 STBs/sub in their installed base. Using this, for a
typical home media center installation, we would want to be capable of at
least two, if not three simultaneous video feeds from the base station to
the clients to show the viability of a wireless HMC in a real world
installation. SD or HD. The problem is obviously more difficult with the
latter. Once you can do that in the 802.11g environment without issues, then
you've got a player! But my guess is you can't the closer you get to
saturating the network. In fact, you probably don't even need to approach
saturation, just plug in another video feed or two and watch what happens.

You could perhaps simulate this on your existing network by setting up some
large file transfers between clients. I'm talking hundreds of megs size
files that would take several minutes. I'm not sure that's exactly the same,
but it would be an interesting test. Put one or two of those in operation at
the same time you're running the video with your LCD and the games will
likely begin.

What's interesting in the Buffalo product is they list both 802.11g and
802.11b in the product literature. Wonder why the dual spec? Do you know if
it's firmware upgradeable? With the 802.11e now available, perhaps they
could update your box? The spec itself is otherwise backward compatible.

Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Dave Bowling
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:45 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> When done correctly, 802.11g handles High Definition streams just fine.
> I
> am feeding a Toshiba Hi-Def monitor that I take out on the deck or move to
> the guest bedroom, a Dell x50V, HP iPAQ4150, Dell Inspiron, IBM X30 Think
> pad and an all-in-one printer on the wireless side of the router. Router
> is
> the key word, as the inexpensive switching technology geared for the home
> user is not always up to the task depending on whose product you choose.
> The wired side feeds three home brew desk tops. Each have 1000BaseT (Gig
> Ethernet) NIC cards. These all run without a problem. Internet access is
> DSL into the router.
>
> The source device for the wireless media stream is a Buffalo Technology
> PC-P3LWG. I found that the internal diversity antennas were a problem for
> my installation, so I use an external 12 dBi antenna (Model HD20243). I
> also
> had to scrap my old wireless phone as I did get minor interference. I
> upgraded to a 5 GHz model. Typically only used when we are out in the
> yard.
>
> I also have a wiring closet for my home. The KSU unit for my telephone
> system and the switch for my crappy Dish Network service reside there.
> All
> of the A/V and data link wiring terminates on patch panels. The voice
> links
> terminate on 110 insulation displacement (punch down) blocks. The patch
> panels are configured as T568B wiring configuration. The A/V equipment is
> rack mounted in the family room with the media switcher outputs run to the
> wiring closet.
>
> The wired network uses Cat 6e cable from SYSTIMAX solutions. I recently
> replaced the Cat 5e that I used for the 1000BaseT and video. The Cat 6e
> is
> based on the proposed ANSI EIA/TIA 10 Gigabit over copper standard.
>
> My media outlets are served with two Cat 6e cables, one Cat 5e, one 3000
> MHz, ComScope RG-6 quad shield coax and two single mode fibers. This is
> dark fiber as a form of future-proofing.
>
> This Cat 6e cable is used to transport 1000BaseT and A/V signals through-
> out
> the house with the exception of the Toshiba LCD that is wireless. The Cat
> 5e
> is used for the telephone connections.
>
> With the proper equipment along with an installation that avoids sources
> of
> interference; wireless high-def does work.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Bob,

Before you stating "an area of misinformation in what these companies provided to you" a little
research would not hurt to help you realize that this is not personal information someone supplied
to me on the back channels of a company X, this is official information and actual demonstrations
that were publicly released over the last few years to every one that cares to read, attend to the
demos and touch the products, regardless if they use 802.11 or their own solution.

It seems that you might have not checked the relevant pages and photos of the products included in
the 2003 report, and that was only a small sample of what happened almost 3 years ago, not to
mention now.

I am not stating that 802.11 a/z is or not capable of multiple HD streams, this was your selection
of technology to support your statements, I am just stating that companies have been working on the
subject of wireless HD "in general", proprietary or not, that is all.

And as I said before, the reader could always choose to

a) ignore the facts of official announcements/demos and run to a cocoon,
b) consume as much information as possible to complete a better and updated picture of a subject.

One such piece (of Jan 04) could be, and I quote

"Motorola's XtremeSpectrum UWB chipset achieves up to 114Mbps data rates and consumes less than
200mW of power.

At the show, three suppliers demonstrated UWB-equipped products using engineering samples of
Motorola's UWB chips, which will be in production this year, Rofheart said. One of the demos was in
the Samsung booth, where the company transmitted three HDTV streams simultaneously.

Commercial products available sometime this year with Motorola's UWB chips will include flat-panel
displays, set-top boxes, and DLP TVs, Rofheart said."

http://www.twice.com/article/CA375354.h ... mespectrum




About Ultra-Wideband Technology
---------------------------------
Ultra-Wideband is a wireless technology that transmits an extremely low power signal over a wide
swath of radio spectrum. Unlike conventional radio systems that operate within a relatively narrow
bandwidth, i.e. Bluetooth

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----



> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:14 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Bob,
>
> Before you stating "an area of misinformation in what these companies
> provided to you" a little
> research would not hurt to help you realize that this is not personal
> information someone supplied
> to me on the back channels of a company X, this is official information
> and actual demonstrations
> that were publicly released over the last few years to every one that
> cares to read, attend to the
> demos and touch the products, regardless if they use 802.11 or their own
> solution.

Rodolfo, I realize it's public information and trade show demos. What I'm
trying to point out is the smoke and mirrors nature of those demos. The
Ucentric box from CES '04 cited earlier is a prime example.

They aren't the first ones and they certainly won't be the last ones to do
that sort of thing at trade shows. Just because the literature says it's
possible and the display suggests to you it's working, that doesn't mean
really anything in some cases. You would have to peak behind the curtains or
pop the lid on the box to make certain of what's really being shown and they
certainly aren't going to let you do that.

>
> It seems that you might have not checked the relevant pages and photos of
> the products included in
> the 2003 report, and that was only a small sample of what happened almost
> 3 years ago, not to
> mention now.


I think you're overlooking the fact that many of these products shown at
CES, particularly the cutting edge products, are CONCEPTS. Many of these
will never make it to market for various technical or financial reasons.
They can and do work up clever displays to give you, the attendee, the
impression that it fully works as advertised and it works today. More times
than not with advanced stuff, it just doesn't. They are just giving you a
small taste just to wet your appetite for the CONCEPT.


> And as I said before, the reader could always choose to
>
> a) ignore the facts of official announcements/demos and run to a cocoon,
> b) consume as much information as possible to complete a better and
> updated picture of a subject.

The only point I'm trying to make is you cannot decipher the viability of
these products simply by the company literature and a CES demonstration. No
way. Calling them "Facts" is a huge stretch, IMO and IME.

CES is for marketing departments on steroids. They roll in there and promise
the moon, then leave it to the poor R&D guys to figure out how to bring it
to reality after the fact. It's not uncommon in many industries I work with
for marketing to sell a feature set long before it even exists.

>
> One such piece (of Jan 04) could be, and I quote
>
> "Motorola's XtremeSpectrum UWB chipset achieves up to 114Mbps data rates
> and consumes less than
> 200mW of power.
>
> At the show, three suppliers demonstrated UWB-equipped products using
> engineering samples of
> Motorola's UWB chips, which will be in production this year, Rofheart
> said. One of the demos was in
> the Samsung booth, where the company transmitted three HDTV streams
> simultaneously.

Motorola can throw whatever fancy name on the chip they want, but it's still
an IEEE 802.15.3 spec wireless standard that they are using. That's a
pre-standard chipset. The final approval for 802.15.3a, which is the higher
speed 100 Mpbs theoretical speed version that they claim, is probably not
going to happen until at least next year. Several companies have a say in
that spec and are trying to promote their own flavor. For any one company to
roll out a large number of chipsets prior to approval is setting themselves
up for disaster due to potential interoperability issues.

>
> Commercial products available sometime this year with Motorola's UWB chips
> will include flat-panel
> displays, set-top boxes, and DLP TVs, Rofheart said."
>
> http://www.twice.com/article/CA375354.h ... s&text=xtr
> emespectrum

OK, that's the tail end of your '04 press release.....so where's the product
today? It's August '05 already. Why are these not in people's homes right
now?


> About Ultra-Wideband Technology
> ---------------------------------
> Ultra-Wideband is a wireless technology that transmits an extremely low
> power signal over a wide
> swath of radio spectrum. Unlike conventional radio systems that operate
> within a relatively narrow
> bandwidth, i.e. BluetoothT wireless technology, IEEER 802.11b, IEEE
> 802.11a, Ultra-Wideband operates
> across a wide range of frequency spectrum by transmitting a series of very
> narrow and low power
> pulses. The combination of broader spectrum, lower power and pulsed data
> means that Ultra-Wideband
> causes less interference than conventional narrowband radio solutions, and
> delivers wire-like
> performance in an indoor wireless environment. This makes Ultra-Wideband
> technology ideal for
> consumer electronics applications that are increasingly multimedia-rich in
> content.

Notice the continual references to IEEE standards. This Motorola chip you
talk about is simply another variation of that 802.15.3 standard and there
are probably a dozen other companies, including large ones like Intel, who
also make UWB chipsets. Motorola has nothing special there.

>
> Your words "I think you should evaluate these with a very skeptical eye,
> because some of the claims
> being made are even beyond hype."
>
> With the small sample of the information above any reader could determine
> if we are dealing with
> misinformation or hype.

All the reader has to do to determine the hype factor is look at when it was
first announced, look at when they promised it, and ask whey it's not
available today. That pretty much seals it right there.

Now if you want to understand the reasons why it's not out there, then look
beyond the glossy PRs to the technical hurdles involved, and the answers
start to show themselves pretty quickly.

Here is what I see has been the delay for Uncentric/Motorola:

-- The need for dual codec MPEG2/MPEG4 chipsets which are just now reaching
production levels.

-- The need for a more robust wireless spec. with quality of service
features for AV. Just recently ratified(802.11e). Final chipsets to run that
should be at or near production now.

Bottom line is don't believe everything they print in those brochures and
don't assume because you saw a display at a trade show means it's ready for
rollout. In this particular case, it was probably far from that.


Bob




To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Bob,

Please reread my statements before repeating your responses with your own agenda.

I never said the products are ready to roll out, I said THEY ARE WORKING ON THEM SINCE 2002, that is
a fact, the information is accurate, they are working on them, readers can consume the information
as THEY ARE WORKING ON THEM and make their own decisions and projections for their future, better
than ignoring it.

I do not need a lecture about CES, I have been at CES for 10 years and I know that there are many
"Concept" products, but a great majority of products are models that are aligned for their next
lines, please stop twisting the subject, this is my last email about this subject.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Mankin
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:26 AM
To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks




> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:14 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Bob,
>
> Before you stating "an area of misinformation in what these companies
> provided to you" a little
> research would not hurt to help you realize that this is not personal
> information someone supplied
> to me on the back channels of a company X, this is official information
> and actual demonstrations
> that were publicly released over the last few years to every one that
> cares to read, attend to the
> demos and touch the products, regardless if they use 802.11 or their own
> solution.

Rodolfo, I realize it's public information and trade show demos. What I'm
trying to point out is the smoke and mirrors nature of those demos. The
Ucentric box from CES '04 cited earlier is a prime example.

They aren't the first ones and they certainly won't be the last ones to do
that sort of thing at trade shows. Just because the literature says it's
possible and the display suggests to you it's working, that doesn't mean
really anything in some cases. You would have to peak behind the curtains or
pop the lid on the box to make certain of what's really being shown and they
certainly aren't going to let you do that.

>
> It seems that you might have not checked the relevant pages and photos of
> the products included in
> the 2003 report, and that was only a small sample of what happened almost
> 3 years ago, not to
> mention now.


I think you're overlooking the fact that many of these products shown at
CES, particularly the cutting edge products, are CONCEPTS. Many of these
will never make it to market for various technical or financial reasons.
They can and do work up clever displays to give you, the attendee, the
impression that it fully works as advertised and it works today. More times
than not with advanced stuff, it just doesn't. They are just giving you a
small taste just to wet your appetite for the CONCEPT.


> And as I said before, the reader could always choose to
>
> a) ignore the facts of official announcements/demos and run to a cocoon,
> b) consume as much information as possible to complete a better and
> updated picture of a subject.

The only point I'm trying to make is you cannot decipher the viability of
these products simply by the company literature and a CES demonstration. No
way. Calling them "Facts" is a huge stretch, IMO and IME.

CES is for marketing departments on steroids. They roll in there and promise
the moon, then leave it to the poor R&D guys to figure out how to bring it
to reality after the fact. It's not uncommon in many industries I work with
for marketing to sell a feature set long before it even exists.

>
> One such piece (of Jan 04) could be, and I quote
>
> "Motorola's XtremeSpectrum UWB chipset achieves up to 114Mbps data rates
> and consumes less than
> 200mW of power.
>
> At the show, three suppliers demonstrated UWB-equipped products using
> engineering samples of
> Motorola's UWB chips, which will be in production this year, Rofheart
> said. One of the demos was in
> the Samsung booth, where the company transmitted three HDTV streams
> simultaneously.

Motorola can throw whatever fancy name on the chip they want, but it's still
an IEEE 802.15.3 spec wireless standard that they are using. That's a
pre-standard chipset. The final approval for 802.15.3a, which is the higher
speed 100 Mpbs theoretical speed version that they claim, is probably not
going to happen until at least next year. Several companies have a say in
that spec and are trying to promote their own flavor. For any one company to
roll out a large number of chipsets prior to approval is setting themselves
up for disaster due to potential interoperability issues.

>
> Commercial products available sometime this year with Motorola's UWB chips
> will include flat-panel
> displays, set-top boxes, and DLP TVs, Rofheart said."
>
> http://www.twice.com/article/CA375354.h ... s&text=xtr
> emespectrum

OK, that's the tail end of your '04 press release.....so where's the product
today? It's August '05 already. Why are these not in people's homes right
now?


> About Ultra-Wideband Technology
> ---------------------------------
> Ultra-Wideband is a wireless technology that transmits an extremely low
> power signal over a wide
> swath of radio spectrum. Unlike conventional radio systems that operate
> within a relatively narrow
> bandwidth, i.e. BluetoothT wireless technology, IEEER 802.11b, IEEE
> 802.11a, Ultra-Wideband operates
> across a wide range of frequency spectrum by transmitting a series of very
> narrow and low power
> pulses. The combination of broader spectrum, lower power and pulsed data
> means that Ultra-Wideband
> causes less interference than conventional narrowband radio solutions, and
> delivers wire-like
> performance in an indoor wireless environment. This makes Ultra-Wideband
> technology ideal for
> consumer electronics applications that are increasingly multimedia-rich in
> content.

Notice the continual references to IEEE standards. This Motorola chip you
talk about is simply another variation of that 802.15.3 standard and there
are probably a dozen other companies, including large ones like Intel, who
also make UWB chipsets. Motorola has nothing special there.

>
> Your words "I think you should evaluate these with a very skeptical eye,
> because some of the claims
> being made are even beyond hype."
>
> With the small sample of the information above any reader could determine
> if we are dealing with
> misinformation or hype.

All the reader has to do to determine the hype factor is look at when it was
first announced, look at when they promised it, and ask whey it's not
available today. That pretty much seals it right there.

Now if you want to understand the reasons why it's not out there, then look
beyond the glossy PRs to the technical hurdles involved, and the answers
start to show themselves pretty quickly.

Here is what I see has been the delay for Uncentric/Motorola:

-- The need for dual codec MPEG2/MPEG4 chipsets which are just now reaching
production levels.

-- The need for a more robust wireless spec. with quality of service
features for AV. Just recently ratified(802.11e). Final chipsets to run that
should be at or near production now.

Bottom line is don't believe everything they print in those brochures and
don't assume because you saw a display at a trade show means it's ready for
rollout. In this particular case, it was probably far from that.


Bob





To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

My gosh, watching this exchange on house wiring has been quite an
entertaining experience! No one knows what the future holds, no one can say
what cables will be needed. When the home theater/automation/whole house
music system/networking thing started in the 90's, I went to the CES and
asked everyone from sales to engineering what would they install to "future
proof" a house. Out of all the answers I got the best, and only one that
would have been correct for today, was to install a 2" conduit to every
location something was needed. Except in specialty areas such as where a
plasma screen goes, or a specialized CPU for automation or audio, I always
install a structured cable with 2 Cat 5, 2 RG6, and 2 fiber. If possible,
and the owner is willing to pay for it, I run an extra RG^ and Cat 5.
Ultimately fiber will take the load from Cat 5, and it will come sooner than
you may believe. There are working fiber multiplexing products for stage and
concert use, and for pro audio and video that are not too far out of the
consumer price range. Fiber is now at the house in some parts of the country
and in them too. When I install it I leave it in the wall ready for future
termination, and bundled at the central distribution point, ready for a
future distribution network. A box can easily be installed above the current
wire distribution box I have installed for everything else. I am sure that
fiber's bandwidth will be very adequate for multiple HD streams through a
house, along with other data to be delivered. Fiber may not fill the
immediate needs to send HD through the house, for that you will need to pull
the appropriate cables in the right fashion, but I am willing to bet
somewhere between 12 to 24 months you will see some good fiber solutions.

As for wireless, I try to keep away from it for all the reasons mentioned,
and then some ( isn't it annoying when the microwave shuts the system
down?). And regardless of who is showing what, and whether it is a
prototype, or is just being delivered, who wants to be the first? I did, and
learned my lessons! Now I wait until everyone else has done the first
adopter beta testing for me, and then I sell it to my customers, if it has
proven it self. I now get to sleep all night without the phone ringing!




-----Original Message-----
From: Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 5:00 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: FW: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Bob,

Please reread my statements before repeating your responses with your own
agenda.

I never said the products are ready to roll out, I said THEY ARE WORKING ON
THEM SINCE 2002, that is
a fact, the information is accurate, they are working on them, readers can
consume the information
as THEY ARE WORKING ON THEM and make their own decisions and projections for
their future, better
than ignoring it.

I do not need a lecture about CES, I have been at CES for 10 years and I
know that there are many
"Concept" products, but a great majority of products are models that are
aligned for their next
lines, please stop twisting the subject, this is my last email about this
subject.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Mankin
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:26 AM
To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks




> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:14 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Bob,
>
> Before you stating "an area of misinformation in what these companies
> provided to you" a little
> research would not hurt to help you realize that this is not personal
> information someone supplied
> to me on the back channels of a company X, this is official information
> and actual demonstrations
> that were publicly released over the last few years to every one that
> cares to read, attend to the
> demos and touch the products, regardless if they use 802.11 or their own
> solution.

Rodolfo, I realize it's public information and trade show demos. What I'm
trying to point out is the smoke and mirrors nature of those demos. The
Ucentric box from CES '04 cited earlier is a prime example.

They aren't the first ones and they certainly won't be the last ones to do
that sort of thing at trade shows. Just because the literature says it's
possible and the display suggests to you it's working, that doesn't mean
really anything in some cases. You would have to peak behind the curtains or
pop the lid on the box to make certain of what's really being shown and they
certainly aren't going to let you do that.

>
> It seems that you might have not checked the relevant pages and photos of
> the products included in
> the 2003 report, and that was only a small sample of what happened almost
> 3 years ago, not to
> mention now.


I think you're overlooking the fact that many of these products shown at
CES, particularly the cutting edge products, are CONCEPTS. Many of these
will never make it to market for various technical or financial reasons.
They can and do work up clever displays to give you, the attendee, the
impression that it fully works as advertised and it works today. More times
than not with advanced stuff, it just doesn't. They are just giving you a
small taste just to wet your appetite for the CONCEPT.


> And as I said before, the reader could always choose to
>
> a) ignore the facts of official announcements/demos and run to a cocoon,
> b) consume as much information as possible to complete a better and
> updated picture of a subject.

The only point I'm trying to make is you cannot decipher the viability of
these products simply by the company literature and a CES demonstration. No
way. Calling them "Facts" is a huge stretch, IMO and IME.

CES is for marketing departments on steroids. They roll in there and promise
the moon, then leave it to the poor R&D guys to figure out how to bring it
to reality after the fact. It's not uncommon in many industries I work with
for marketing to sell a feature set long before it even exists.

>
> One such piece (of Jan 04) could be, and I quote
>
> "Motorola's XtremeSpectrum UWB chipset achieves up to 114Mbps data rates
> and consumes less than
> 200mW of power.
>
> At the show, three suppliers demonstrated UWB-equipped products using
> engineering samples of
> Motorola's UWB chips, which will be in production this year, Rofheart
> said. One of the demos was in
> the Samsung booth, where the company transmitted three HDTV streams
> simultaneously.

Motorola can throw whatever fancy name on the chip they want, but it's still
an IEEE 802.15.3 spec wireless standard that they are using. That's a
pre-standard chipset. The final approval for 802.15.3a, which is the higher
speed 100 Mpbs theoretical speed version that they claim, is probably not
going to happen until at least next year. Several companies have a say in
that spec and are trying to promote their own flavor. For any one company to
roll out a large number of chipsets prior to approval is setting themselves
up for disaster due to potential interoperability issues.

>
> Commercial products available sometime this year with Motorola's UWB chips
> will include flat-panel
> displays, set-top boxes, and DLP TVs, Rofheart said."
>
> http://www.twice.com/article/CA375354.h ... s&text=xtr
> emespectrum

OK, that's the tail end of your '04 press release.....so where's the product
today? It's August '05 already. Why are these not in people's homes right
now?


> About Ultra-Wideband Technology
> ---------------------------------
> Ultra-Wideband is a wireless technology that transmits an extremely low
> power signal over a wide
> swath of radio spectrum. Unlike conventional radio systems that operate
> within a relatively narrow
> bandwidth, i.e. BluetoothT wireless technology, IEEER 802.11b, IEEE
> 802.11a, Ultra-Wideband operates
> across a wide range of frequency spectrum by transmitting a series of very
> narrow and low power
> pulses. The combination of broader spectrum, lower power and pulsed data
> means that Ultra-Wideband
> causes less interference than conventional narrowband radio solutions, and
> delivers wire-like
> performance in an indoor wireless environment. This makes Ultra-Wideband
> technology ideal for
> consumer electronics applications that are increasingly multimedia-rich in
> content.

Notice the continual references to IEEE standards. This Motorola chip you
talk about is simply another variation of that 802.15.3 standard and there
are probably a dozen other companies, including large ones like Intel, who
also make UWB chipsets. Motorola has nothing special there.

>
> Your words "I think you should evaluate these with a very skeptical eye,
> because some of the claims
> being made are even beyond hype."
>
> With the small sample of the information above any reader could determine
> if we are dealing with
> misinformation or hype.

All the reader has to do to determine the hype factor is look at when it was
first announced, look at when they promised it, and ask whey it's not
available today. That pretty much seals it right there.

Now if you want to understand the reasons why it's not out there, then look
beyond the glossy PRs to the technical hurdles involved, and the answers
start to show themselves pretty quickly.

Here is what I see has been the delay for Uncentric/Motorola:

-- The need for dual codec MPEG2/MPEG4 chipsets which are just now reaching
production levels.

-- The need for a more robust wireless spec. with quality of service
features for AV. Just recently ratified(802.11e). Final chipsets to run that
should be at or near production now.

Bottom line is don't believe everything they print in those brochures and
don't assume because you saw a display at a trade show means it's ready for
rollout. In this particular case, it was probably far from that.


Bob





To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005




To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

When you said 2 fiber below, do you mean one cable with 2 strands?
Also how did you make then bends and turns, as I remember you can only
bend/curve to at a certain raduis or damage and losses can occur with the
fiber... ?
Great advice on future cabling. My sisters house needs to be upgraded and
thanks for the info.
TomV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Azar" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> My gosh, watching this exchange on house wiring has been quite an
> entertaining experience! No one knows what the future holds, no one can
say
> what cables will be needed. When the home theater/automation/whole house
> music system/networking thing started in the 90's, I went to the CES and
> asked everyone from sales to engineering what would they install to
"future
> proof" a house. Out of all the answers I got the best, and only one that
> would have been correct for today, was to install a 2" conduit to every
> location something was needed. Except in specialty areas such as where a
> plasma screen goes, or a specialized CPU for automation or audio, I always
> install a structured cable with 2 Cat 5, 2 RG6, and 2 fiber. If possible,
> and the owner is willing to pay for it, I run an extra RG^ and Cat 5.
> Ultimately fiber will take the load from Cat 5, and it will come sooner
than
> you may believe. There are working fiber multiplexing products for stage
and
> concert use, and for pro audio and video that are not too far out of the
> consumer price range. Fiber is now at the house in some parts of the
country
> and in them too. When I install it I leave it in the wall ready for future
> termination, and bundled at the central distribution point, ready for a
> future distribution network. A box can easily be installed above the
current
> wire distribution box I have installed for everything else. I am sure that
> fiber's bandwidth will be very adequate for multiple HD streams through a
> house, along with other data to be delivered. Fiber may not fill the
> immediate needs to send HD through the house, for that you will need to
pull
> the appropriate cables in the right fashion, but I am willing to bet
> somewhere between 12 to 24 months you will see some good fiber solutions.
>
> As for wireless, I try to keep away from it for all the reasons mentioned,
> and then some ( isn't it annoying when the microwave shuts the system
> down?). And regardless of who is showing what, and whether it is a
> prototype, or is just being delivered, who wants to be the first? I did,
and
> learned my lessons! Now I wait until everyone else has done the first
> adopter beta testing for me, and then I sell it to my customers, if it has
> proven it self. I now get to sleep all night without the phone ringing!
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 5:00 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: FW: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Bob,
>
> Please reread my statements before repeating your responses with your own
> agenda.
>
> I never said the products are ready to roll out, I said THEY ARE WORKING
ON
> THEM SINCE 2002, that is
> a fact, the information is accurate, they are working on them, readers can
> consume the information
> as THEY ARE WORKING ON THEM and make their own decisions and projections
for
> their future, better
> than ignoring it.
>
> I do not need a lecture about CES, I have been at CES for 10 years and I
> know that there are many
> "Concept" products, but a great majority of products are models that are
> aligned for their next
> lines, please stop twisting the subject, this is my last email about this
> subject.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Mankin
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:26 AM
> To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of
> > Rodolfo La Maestra
> > Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:14 PM
> > To: HDTV Magazine
> > Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
> >
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Before you stating "an area of misinformation in what these companies
> > provided to you" a little
> > research would not hurt to help you realize that this is not personal
> > information someone supplied
> > to me on the back channels of a company X, this is official information
> > and actual demonstrations
> > that were publicly released over the last few years to every one that
> > cares to read, attend to the
> > demos and touch the products, regardless if they use 802.11 or their own
> > solution.
>
> Rodolfo, I realize it's public information and trade show demos. What I'm
> trying to point out is the smoke and mirrors nature of those demos. The
> Ucentric box from CES '04 cited earlier is a prime example.
>
> They aren't the first ones and they certainly won't be the last ones to do
> that sort of thing at trade shows. Just because the literature says it's
> possible and the display suggests to you it's working, that doesn't mean
> really anything in some cases. You would have to peak behind the curtains
or
> pop the lid on the box to make certain of what's really being shown and
they
> certainly aren't going to let you do that.
>
> >
> > It seems that you might have not checked the relevant pages and photos
of
> > the products included in
> > the 2003 report, and that was only a small sample of what happened
almost
> > 3 years ago, not to
> > mention now.
>
>
> I think you're overlooking the fact that many of these products shown at
> CES, particularly the cutting edge products, are CONCEPTS. Many of these
> will never make it to market for various technical or financial reasons.
> They can and do work up clever displays to give you, the attendee, the
> impression that it fully works as advertised and it works today. More
times
> than not with advanced stuff, it just doesn't. They are just giving you a
> small taste just to wet your appetite for the CONCEPT.
>
>
> > And as I said before, the reader could always choose to
> >
> > a) ignore the facts of official announcements/demos and run to a cocoon,
> > b) consume as much information as possible to complete a better and
> > updated picture of a subject.
>
> The only point I'm trying to make is you cannot decipher the viability of
> these products simply by the company literature and a CES demonstration.
No
> way. Calling them "Facts" is a huge stretch, IMO and IME.
>
> CES is for marketing departments on steroids. They roll in there and
promise
> the moon, then leave it to the poor R&D guys to figure out how to bring it
> to reality after the fact. It's not uncommon in many industries I work
with
> for marketing to sell a feature set long before it even exists.
>
> >
> > One such piece (of Jan 04) could be, and I quote
> >
> > "Motorola's XtremeSpectrum UWB chipset achieves up to 114Mbps data rates
> > and consumes less than
> > 200mW of power.
> >
> > At the show, three suppliers demonstrated UWB-equipped products using
> > engineering samples of
> > Motorola's UWB chips, which will be in production this year, Rofheart
> > said. One of the demos was in
> > the Samsung booth, where the company transmitted three HDTV streams
> > simultaneously.
>
> Motorola can throw whatever fancy name on the chip they want, but it's
still
> an IEEE 802.15.3 spec wireless standard that they are using. That's a
> pre-standard chipset. The final approval for 802.15.3a, which is the
higher
> speed 100 Mpbs theoretical speed version that they claim, is probably not
> going to happen until at least next year. Several companies have a say in
> that spec and are trying to promote their own flavor. For any one company
to
> roll out a large number of chipsets prior to approval is setting
themselves
> up for disaster due to potential interoperability issues.
>
> >
> > Commercial products available sometime this year with Motorola's UWB
chips
> > will include flat-panel
> > displays, set-top boxes, and DLP TVs, Rofheart said."
> >
> >
http://www.twice.com/article/CA375354.h ... s&text=xtr
> > emespectrum
>
> OK, that's the tail end of your '04 press release.....so where's the
product
> today? It's August '05 already. Why are these not in people's homes right
> now?
>
>
> > About Ultra-Wideband Technology
> > ---------------------------------
> > Ultra-Wideband is a wireless technology that transmits an extremely low
> > power signal over a wide
> > swath of radio spectrum. Unlike conventional radio systems that operate
> > within a relatively narrow
> > bandwidth, i.e. BluetoothT wireless technology, IEEER 802.11b, IEEE
> > 802.11a, Ultra-Wideband operates
> > across a wide range of frequency spectrum by transmitting a series of
very
> > narrow and low power
> > pulses. The combination of broader spectrum, lower power and pulsed data
> > means that Ultra-Wideband
> > causes less interference than conventional narrowband radio solutions,
and
> > delivers wire-like
> > performance in an indoor wireless environment. This makes Ultra-Wideband
> > technology ideal for
> > consumer electronics applications that are increasingly multimedia-rich
in
> > content.
>
> Notice the continual references to IEEE standards. This Motorola chip you
> talk about is simply another variation of that 802.15.3 standard and there
> are probably a dozen other companies, including large ones like Intel, who
> also make UWB chipsets. Motorola has nothing special there.
>
> >
> > Your words "I think you should evaluate these with a very skeptical eye,
> > because some of the claims
> > being made are even beyond hype."
> >
> > With the small sample of the information above any reader could
determine
> > if we are dealing with
> > misinformation or hype.
>
> All the reader has to do to determine the hype factor is look at when it
was
> first announced, look at when they promised it, and ask whey it's not
> available today. That pretty much seals it right there.
>
> Now if you want to understand the reasons why it's not out there, then
look
> beyond the glossy PRs to the technical hurdles involved, and the answers
> start to show themselves pretty quickly.
>
> Here is what I see has been the delay for Uncentric/Motorola:
>
> -- The need for dual codec MPEG2/MPEG4 chipsets which are just now
reaching
> production levels.
>
> -- The need for a more robust wireless spec. with quality of service
> features for AV. Just recently ratified(802.11e). Final chipsets to run
that
> should be at or near production now.
>
> Bottom line is don't believe everything they print in those brochures and
> don't assume because you saw a display at a trade show means it's ready
for
> rollout. In this particular case, it was probably far from that.
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

2 strands in one jacket. Using a jacketed bundle that has 2 each RG6, Cat 5,
and fiber restricts bending of all the cables, protecting all. It also keeps
the overall pulling tension down as Cat 5 and fiber do not like excessive
tension. Commscope, Belden and others make a structured home cable. If you
can't find it locally, I will be glad to send you some.

http://searcht.netscape.com/ns/boomfram ... om&page=1&
offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D1d0e100f2470a312%2
6clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dwww.commscope.com%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp
%253A%252F%252Fwww.commscope.com%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCP
Results%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commscope.com%2F

http://searcht.netscape.com/ns/boomfram ... om&page=1&
offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D1d0e100f2470a312%2
6clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dwww.commscope.com%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp
%253A%252F%252Fwww.commscope.com%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCP
Results%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commscope.com%2F

UH58380 ... ATTDE6YP .. 2 x Cat5e/2 x RG-6 Quad/2 Fiber IC Non-Plenum Type
CMR-OF is the model that is in the above sites.






-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Vrolyk
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:27 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

When you said 2 fiber below, do you mean one cable with 2 strands?
Also how did you make then bends and turns, as I remember you can only
bend/curve to at a certain raduis or damage and losses can occur with the
fiber... ?
Great advice on future cabling. My sisters house needs to be upgraded and
thanks for the info.
TomV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Azar" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> My gosh, watching this exchange on house wiring has been quite an
> entertaining experience! No one knows what the future holds, no one can
say
> what cables will be needed. When the home theater/automation/whole house
> music system/networking thing started in the 90's, I went to the CES and
> asked everyone from sales to engineering what would they install to
"future
> proof" a house. Out of all the answers I got the best, and only one that
> would have been correct for today, was to install a 2" conduit to every
> location something was needed. Except in specialty areas such as where a
> plasma screen goes, or a specialized CPU for automation or audio, I always
> install a structured cable with 2 Cat 5, 2 RG6, and 2 fiber. If possible,
> and the owner is willing to pay for it, I run an extra RG^ and Cat 5.
> Ultimately fiber will take the load from Cat 5, and it will come sooner
than
> you may believe. There are working fiber multiplexing products for stage
and
> concert use, and for pro audio and video that are not too far out of the
> consumer price range. Fiber is now at the house in some parts of the
country
> and in them too. When I install it I leave it in the wall ready for future
> termination, and bundled at the central distribution point, ready for a
> future distribution network. A box can easily be installed above the
current
> wire distribution box I have installed for everything else. I am sure that
> fiber's bandwidth will be very adequate for multiple HD streams through a
> house, along with other data to be delivered. Fiber may not fill the
> immediate needs to send HD through the house, for that you will need to
pull
> the appropriate cables in the right fashion, but I am willing to bet
> somewhere between 12 to 24 months you will see some good fiber solutions.
>
> As for wireless, I try to keep away from it for all the reasons mentioned,
> and then some ( isn't it annoying when the microwave shuts the system
> down?). And regardless of who is showing what, and whether it is a
> prototype, or is just being delivered, who wants to be the first? I did,
and
> learned my lessons! Now I wait until everyone else has done the first
> adopter beta testing for me, and then I sell it to my customers, if it has
> proven it self. I now get to sleep all night without the phone ringing!
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 5:00 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: FW: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Bob,
>
> Please reread my statements before repeating your responses with your own
> agenda.
>
> I never said the products are ready to roll out, I said THEY ARE WORKING
ON
> THEM SINCE 2002, that is
> a fact, the information is accurate, they are working on them, readers can
> consume the information
> as THEY ARE WORKING ON THEM and make their own decisions and projections
for
> their future, better
> than ignoring it.
>
> I do not need a lecture about CES, I have been at CES for 10 years and I
> know that there are many
> "Concept" products, but a great majority of products are models that are
> aligned for their next
> lines, please stop twisting the subject, this is my last email about this
> subject.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Mankin
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:26 AM
> To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of
> > Rodolfo La Maestra
> > Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:14 PM
> > To: HDTV Magazine
> > Subject: Re: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
> >
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Before you stating "an area of misinformation in what these companies
> > provided to you" a little
> > research would not hurt to help you realize that this is not personal
> > information someone supplied
> > to me on the back channels of a company X, this is official information
> > and actual demonstrations
> > that were publicly released over the last few years to every one that
> > cares to read, attend to the
> > demos and touch the products, regardless if they use 802.11 or their own
> > solution.
>
> Rodolfo, I realize it's public information and trade show demos. What I'm
> trying to point out is the smoke and mirrors nature of those demos. The
> Ucentric box from CES '04 cited earlier is a prime example.
>
> They aren't the first ones and they certainly won't be the last ones to do
> that sort of thing at trade shows. Just because the literature says it's
> possible and the display suggests to you it's working, that doesn't mean
> really anything in some cases. You would have to peak behind the curtains
or
> pop the lid on the box to make certain of what's really being shown and
they
> certainly aren't going to let you do that.
>
> >
> > It seems that you might have not checked the relevant pages and photos
of
> > the products included in
> > the 2003 report, and that was only a small sample of what happened
almost
> > 3 years ago, not to
> > mention now.
>
>
> I think you're overlooking the fact that many of these products shown at
> CES, particularly the cutting edge products, are CONCEPTS. Many of these
> will never make it to market for various technical or financial reasons.
> They can and do work up clever displays to give you, the attendee, the
> impression that it fully works as advertised and it works today. More
times
> than not with advanced stuff, it just doesn't. They are just giving you a
> small taste just to wet your appetite for the CONCEPT.
>
>
> > And as I said before, the reader could always choose to
> >
> > a) ignore the facts of official announcements/demos and run to a cocoon,
> > b) consume as much information as possible to complete a better and
> > updated picture of a subject.
>
> The only point I'm trying to make is you cannot decipher the viability of
> these products simply by the company literature and a CES demonstration.
No
> way. Calling them "Facts" is a huge stretch, IMO and IME.
>
> CES is for marketing departments on steroids. They roll in there and
promise
> the moon, then leave it to the poor R&D guys to figure out how to bring it
> to reality after the fact. It's not uncommon in many industries I work
with
> for marketing to sell a feature set long before it even exists.
>
> >
> > One such piece (of Jan 04) could be, and I quote
> >
> > "Motorola's XtremeSpectrum UWB chipset achieves up to 114Mbps data rates
> > and consumes less than
> > 200mW of power.
> >
> > At the show, three suppliers demonstrated UWB-equipped products using
> > engineering samples of
> > Motorola's UWB chips, which will be in production this year, Rofheart
> > said. One of the demos was in
> > the Samsung booth, where the company transmitted three HDTV streams
> > simultaneously.
>
> Motorola can throw whatever fancy name on the chip they want, but it's
still
> an IEEE 802.15.3 spec wireless standard that they are using. That's a
> pre-standard chipset. The final approval for 802.15.3a, which is the
higher
> speed 100 Mpbs theoretical speed version that they claim, is probably not
> going to happen until at least next year. Several companies have a say in
> that spec and are trying to promote their own flavor. For any one company
to
> roll out a large number of chipsets prior to approval is setting
themselves
> up for disaster due to potential interoperability issues.
>
> >
> > Commercial products available sometime this year with Motorola's UWB
chips
> > will include flat-panel
> > displays, set-top boxes, and DLP TVs, Rofheart said."
> >
> >
http://www.twice.com/article/CA375354.h ... s&text=xtr
> > emespectrum
>
> OK, that's the tail end of your '04 press release.....so where's the
product
> today? It's August '05 already. Why are these not in people's homes right
> now?
>
>
> > About Ultra-Wideband Technology
> > ---------------------------------
> > Ultra-Wideband is a wireless technology that transmits an extremely low
> > power signal over a wide
> > swath of radio spectrum. Unlike conventional radio systems that operate
> > within a relatively narrow
> > bandwidth, i.e. BluetoothT wireless technology, IEEER 802.11b, IEEE
> > 802.11a, Ultra-Wideband operates
> > across a wide range of frequency spectrum by transmitting a series of
very
> > narrow and low power
> > pulses. The combination of broader spectrum, lower power and pulsed data
> > means that Ultra-Wideband
> > causes less interference than conventional narrowband radio solutions,
and
> > delivers wire-like
> > performance in an indoor wireless environment. This makes Ultra-Wideband
> > technology ideal for
> > consumer electronics applications that are increasingly multimedia-rich
in
> > content.
>
> Notice the continual references to IEEE standards. This Motorola chip you
> talk about is simply another variation of that 802.15.3 standard and there
> are probably a dozen other companies, including large ones like Intel, who
> also make UWB chipsets. Motorola has nothing special there.
>
> >
> > Your words "I think you should evaluate these with a very skeptical eye,
> > because some of the claims
> > being made are even beyond hype."
> >
> > With the small sample of the information above any reader could
determine
> > if we are dealing with
> > misinformation or hype.
>
> All the reader has to do to determine the hype factor is look at when it
was
> first announced, look at when they promised it, and ask whey it's not
> available today. That pretty much seals it right there.
>
> Now if you want to understand the reasons why it's not out there, then
look
> beyond the glossy PRs to the technical hurdles involved, and the answers
> start to show themselves pretty quickly.
>
> Here is what I see has been the delay for Uncentric/Motorola:
>
> -- The need for dual codec MPEG2/MPEG4 chipsets which are just now
reaching
> production levels.
>
> -- The need for a more robust wireless spec. with quality of service
> features for AV. Just recently ratified(802.11e). Final chipsets to run
that
> should be at or near production now.
>
> Bottom line is don't believe everything they print in those brochures and
> don't assume because you saw a display at a trade show means it's ready
for
> rollout. In this particular case, it was probably far from that.
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005




To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I have found Ethernet over power line to work well for wireless servers I
set up that could not penetrate the thick plaster and lathe walls of old
houses. There may be a few still to be encountered, but it did the trick.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Siddall
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:19 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Fw: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

2 Cat 5, 2 RG6, and 2 fiber -- 3 if deep pockets? Oh man . . . . Another
option for those of us with "older" houses that do not want to, or cannot,
thread all these wires through our walls may be our in-home electrical
wiring (sometimes referred to as in-home BPL). HomePlug has standardized
ver.1 for data, and their broader bandwidth A/V and related standards are
due out this year with enough capacity for simultaneous data (including
VoIP), audio and several independent HDTV signals. Since home wiring
characteristics vary a LOT, results may too. But these devices might save us

a lot of trouble just as WiFi saved a lot of copper (and added new
functionalities as well). The description on HomePlug's home page reads:
"Imagine: Entering your house, you unpack and plug in your newly purchased
flat-panel TV. Simply and quickly - the TV automatically connects to the
cable box, the DVD player, the Digital Video Recorder, the Home Theatre
system, and also to the Internet. The member companies of the HomePlug
Powerline Alliance are making sure that this scenario is not a far off
dream." (http://www.homeplug.org)

David Siddall


From: "Joseph Azar" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:31:05 -0400

My gosh, watching this exchange on house wiring has been quite an
entertaining experience! No one knows what the future holds, no one can say
what cables will be needed. When the home theater/automation/whole house
music system/networking thing started in the 90's, I went to the CES and
asked everyone from sales to engineering what would they install to "future
proof" a house. Out of all the answers I got the best, and only one that
would have been correct for today, was to install a 2" conduit to every
location something was needed. Except in specialty areas such as where a
plasma screen goes, or a specialized CPU for automation or audio, I always
install a structured cable with 2 Cat 5, 2 RG6, and 2 fiber. If possible,
and the owner is willing to pay for it, I run an extra RG^ and Cat 5.
Ultimately fiber will take the load from Cat 5, and it will come sooner than
you may believe. There are working fiber multiplexing products for stage and
concert use, and for pro audio and video that are not too far out of the
consumer price range. Fiber is now at the house in some parts of the country
and in them too. When I install it I leave it in the wall ready for future
termination, and bundled at the central distribution point, ready for a
future distribution network. A box can easily be installed above the current
wire distribution box I have installed for everything else. I am sure that
fiber's bandwidth will be very adequate for multiple HD streams through a
house, along with other data to be delivered. Fiber may not fill the
immediate needs to send HD through the house, for that you will need to pull
the appropriate cables in the right fashion, but I am willing to bet
somewhere between 12 to 24 months you will see some good fiber solutions.

As for wireless, I try to keep away from it for all the reasons mentioned,
and then some ( isn't it annoying when the microwave shuts the system
down?). And regardless of who is showing what, and whether it is a
prototype, or is just being delivered, who wants to be the first? I did, and
learned my lessons! Now I wait until everyone else has done the first
adopter beta testing for me, and then I sell it to my customers, if it has
proven it self. I now get to sleep all night without the phone ringing!



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 8/14/2005




To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----


I admit to not having read up on this much ... but ...

I use some wall-plug ethernet adapters in my home. One thing they say is
that they will work ONLY if plugged directly into the electrical system
(i.e. no surge suppressors). do the "HomePlug" devices have the same
limitation? If so, one good lightning strike can cost a lot of money.

Curious ...

-- M. Shane Sturgeon
Skype: HDTVMagazine



|---------+--------------------------------->
| | "David Siddall" |
| | <[email protected]>|
| | Sent by: "HDTV |
| | Magazine" |
| | <hdtvmagazine_tips@ilo|
| | vehdtv.com> |
| | |
| | |
| | 08/17/2005 12:18 AM |
| | Please respond to |
| | "HDTV Magazine" |
| | |
|---------+--------------------------------->
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]> |
| cc: |
| Subject: Fw: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

2 Cat 5, 2 RG6, and 2 fiber -- 3 if deep pockets? Oh man . . . . Another
option for those of us with "older" houses that do not want to, or cannot,
thread all these wires through our walls may be our in-home electrical
wiring (sometimes referred to as in-home BPL). HomePlug has standardized
ver.1 for data, and their broader bandwidth A/V and related standards are
due out this year with enough capacity for simultaneous data (including
VoIP), audio and several independent HDTV signals. Since home wiring
characteristics vary a LOT, results may too. But these devices might save
us
a lot of trouble just as WiFi saved a lot of copper (and added new
functionalities as well). The description on HomePlug's home page reads:
"Imagine: Entering your house, you unpack and plug in your newly purchased
flat-panel TV. Simply and quickly - the TV automatically connects to the
cable box, the DVD player, the Digital Video Recorder, the Home Theatre
system, and also to the Internet. The member companies of the HomePlug
Powerline Alliance are making sure that this scenario is not a far off
dream." (http://www.homeplug.org)

David Siddall


From: "Joseph Azar" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Server/clients HD wired/wireless networks
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:31:05 -0400

My gosh, watching this exchange on house wiring has been quite an
entertaining experience! No one knows what the future holds, no one can say
what cables will be needed. When the home theater/automation/whole house
music system/networking thing started in the 90's, I went to the CES and
asked everyone from sales to engineering what would they install to "future
proof" a house. Out of all the answers I got the best, and only one that
would have been correct for today, was to install a 2" conduit to every
location something was needed. Except in specialty areas such as where a
plasma screen goes, or a specialized CPU for automation or audio, I always
install a structured cable with 2 Cat 5, 2 RG6, and 2 fiber. If possible,
and the owner is willing to pay for it, I run an extra RG^ and Cat 5.
Ultimately fiber will take the load from Cat 5, and it will come sooner
than
you may believe. There are working fiber multiplexing products for stage
and
concert use, and for pro audio and video that are not too far out of the
consumer price range. Fiber is now at the house in some parts of the
country
and in them too. When I install it I leave it in the wall ready for future
termination, and bundled at the central distribution point, ready for a
future distribution network. A box can easily be installed above the
current
wire distribution box I have installed for everything else. I am sure that
fiber's bandwidth will be very adequate for multiple HD streams through a
house, along with other data to be delivered. Fiber may not fill the
immediate needs to send HD through the house, for that you will need to
pull
the appropriate cables in the right fashion, but I am willing to bet
somewhere between 12 to 24 months you will see some good fiber solutions.

As for wireless, I try to keep away from it for all the reasons mentioned,
and then some ( isn't it annoying when the microwave shuts the system
down?). And regardless of who is showing what, and whether it is a
prototype, or is just being delivered, who wants to be the first? I did,
and
learned my lessons! Now I wait until everyone else has done the first
adopter beta testing for me, and then I sell it to my customers, if it has
proven it self. I now get to sleep all night without the phone ringing!



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]






To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Have they resolved the RF interference issues? Amatuer
radio operators have been up in arms about this.

How about security? Since your 110 power line is
connected to everyone elses, then your network is also
connected to everyone elses. To me, this is
potentially worse than wireless. At lease wireless is
limited to the range of your transmitter.

--- David Siddall <[email protected]> wrote:

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> 2 Cat 5, 2 RG6, and 2 fiber -- 3 if deep pockets? Oh
> man . . . . Another
> option for those of us with "older" houses that do
> not want to, or cannot,
> thread all these wires through our walls may be our
> in-home electrical
> wiring (sometimes referred to as in-home BPL).
> HomePlug has standardized
> ver.1 for data, and their broader bandwidth A/V and
> related standards are
> due out this year with enough capacity for
> simultaneous data (including
> VoIP), audio and several independent HDTV signals.
> Since home wiring
> characteristics vary a LOT, results may too. But
> these devices might save us
> a lot of trouble just as WiFi saved a lot of copper
> (and added new
> functionalities as well). The description on
> HomePlug's home page reads:
> "Imagine: Entering your house, you unpack and plug
> in your newly purchased
> flat-panel TV. Simply and quickly - the TV
> automatically connects to the
> cable box, the DVD player, the Digital Video
> Recorder, the Home Theatre
> system, and also to the Internet. The member
> companies of the HomePlug
> Powerline Alliance are making sure that this
> scenario is not a far off
> dream." (http://www.homeplug.org)
>
> David Siddall
>
>
> From: "Joseph Azar" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Server/clients HD wired/wireless
> networks
> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:31:05 -0400
>
> My gosh, watching this exchange on house wiring has
> been quite an
> entertaining experience! No one knows what the
> future holds, no one can say
> what cables will be needed. When the home
> theater/automation/whole house
> music system/networking thing started in the 90's, I
> went to the CES and
> asked everyone from sales to engineering what would
> they install to "future
> proof" a house. Out of all the answers I got the
> best, and only one that
> would have been correct for today, was to install a
> 2" conduit to every
> location something was needed. Except in specialty
> areas such as where a
> plasma screen goes, or a specialized CPU for
> automation or audio, I always
> install a structured cable with 2 Cat 5, 2 RG6, and
> 2 fiber. If possible,
> and the owner is willing to pay for it, I run an
> extra RG^ and Cat 5.
> Ultimately fiber will take the load from Cat 5, and
> it will come sooner than
> you may believe. There are working fiber
> multiplexing products for stage and
> concert use, and for pro audio and video that are
> not too far out of the
> consumer price range. Fiber is now at the house in
> some parts of the country
> and in them too. When I install it I leave it in the
> wall ready for future
> termination, and bundled at the central distribution
> point, ready for a
> future distribution network. A box can easily be
> installed above the current
> wire distribution box I have installed for
> everything else. I am sure that
> fiber's bandwidth will be very adequate for multiple
> HD streams through a
> house, along with other data to be delivered. Fiber
> may not fill the
> immediate needs to send HD through the house, for
> that you will need to pull
> the appropriate cables in the right fashion, but I
> am willing to bet
> somewhere between 12 to 24 months you will see some
> good fiber solutions.
>
> As for wireless, I try to keep away from it for all
> the reasons mentioned,
> and then some ( isn't it annoying when the microwave
> shuts the system
> down?). And regardless of who is showing what, and
> whether it is a
> prototype, or is just being delivered, who wants to
> be the first? I did, and
> learned my lessons! Now I wait until everyone else
> has done the first
> adopter beta testing for me, and then I sell it to
> my customers, if it has
> proven it self. I now get to sleep all night without
> the phone ringing!
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
> [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made
> from all posted that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]