HDBaseT Supporters Hope To Kiss HDMI Goodbye

arcticstoat writes "HDMI's short-lived reign over the TV cable racks could soon be over, thanks to a new usurper that combines several connections into a standard Cat5e/6 network cable with an RJ-45 connector. Designed by a coalition of consumer electronics manufacturers called the HDBaseT Alliance, which includes Sony, Samsung, LG and Valens, HDBaseT promises to not only carry video and audio signals, but also provide a network connection, a USB signal and even electricity using a single cable. The Alliance predicts that we'll start seeing the first HDBaseT equipment creeping into the shops later this year, but says the bigger wave of adoption will occur later in 2011."

Comments

One question

[elrous0]

Will Monster make a special gold-plated, oxygenated cable for it? Because the guy at Best Buy said that is only way to really hear the crispness of the digital audio.

Re:One question

[Kjella]

Will Monster make a special gold-plated, oxygenated cable for it?

Of course they will. So would I, if I could manage to get through the sales speech without breaking down in hysterical laughter. Some money just deserve to be taken.

Re:One question

[roc97007]

I think his brother works over at The Good Guys.

Re:One question

[jimbolauski]

You mean the cat 6m standard.

Re:One question

[FlynnMP3]

It's not known well, but temperature and altitude affect the clarity just as much, if not more, than the cable construction methods. The colder it is the less jitter is introduced in the signal path as the molecules are not moving around so much. Closer to sea level, the predictability of the air pressure reduces the effects of signal variance. Which you can hear if your listening space is 10 degrees Celsius or cooler.

All Best Buy audio employees know this but are bound to secrecy by Monster Cable. Probably for marketing reasons.

Re:One question

[unix1]

That would be funny if it wasn't true. You can get it from Amazon too.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

True enough. However, it is also crucial that you connect the cable the right way. A lot of people don't know about this effect, but many cables sound much crisper and punchier and more musical when you connect them the right way.

I don't know why this works, but i reckon it's probably a quantum alignment phenomenon that makes the signal clearer as it passes through the copper in the right direction.

Re:One question

[smbarbour]

Maybe not Monster, but Denon already does.

Re:One question

[CoolCash]

Denon already has that, http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp $499 for the cable.

Re:One question

[acedotcom]

uhhh...actually they already do . I die a little inside thinking of people that buy that stuff.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

" Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer. "

What, they painted arrows on the cable so electrons know where to go?

Bwahahaha.

Re:One question

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Isn't that a strip bar over in DC?

Re:One question

[morgan_greywolf]

Don't forget audio. The crispness and clarity of the digital sound is directly affected by the color of the cloth covering the speakers. Lightwaves can travel in cloth is that is not pure pitch black, causing an ever-so-slight quantum disturbance in the sound waves, thereby increasing jitter. You can definitely hear the difference if your speaker cloth is dark grey instead of black.

Re:One question

[Danse]

That would be funny if it wasn't true. You can get it from Amazon too.

Some pretty funny reviews there too :)

Re:One question

[Bakkster]

Will Monster make a special gold-plated, oxygenated cable for it?

Of course they will. So would I, if I could manage to get through the sales speech without breaking down in hysterical laughter. Some money just deserve to be taken.

Because they don't understand enough about the physics of digital electrical signals? I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices? Your money deserves to be taken, right?

I'm of the opinion that we should be spreading information, instead of being the assholes laughing in the corner and watching Monster get richer.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but air pressure is least predictable at sea level. If it was predictable, my frog would not come out of it's aquarium whatever the weather outside.

The best place for clear image and sound is in space where there isn't any pesky air to fuzzy the images and distort the sound.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

If any one comment deserves to be modded to +infinity, this it is. I am so sick of the smug assholes who think everyone should be EE and/or Comp. Sci. expert, and people deserve to be taken for a ride when they are not.

Re:One question

[ultranova]

I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices?

Why yes, I do. It's not right, but I fully expect each and every one of these persons to ignore that and screw me over. That, arguably, is the biggest problem facing our time: you can't trust people, so the separation of labour breaks down, requiring you to be an expert at everything.

I'm of the opinion that we should be spreading information, instead of being the assholes laughing in the corner and watching Monster get richer.

Just because there's no difference doesn't mean that an audiophile can't hear it. Seriously, expect to be blown away by the very same people who you're trying to help.

Re:One question

[ultranova]

Closer to sea level, the predictability of the air pressure reduces the effects of signal variance.

Bullshit. You need vacuum-sealed cables. And preferably you should be outside of Earth's gravity well.

Re:One question

[Bakkster]

I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices?

Why yes, I do. It's not right, but I fully expect each and every one of these persons to ignore that and screw me over. That, arguably, is the biggest problem facing our time: you can't trust people, so the separation of labour breaks down, requiring you to be an expert at everything.

However, note that the GP states the money 'deserves' to be taken. I think that crosses the line from 'need to be cautious' to 'GP is an insufferable douche-bag'.

I'm of the opinion that we should be spreading information, instead of being the assholes laughing in the corner and watching Monster get richer.

Just because there's no difference doesn't mean that an audiophile can't hear it. Seriously, expect to be blown away by the very same people who you're trying to help.

Unfortunately, that is true. Of course, I think the average person buying a Monster HDMI cable isn't an audiophile, they're just swayed by pretty colors and lots of stickers.

And I think most people can be swayed by the 'but think of all the things that upgrade money could go to instead that will actually improve your sound/video quality' argument.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of Amazon's reviews are quite funny; none of them appear to be serious. Worth a read.

Re:One question

[Kjella]

Because they don't understand enough about the physics of digital electrical signals? I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices? Your money deserves to be taken, right?

Monster cables are to regular cables what a chop shop is to a car mechanic, what a $100k homeopathic cure that may* cure cancer is to a doctor and what a person with a bridge to sell you is to a banker. Even a lay person should be able to smell a rat without having any particular education. Monster cables are for people that can "hear" their dollars, nothing else. People that are willing to pay good money for the sake of having a 10x more expensive cable than the rest, deserve to pay 10x more than the rest. Everybody else will return the monster cable because it made no difference at all.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this description of the Denon cable:
from: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000I1X6PM/sr=/qid=/ref=olp_tab_used?ie=UTF8&coliid=&me=&qid=&sr=&seller=&colid=&condition=used

This package had a small leak; some of God's Own Saliva may have escaped from the core of pure Gaia Fart and Anticopper. There was still sufficient tensile strength to bind a demon while I killed the hydra, so it should be almost good enough for audiophiles.

only $2500.00

Re:One question

[uglyduckling]

You don't need to be an EE or Comp. Sci. expert to understand that digital audio/video cables can't improve the signal quality beyond 0 data loss, you just need to have managed high school level physics. People don't necessarily 'deserve' to be taken for a ride if they can't figure this out, but bear in mind that we're talking about people with more money than sense - it's not like they're being ripped off for food, healthcare or basic transport - we're talking about luxury goods being sold to people with money to burn.

Re:One question

[commodore64_love]

If you want to invest money, you're wasting it on cables. What you really need is a source that uses compressionless or lossless video. i.e. Like a CD or FLAC, but for movies. No more annoying macroblocking, or mosquitos, or other compression artifacts.

What you need, basically, is a copy of the original digital movie or TV show on a 5 terabyte disc or hard drive. THAT'S how you improve your picture in a dramatic fashion.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nothing to die inside over. Try this stuff:

Start with a good HDMI cable. ($200)

Wire your loudspeakers with some carbon fiber speaker cable. ($5000)

Of course, no system is complete without a fewpower cords. ($600)

Re:One question

[commodore64_love]

I'm getting tired of standards changing all the time. I just upgraded to a Mac, and it does not have a VGA connector. Only DVI. So my 3 VGA monitors are now worthless. And yes I know they have DVI-to-VGA adapters, which I'm using, but the picture doesn't look right. It isn't as clear as it used to be with my old computer (VGA).

Next I guess they'll change the standard again from DVI to this HD Base-T stuff? Or maybe phaseout S-video so I can no longer connect my VCR, DVR, or Playstation units? These constant upgrades are getting ridiculously expensive. I am of the opinion that (a) if it ain't broke don't fix it. DVI and HDMI works just fine and we don't need HD Base-T.

Or (b) maintain the old connectors so people can still use older equipment. Include new connectors but also keep the VGA and S-video connectors.

Re:One question

[wal9001]

Don't forget to read the reviews!

A caution to people buying these: if you do not follow the "directional markings" on the cables, your music will play backwards. Please check that before mentioning it in your reviews.

I installed one of these cables between my gigabit ethernet switch and my Canon Pixma 6700 color printer. I know it's not a sanctioned use, but I was looking for the ultimate in speed and color fidelity. I'm freaky that way.

The first time I downloaded a picture to the printer over this cable, the bits moved so fast the printer collapsed into a naked singularity, right there in my office.

Since then, I can't find the cat, and my entire set of VAX/VMS 4.7 documentation (DEC Will Rise Again!) (Mmmmm, orangey!) has gone missing.

Please, for the love of God, please, do not use these cables! The very existence of Earth may depend on your decision!

Re:One question

[Bakkster]

You don't need to be an EE or Comp. Sci. expert to understand that digital audio/video cables can't improve the signal quality beyond 0 data loss, you just need to have managed high school level physics.

First of all, signal quality and data loss weren't part of my high school physics curriculum. Nor were they part of my college physics curriculum. That's because we're talking about digital signals, which are the realm of EE and CS.

Secondly, the point is that the advertising implies that other cables don't have zero losses. Unless you understand beyond the basics of digital signals (and let's face it, that's hardly ubiquitous knowledge right now), you're vulnerable to advertisers abusing their 'air of authority'. Unless you can prove the box wrong, it's understandable to trust it (perhaps people have been desensitized by truth-in-advertising laws?).

People don't necessarily 'deserve' to be taken for a ride if they can't figure this out, but bear in mind that we're talking about people with more money than sense - it's not like they're being ripped off for food, healthcare or basic transport - we're talking about luxury goods being sold to people with money to burn.

These cables are pushed to anyone who will listen, not just the obscenely rich. Best Buy will sell them to someone buying a new TV, even if they don't have an HDMI device putting out HD video. This is an up-sell even for those who can't afford to spend $100 on their cables, based on the fear that their TV (which may be a rare luxury purchase, due to their budget) will not work without it.

And as stated above, these are people with more money than knowledge, not necessarily sense. Well disguised technobabble can confuse even the best of us without background knowledge.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting tired of standards changing all the time. I just upgraded to a Mac, and it does not have a VGA connector. Only DVI. So my 3 VGA monitors are now worthless. And yes I know they have DVI-to-VGA adapters, which I'm using, but the picture doesn't look right. It isn't as clear as it used to be with my old computer (VGA).

If you get a cable with a VGA connector on one end and DVI on the other, it will be no different from your old VGA-to-VGA cable electrically, because the analog signals on the DVI connector are identical to VGA signals. Possibly better, even, since analog DVI has that nice cross shaped shield in the connector isolating the analog channels from one another.

The only reason you see any signal degradation going through a DVI->VGA adapter is that the high bandwidth analog VGA signals are being passed through an impedance transition in the middle of the cable (all connectors do that), which can cause signal reflections and other undesirable things. Eliminate that by using a single cable with no connectors in the middle and you'll be golden.

Next I guess they'll change the standard again from DVI to this HD Base-T stuff?

HDBase-T sounds like a TV industry standard, not a computer industry one. Computer guys are moving to DisplayPort. DVI is truthfully already quite antiquated (about as old as VGA was when DVI began to push VGA aside).

Re:One question

[peragrin]

not to be mean but vga to DVI change over has been going on for over a decade. the HDMI from cable jack has been changing for nearly that long as well.

S-video sucks, VGA doesn't allow for hot swap. besides for computers apple is switching to display port, as it allows everything that HDMI does in a small connecter.

Re:One question

[rrohbeck]

Just read the comments on Amazon. The ultimate cable!

But Amazon's customers obviously have clue about quality...

3 used & new from $999.99

What Do Customers Ultimately Buy After Viewing This Item?
25% buy
Mediabridge Ultra Series - 6ft High Speed HDMI Cable - Category 2 Certified - Supports 3D - Audio Return Channel - 4Kx2K - 1440p - 1080p - Blu-Ray - PS3 - XBox 360 4.7 out of 5 stars (774)
$9.99

Cheap bastards.

Re:One question

[Sycraft-fu]

No, monster cables are just overpriced. They actually are quite well made. There was a time when their stuff was crap, but not any more. Any Monster product I've encountered in recent years has been well built and did what it promised quite well. It just cost way more than a just as well built and functional product from someone else.

My objection to Monster is the overcharging and marketing as though they sell you something special. Their product quality itself is fine.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

Those suckers didn't seem too concerned when they were giving out the swirlies in jr-high, and cheating off the smart kids test. Fuck them.

Re:One question

[masonc]

Some money just deserve to be taken.

They don't deserve to be taken, they WANT to be taken. I work in audio and the people who can pay someone to put in a home theater are not happy to be told not to buy "oxygen depleted molecular aligned copper" cable to make the digital sound crisper - they WANT to think they have some special item so ridiculously expensive for what it does that the average Joe cannot afford it.
If they really wanted the best sounding equipment, they would buy professional gear, which is what the music is recorded with.
They don't, they want the most esoteric, bullshit laden nonsense that the magazines are pushing.
However, HDMI sucks and just doesn't work, so anything that offers a better solution and has widespread support is welcome.
But the idea that it will be popular in a year is stupid, there are no devices with this interface> It will take years to get mass adoption and be accepted.

Re:One question

[thegarbz]

Because they don't understand enough about the physics of digital electrical signals?

Everytime I hear this argument I come to realise that some people just don't get it. Do you think people actually part with $1000 for their cryogenically treated super cable for nothing? Sure there's no measurable difference between cables and you can't tell them apart in an ABX test, but people still think they hear a difference.

The placebo effect is real and has been proven in medical studies. The placebo in this case is spending loads of money for a perceived improvement in sound. Note that word "perceived". I for one think people who spend $1000 on "Transparent Audio's" bottom of the range cable are crazy, yet the people who buy them will swear they hear a difference. Now who am I to deny them their strangely priced joy?

Spending money for a placebo effect is no different than going to a fetish club and having some woman beat you up for fun. Some people like it, and who are we to say otherwise?

Re:One question

[EdIII]

The reviews are hilarious and go on forever. I would think most of the Internet is not worth archiving, but some of these reviews are. This is my favorite:

I knew my day was going to improve when the truck pulled up at my home with this cable deep within. No ordinary truck, this one was Holy White, and the gold Delivery logo sparkled like a thousand suns reflected through shards of the purest ice formed with unadulterated water collected at the beginning of the universe. The driver, clad in a robe colored the softest of white, floated towards me on the cool fog of a hundred fire extinguishers. He smiled benevolently, like a father looking down upon his only child, and handed me a package wrapped in gold beaten thin to the point where you could see through it. I didn't have to sign, because the driver could see within my heart, and knew that I was pure. Upon opening the package, an angelic choir started to sing, and reached a crescendo as I laid this cable on my stereo system. Instantly, my antiquated equipment transformed into components made from the clearest diamond-semiconductor. The cable knew where to go, and hooked itself into the correct ports without help from me - all the while, the choir sang praises to the almighty digital god. With trepidation, I pushed "play," and was instantly enveloped in a sound that echoed the creation of all matter, a sound that vibrated every cell in my body to perfection. I was instantly taken to the next plane, where I saw the all-father. I knew with my entire soul, that all was good in the world.

But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.

Re:One question

[The Grim Reefer2]

That would be funny if it wasn't true. You can get it from Amazon too.

I'm not sure which is funnier/sadder; That there are almost 400 reviews for this cable or that a "refurbished" one costs $1000.

Re:One question

[Bakkster]

I'm not concerned about the audiophiles who buy Monster cables because they think they're 'superior'. I'm concerned about the average person who is tricked into thinking non-name-brand cables are somehow defective because of some missing magical ingredient.

Put another way, the audiophiles do know, but don't care. Screw 'em. It's the people who would care that the cables are effectively the same, but don't know and are coerced into wasting their money so a Best Buy salesman gets a bit more commission.

Re:One question

[commodore64_love]

>>>S-video sucks, VGA doesn't allow for hot swap.

S-video sucks? Not really. S-video is DVD quality and works just fine for 480i or 480p source video (like my VCR, DVR, playstation, or Nintendo). And what do you mean VGA doesn't allow for hot swap? I plug and unplug VGA while it's "live" without any problem.

Anyway I'm just annoyed that I have to throw-away money buying a new CRT/LCD (or adapter) when the CRT/LCD I have works perfectly.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but did you read the comments

Re:One question

[mjwx]

Will Monster make a special gold-plated, oxygenated cable for it?

Of course they will. So would I, if I could manage to get through the sales speech without breaking down in hysterical laughter. Some money just deserve to be taken.

Because they don't understand enough about the physics of digital electrical signals?

No, because they cant tell that a cable that it 6-10 times the price of it's nearest competitor might be a scam.

I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices?

Really bad analogy, I go see a professional be it a doctor, mechanic or banker because I need specialist advice/services. If I go see the Fryer technician at Burger King for medical advice then yes, yes I deserve to get ripped off. This is what going to a big box store and talking with clueless salespeople about tech is like, except the chances that you'll be knifed to death and served to customers is somewhat lower.

Also there comes a point where common sense must kick in, why is the salesperson/banker so eager for me to buy expensive cable/sign contract without letting me think about it. If you fail basic common sense then yes, yes you deserve to be taken to the cleaners.

Re:One question

[spidr_mnky]

It's one thing if your doctor tells you you have a somewhat uncommon infection with a lengthy name, and prescribes an expensive treatment, when you actually have a cold and just need rest.

It's another if he tells you your bill will be higher because he wouldn't use anything of lower quality than a ruby encrusted stethoscope and sterling silver one time use tongue depressors.

OK, yeah, if you're cool you'll clue in anyone about to do something stupid, but at some point you've pretty well got a right to laugh at them, too.

Re:One question

[shacky003]

It has nothing to do with their understanding of digital electrical signals - speaking as a former regional operations manager for the above company, it has all to do with what can be said in a flashy way, to get customers to buy the highest margin products.. Each store is graded daily on department sales goals, with a huge eye on profit margin of accessory items (which is why they will sell you a pc with 5% margin, as long as you get the cables, etc, that are 80-95% margin)
To give the store sales people (read: clerks that are given scripts with specific "overcoming the "no" that customers might give you.." - Most know that what they are saying to customers is crap to sell more.. As a sales manager once told his staff: "What? Can a customer test the cable right here in the store, and tell you that there isn't a better sound quality from this cable vs. that? No?? Then there's no reason why to not say the higher priced one is better."

Re:One question

[sjames]

He's full of crap you know. That's all useless unless you attach the vial of magic rocks and make sure the cables are aligned within 2.5 seconds of magnetic north. Also make sure the video source is mounted above the display so the bits can run down hill. Otherwise they bunch up in the cable.

Re:One question

[Khyber]

"That's because we're talking about digital signals, which are the realm of EE and CS. "

Bullshit, son. It's all a fucking *ANALOG* pulse down a goddamned conduit of one sort or another. That's PURE FUCKING PHYSICS.

Did you fail those classes?

Re:One question

[bemymonkey]

It may be an analog signal, but that analog signal is carrying digital data, which is usually checksummed and/or even encrypted and subsequently decrypted. It's much more of an all-or-nothing situation than with pure analog signals... if your HDMI cable works, you've got a pretty good chance that you're getting pristine 100% digital picture and sound quality...

Re:One question

[dasmoo]

denon already has it covered man

http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp

Re:One question

[JohnBailey]

If any one comment deserves to be modded to +infinity, this it is. I am so sick of the smug assholes who think everyone should be EE and/or Comp. Sci. expert, and people deserve to be taken for a ride when they are not.

And the ones that state an exaggerated qualification is needed to get basic knowledge need similar modding down to oblivion. Or are you actually a sales person, who relies on the ignorance of the masses to keep you in a job?

Re:One question

[wxjones]

The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.

Re:One question

[Bakkster]

Bullshit, son. It's all a fucking *ANALOG* pulse down a goddamned conduit of one sort or another. That's PURE FUCKING PHYSICS.

Absolutely. And the analog signal integrity does get better with higher quality cable. That's why unplated, multi-strand, low-oxygen instrument and speaker wire is preferred in high-end analog systems; it's all in the physics.

However, if you only know about analog signals and not digital, then you are MORE EASILY tricked into thinking that higher quality cables result in higher quality data transfer. That is not the case. If the first cable transmits with 0% signal loss, then a cable with better analog transmission properties can't do any better. That's where the EE/CS comes in.

Did you fail those classes?

Oh please, I've designed a PCB to handle data transfers on the order of Gb/s. I work with digital signal integrity issues on a regular basis.

Do you have any credentials beyond buying HDMI cables for $50/ft?

Re:One question

[elrous0]

My favorite part of the page:

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
            Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Re:One question

[drinkypoo]

My objection to Monster is the overcharging and marketing as though they sell you something special. Their product quality itself is fine.

I wholeheartedly agree. Monster actually DOES make superior cables. They are not so much better as to (I think) justify their price tag, but that doesn't stop me from buying them every time I see them at a flea market, where I can get them at a reasonable price. And since they are so well-made, I have never bought one that didn't work. I have a monster DVI cable which is about as silly as it gets considering it's only a 2M cable, and a monster Playstation cable, both in service now, and they are both very nice when it comes time to frob them.

I used to buy a lot of Belkin cables for the same reason, mostly on sale. But then the retention screw knobs got lamed out and now I hate them. Used monster cables FTW!

Re:One question

[Just Some Guy]

So is Ethernet. Have you ever viewed a JPEG that didn't look as bright and crisp as it could because you were using the wrong brand of CAT5?

Re:One question

[triple.eh]

Will Monster make a special gold-plated, oxygenated cable for it?

How about a cable in the $500 price range?

Re:One question

[drinkypoo]

S-video sucks? Not really. S-video is DVD quality and works just fine for 480i or 480p source video (like my VCR, DVR, playstation, or Nintendo).

What does "S-Video is DVD quality" mean? You can SEE the difference between S-Video and Component video even on a PS2, which generates no resolutions not theoretically carried by the available bandwidth of S-Video. In reality, Component separates signals better and thus has less signal bleed.

And what do you mean VGA doesn't allow for hot swap? I plug and unplug VGA while it's "live" without any problem.

Yeah, I don't know what that's supposed to mean, either. It's probably the one thing I've never had trouble hot-plugging, and I've hot-plugged a lot of interfaces you weren't supposed to. I think we've all done SCSI; some of us IDE; occasionally even floppy bus. Hell, you're not supposed to hot-plug IEEE1284.

Anyway I'm just annoyed that I have to throw-away money buying a new CRT/LCD (or adapter) when the CRT/LCD I have works perfectly.

Amusingly, I use an Apple DVI to VGA adapter when such things are necessary (it's a dongle rather than an adapter.)

Re:One question

[omnichad]

To add to the previous reply, since moving from Component Video to HDMI on my DVD player, there's been a huge increase in quality. The black levels are improved (due to not using NTSC color signalling) and there is NO analog noise - which was just about unavoidable and generated from within the DVD player.
 
Display technology has improved a LOT in the last 10 years. If you don't have a fuzzy CRT, you can tell the difference in the improved connectivity available. It was broke, they fixed it.

Re:One question

[mldi]

Will Monster make a special gold-plated, oxygenated cable for it? Because the guy at Best Buy said that is only way to really hear the crispness of the digital audio.

The best part is with coax cables, the gold-plating will actually mess with your signal and make it worse. Hooray for ignorance!

Re:One question

[commodore64_love]

>>>What does "S-Video is DVD quality" mean?

S-video has a resolution equal to DVD of 720x480. Actually S-video can exceed DVD quality, if you have a high-quality source like ED Betamax or D-VHS or HDTV receiver.

And yes obviously Component cables can carry HD, but if you're using a standard definition source like a VCR or PS2, there won't be any visible difference from S-video to component. AND even if you claim you can see a difference, it still wouldn't be accurate to say "s-video sucks". DVD quality doesn't suck

Re:One question

[drinkypoo]

S-video has a resolution equal to DVD of 720x480. Actually S-video can exceed DVD quality, if you have a high-quality source like ED Betamax or D-VHS or HDTV receiver.

Resolution != bandwidth. Also, various resolutions can be carried over S-Video cables, although in practice it is usually 480i or 576i. DVDs can futher be interlaced or progressive in encoding (MPEG actually supports interlaced video, to minimize decoder overhead) and S-Video can only carry an interlaced signal; it doesn't have the bandwidth for 480p. Therefore, while it may support DVD resolution, it does not support maximum DVD quality. Those of us with progressive, anamorphic DVDs are limited by S-Video and will have to use another connection, e.g. Component or HDMI.

And yes obviously Component cables can carry HD, but if you're using a standard definition source like a VCR or PS2, there won't be any visible difference from S-video to component.

That is totally false. I have a PS2, and there is a visible difference from S-Video to Component.

DVD quality doesn't suck

That is a totally subjective statement, and further it is erroneous since S-Video cannot display the full quality of a nicely encoded (read: progressive scan) DVD.

Re:One question

[commodore64_love]

>>>It was broke, they fixed it.

Yes. And then they forced (or will force) me to spend $1000 to upgrade to a new TV, because they didn't include an S-video output on the Bluray player (or whatever). Bastards. I can't afford to just toss a $1000 set and buy a new one.

Re:One question

[omnichad]

Why would you want to run Blu-Ray over S-video? Save yourself some money and just buy DVDs.

Re:One question

[Khyber]

"It may be an analog signal, but that analog signal is carrying digital data"

Wrong. Analog can't carry data, only be pulsed to represent a 1 or 0.

Re:One question

[Khyber]

I crimp my own cables, thank you very much. I also build my own antenna arrays, LED arrays, computers, centrifuges, and a LOT more.

I'm also one of the leading researchers in the field of targeted-wavelength horticulture, which requires PLENTY of optical physics and biochemistry.

What are *YOUR* credentials?

Re:One question

[norminator]

Wow, is that just a Cat5e cable? I like this quote from the Denon site:

Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer.

The picture above shows the end of the cable with arrows going both directions. Thank goodness they marked it for optimum signal transer. I also think it's awesome that on the Amazon description it says that the "insulation is made of a fluoropolymer material with superior heat resistance, weather resistance, and anti-aging properties." Weather resistance? Who exposes a $500 5 foot cable made for high-end home theater equipment to weather?

Re:One question

[Bakkster]

I passed my classes with flying colors, thank you very much. I also do hardware design for a living. Don't forget, you insulted my knowledge first.

The point still stands: no matter how much physics you know, understanding the fundamentals of digital signal transmission is necessary for skepticism of the claims made by Monster, Denon, and others on hihg-integrity digital cables.

Re:One question

[Bakkster]

Wrong. Analog can't carry data, only be pulsed to represent a 1 or 0.

You're either being pedantic or wrong. What about FSK, FM, AM, QPSK, and so on?

Re:One question

[Sycraft-fu]

If you like good cables, I recommend Bluejeans Cables. They sell Belden cables which are ridiculously high quality, overspec professional cables. It is pretty much impossible to get a higher quality cable. Their construction is top notch and their specs are well in excess of what's needed (their video cables are good to 3GHz for example). I get them when I expect the able will see some abuse, like if it is going to get lugged around.

Not nearly as expensive as monster, and the price is justified.

Of course in most cases, when I don't need premium quality I just get Monoprice.

Re:One question

[drinkypoo]

Well, let me clarify, I paid $5 or so for my Monster DVI and I paid like $3 for my monster playstation cable. I buy 'em when they're cheaper than buying a crap cable.

I, too, buy cables from Monoprice. IME the most money to be saved there is on long and short ethernet cables.

Re:One question

[jesset77]

Look, I'm skipping the rhetorical question turned pissing match, but for real. Sometimes we simply lack the power to protect the willfully ignorant from their own naiveté, especially when they abuse us for our troubles. Then it's the best we can do to simply hope beyond hope that they'll catch on.

Re:One question

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be funny if it wasn't true. You can get it from Amazon too.

check out the reviews on the amazon link - hilarious

Re:One question

[Khyber]

"You're either being pedantic or wrong."

More like technical beyond your means.

In fact, *EVERYTHING* is based from analog waveforms. Including your very cells.

Re:One question

[badkarmadayaccount]

IOW, do your homework to not get ripped off, more at 11!

Re:One question

[Bakkster]

In fact, *EVERYTHING* is based from analog waveforms. Including your very cells.

Right, I absolutely understand that. However, it's an unnecessary complexity for someone to understand when it comes to short digital cables. Having a higher integrity analog waveform for a digital signal, compared to one that already has 0% data loss, is of no benefit to the quality of the received digital signal.

The point is that they're tricking people who might understand enough about analog to know that the waveform will be 'better', even though the digital signal received will be of no higher quality. That's why they need to understand the fundamentals of digital signals, in addition to physics.

Once again, I understand signal integrity issues, they just simply don't apply here. If your protocol specifies cable jitter of less than 50ns (for example), it doesn't matter if your cable has a jitter of 40ns or 1ns, both will be reproduced identically. Same with rise/fall time, over/undershoot, duty cycle, etc. If both meet the specifications, the received signals will be identical.

Re:One question

[Bakkster]

Sometimes we simply lack the power to protect the willfully ignorant from their own naiveté, especially when they abuse us for our troubles.

I was never concerned with the 'audiophile' types. I'm concerned by the average Joe who gets tricked by the guy at Best Buy into thinking his picture will suffer if he uses $3 HDMI cables, and instead should buy a $75 3' HDMI cables. You know, because more expensive means better.

Re:One question

[gravis777]

I'm going to jump in on this. One of the problems I have with SVideo is that the comb filter is done at the device level, not at the TV level. With my laserdisc player, I actually was using the old RCA video jacks (now coax because my cable broke in the jack and I don't have the knowhow to fix it) over the SVHS because my 2 year old LCD has a better comb filter than the 20 year old Laserdisc player, resulting in a higher quality image (really necessary when dealing with a 30 year old analogue technology).

SVideo was the best video delivery method like 10-20 years ago, and I used it extensively in college. AFAIK, it was the only delivery method, until component came out, that allowed for Luminance to be transmitted with the picture. I am also not positive, but think it was the first consumer media that also transmited timecode information, but I could be talking totally out of my butt on this one.

The only thing I have still hooked up via SVideo is my SVHS VCR, as the other outputs on it seem to be prone to interferance from something (not an issue on the laserdisc). I also took my ps2 on the other tv back to SVideo, as my only component on that TV is now being used by my Wii.

Re:One question

[gravis777]

What's funny is most people can't tell the difference, other than placebo. In fact, probably the measuable difference (that is, measured with meters and whatnot) is probably negligable as well.

I can't tell the difference. In fact, I use the $1.00 toslink and HDMI cables off of Amazon. I tried a set of THX certified Monster, and truthfully, I have mroe problems with it than the cheap $1.00 cables (i think the plug is not properly connected to the wires - have to jiggle it sometimes or I loss my signals. At least I did until I replaced it with a $1.00 cable).

Re:One question

[jesset77]

Yeah .. where in my post am I talking about audiophiles? Anywhere? 8I

Damn it

[Anonymous Coward]

I just upgraded all of my cables to HDMI, and those Monster HDMI cables are expensive.

Re:Damn it

[MillionthMonkey]

Use them to tie stuff down in your truck.

Re:Damn it

[Pojut]

I just upgraded all of my cables to HDMI, and those Monster HDMI cables are expensive.

"Don't pay more for the same thing that way. Wait...what?" -Steve Jobs

Re:Damn it

[Abstrackt]

Use them to tie stuff down in your truck.

Your Monster truck!

Kiss HDCP bye too?

[betterunixthanunix]

Can we please kill HDCP? Please? There is no technical reason why my monitor should not be able to be connected to an HDMI-capable entertainment device by means of an HDMI-DVI adapter.

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[TubeSteak]

Can we please kill HDCP?

Nope.
Searching for hdbaset + drm turns up little of use,
but searching for hdbaset + hdmi shows us DRM has already been included

Valens Semiconductor's HDBaseT Receives HDCP Certification From Intel's DCP LLC
updated 8:58 a.m. ET March 9, 2009,
http://www.valens-semi.com/media/1526/msnbc.pdf

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[JoelWink]

I once spent an hour trying to figure out why the DVI output from my Time Warner Cable box would appear on my computer monitor for two seconds, then disappear. I finally realized it didn't "trust" my monitor and HDCP was the culprit.

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[elrous0]

Well, obviously that's because you're a pirate--out to steal the money right from Tom Cruise's stylish pocket.

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[Surt]

Are you crazy? That guy dresses like a doofus. He looks like Steve Jobs half the time.

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[vlueboy]

I once spent an hour trying to figure out why the DVI output from my Time Warner Cable box would appear on my computer monitor for two seconds, then disappear. I finally realized it didn't "trust" my monitor and HDCP was the culprit.

Once in a while, I swap inputs sources from HDMI to coaxial on my TWC box. This very elusive DVI output dialog says that the correct cable isn't connected / compatible / whatever AND prevents you from watching the cable signal (the box being momentarily confused).

Another stupid thing about the DVI dialog is that the cable box outputs it over their coaxial output to my TV set while the HDMI source works fine. Powering off the television tends to inform the box that I've made a change and the dialog disappears when I turn the TV back on. It's creepy having the box do its bidirectional communication with my TV over coaxial... I thought it only did that with the cable CO and that only HDMI cable was meant to be sneaky.

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[eyecorporations]

It's the same reason why my Time Warner cable box wouldn't work with my automatic HDMI switch from Monoprice. Then Time Warner technical support told me it must be my fault even though my XBox, HDDVD player, and Blu Ray player all had no problem.

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>I once spent an hour trying to figure out why the DVI output from my Time Warner Cable box would appear on my computer monitor for two seconds, then disappear. I finally realized it didn't "trust" my monitor and HDCP was the culprit.
>>
>>Time Warner technical support told me it must be my fault

And people wonder why I hate corporations and think their licenses should be revoked. They no longer give a fuck about the consumer, or delivering defective product, such that the consumer is forced to upgrade their equipment every 5 years just to keep-up with the Digital Rights Bullshit........ Sooooo I figure they no longer deserve to exist. Revoke their corporate license.

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[Com2Kid]

At least your cable provider uses HDMI. Comcast is still screwing Seattle with el-cheapo Motorola component boxes.

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[reiisi]

Valens Semiconductor's HDBaseT Receives HDCP Certification From Intel's DCP LLC

Now I see why there is a "USB" signal in this spec.

Intel can't keep their hands out of anything, can they?

Re:Kiss HDCP bye too?

[SpooForBrains]

DVI supports HDCP.

Just what I needed ...

[donstenk]

... another cable.

Re:Just what I needed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the "standard" media type gets replaced by another "standard" media type (or rival "standard media" type). I am not sure if this is worse or better than phone charger "standards".

This is why I always remain behind on the tech race. Well, that and money.

Re:Just what I needed ...

[Dishevel]

It is more like the standard HDMI and Power Cable and Network Connection AND USB connections are all replaced by one cable. This is a good change.

Re:Just what I needed ...

[X0563511]

How long until the first support call because some tool tries a regular network (or hell, even phone...) cable?

Re:Just what I needed ...

[sexconker]

There's no way in hell they'll get enough power down a cat 5 / 6 cable to power a TV while throwing a video signal down the pipe as well.

Re:Just what I needed ...

[Methlin]

How long until the first support call because some tool tries a regular network (or hell, even phone...) cable?

It's supposed to work with normal Cat-5e/6 network cable. However the likelihood of Joe Sixpack plugging their HDBaseT into the ethernet port of their computer/switch/modem and frying it with the 100W power going over it is pretty high.

Re:Just what I needed ...

[Majik Sheff]

As long as power is being transmitted on the blue or brown pairs the ethernet gear won't be any the wiser.

Re:Just what I needed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure this won't cause any overheating?

HDCP

[MillionthMonkey]

What's going to deny me the right to watch my own stuff whenever I'm not allowed?

Re:HDCP

[Mashiki]

HDCP ...
Ending up the butt of pedobear jokes forever.

Re:HDCP

[19thNervousBreakdown]

What on earth makes you think they're going to give up on encryption just because they're going with a connector that encourages senior citizens to plug 100W output cable boxes into their cable modems' ethernet port?

Re:HDCP

[stms]

Don't worry I'm sure they'll figure something out.

Re:HDCP

[MillionthMonkey]

What on earth makes you think they're going to give up on encryption

Nothing, because I don't. But I'm also not assuming it will still be HDCP.

Re:HDCP

[jythie]

This is why I need mod points.

Years ago I worked on jukeboxes that had RJ45 based audio connections.... oh the network cards we blew out when those cables got crossed.. and we were actually TRYING not to mix them up.

Re:HDCP

[hedwards]

I doubt they will, they'll probably just chock it up to pirates, and demand that congress enact a statue making anybody that fails to pay there extor... er licensing fees a felon. Including the worst of all, the people that are too busy reading public domain books rather than watching movies. I mean, why on Earth should they be allowed to read Cervantes, Shakespeare and Mark Twain without paying for the privilege.

Re:HDCP

[Anonymous Coward]

The people making the nic's are doing it wrong.

Re:HDCP

[X0563511]

Color coding (or just putting tags on) can help with that...

Re:HDCP

[Jumperalex]

Can't this be solved by not pushing 100w until the devices negotiate the connections and have established that the input device capable of handling the power?

Re:HDCP

[Anonymous Coward]

... up the butt of pedobear ...

Lemme guess... posting from Soviet Russia?

Re:HDCP

[soundguy]

Current cannot be "pushed". A device presents a load on an electrical circuit and will DRAW a certain amount of current depending on that load.

Re:HDCP

[Jumperalex]

[sigh] yes excuse my colloquial usage and thank you for correcting me. Good thing nothing you have said in any way changes the POINT of what I said which is the SOURCE of the power can LIMIT current flow until such time as the source of the current has established that the connected device is capable of handling it. Much like the USB standard limits current until such time as the hub has established that the device is suitable for the full power.

Re:HDCP

[commodore64_love]

>>>Current cannot be "pushed". A device presents a load on an electrical circuit and will DRAW a certain amount of current depending on that load.

Hello. Electrical engineer here. What you just said is complete rubbish. A device does not "draw" current like a sucking vacuum. If devices could do that, we would not need power supplies or batteries. The devices would just draw the current from thin ain. The current is indeed "pushed" and the amount of push is called the voltage (measured across the terminals of the power supply or battery).

How you can have the audacity to correct someone who used the word "push", when said person was 100% correct is beyond me. What an anal-retentive asshole you must be. Like that guy Cliff Clavin on Cheers.

Re:HDCP

[Jumperalex]

:) I knew my EE101 wasn't that rusty, but I was too lazy to make sure I wasn't using the wrong terms to describe what my mind knew were the right concepts.

Re:HDCP

[Anonymous Coward]

sucking vacuum

A vacuum doesn't suck. The environment pushes stuff into the vacuum.

What did you think? That "nothing" creates some sort of gravity well that pulls stuff in?

Re:HDCP

[rrohbeck]

You don't own "stuff". You only lease it from the media corps for some time.
And even if you made it yourself, it should belong to them, so quit whining.

Re:HDCP

[commodore64_love]

Another way to think of Voltage is like potential energy. A car starts at the top of the hill and then rolls down to the bottom. Electrons operate the same way, "rolling" from high voltage to low voltage (from one battery terminal to another). Along the way they do work, such as light a bulb.

But saying the battery "pushed" the current through the bulb is also okay. It's the same way that power plants push water through the city pipes.

Re:HDCP

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in my EE days, we used to call batteries 'Electron Pumps'. This made the analogy to more traditional fluid flow more understandable.

Re:HDCP

[drinkypoo]

But saying the battery "pushed" the current through the bulb is also okay. It's the same way that power plants push water through the city pipes.

Uh. Not remotely. The reaction can be modeled as well by saying that electrons are moving as by saying that holes that electrons fall into are moving. The battery must both push and pull, which is why comparing to water is foolish. Even in a hydraulic system the working fluid is not pulled back into the reservoir; and though it is pulled from the reservoir by the pump, it's not remotely the same thing (and it could gravity-feed into the pump from that point if the design permits.)

Comparing electricity to water just confuses people. It would make more sense to model as a chain, if only chains could be divided up like water :)

Re:HDCP

[japhmi]

But saying the battery "pushed" the current through the bulb is also okay. It's the same way that power plants push water through the city pipes.

You power plants push water? Around here we have power plants provide electricity, and pumping stations push water.

Re:HDCP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see your 100V 100W source "push" those 100W into my one megohm load.

Re:HDCP

[Rene S. Hollan]

Exactly! Voltage is certainly the "push" behind current, but without a compliant (that is conductive) return path, you get nowhere.

In particular, voltage can't "push" power anywhere. Look at all the 120 VAC outlets in the wall. They're all "pushing" what kind of power? Zip. Nada.

Now, add a load, which admits a current, and the voltage doing the "pushing" has something to push. But still, no 100V source is gonna push current to deliver 100W into a one megohm load. To do that, you need a 100 ohm load. (Exceptions noted for so-called "current sources" which will adjust their voltage upward as necessary to overcome the load resistance so as to deliver the desired current, but even these have practical limits.)

In practical terms, your source has an impedance, as does the cable, and the sink. Delivering the maximum power to the sink requires matching the impedance of source and sink.

Now, 100V on a cable "trying" to push current can give a nasty shock, but PoE samples the sink current and only applies "I mean business" levels of voltage when an expected load is detected. At that point, once the end gets some power, it can negotiate how much it wants.

Wait...

[Pojut]

FTFS:

thanks to a new usurper that combines several connections into a standard Cat5e/6 network cable with an RJ-45 connector

Does that mean I can use one of the dozens of ethernet cables currently languishing in my closets?

Re:Wait...

[ZERO1ZERO]

And subsequently route the signal via patch panels / wall plates to various locations around your basement/home/place of work?*

Re:Wait...

[Pojut]

The possibilities are giving me a happy in my pants. Seriously. If this is the case, awesome things could be coming soon.

Side note: is it lame that I get happy in my pants over this kind of stuff? ::looks around:: nah.

Re:Wait...

[Walt Dismal]

The short answer is I expect no, but here's the long answer why.

A Cat5/6 cable has multiple twisted pairs. To reduce inter-signal interference, the pairs are made with different twist rates per foot. This results in slight distance differences between pairs resulting in up to 50 foot length difference internally per 1000 feet. Now, since standard video such as VGA or component video is usually separated into RBG and (maybe) sync lines, the cable length differences result in delay of one or more of the analog video signals relative to each other and this shows up as actual and visible color fringing with a normal cable. (I've seen it.) The solution is that conventional video over Cat5/6 requires active electronics (some vendors use delay lines but those are hard to time-adjust and it locks you to a known cable vendor/mfg spec) to support clean video. This raises the cost. My basis for this is that I'm involved in video conferencing systems, some using long-run video cable in a building as well as packet-based video for external destinations. If HDBaseT involves manufacturers shifting to packet-based video, it's going to be a very interesting different world, because this will require devices on each end to use codecs and video to/from packets, raising costs for consumer electronics.

Re:Wait...

[fabioalcor]

Side note: is it lame that I get happy in my pants over this kind of stuff? ::looks around:: nah.

If you use it to watch some hi-def pr0n, it's OK.

Re:Wait...

[RabidMoose]

It is not lame, it is completely understandable.

What is lame, is that you call it "a happy in my pants". I feel ridiculous just typing that.

Re:Wait...

[Coren22]

If HDBaseT involves manufacturers shifting to packet-based video, it's going to be a very interesting different world, because this will require devices on each end to use codecs and video to/from packets, raising costs for consumer electronics.

You mean like HDMI which is packet based?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

HDMI is absolutely NOT packet-based (at least the video signal). It's like a digitized version of VGA (complete with blanking intervals).

Re:Wait...

[X0563511]

It's a good thing that HD is a digital format then! (I don't think seperate sync lines are still used?)

Re:Wait...

[PerfectionLost]

Let's be honest--this is slashdot. It's your parent's basement.

Re:Wait...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Does that mean I can use one of the dozens of ethernet cables currently languishing in my closets?

YES - that's the whole point of it.
See the official Technology Comparison Table - it says "use existing network wiring."
It also says "low cost standard cat5e/6 LAN cable" - but then that's essentially what the line you quote said too.

Re:Wait...

[Polo]

I guess it depends on how you define a packet. You might want to read the TMDS section here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

its not that hard to pulse a sync-signal over all the pairs and the receiving end adjusts for the latency between pairs.

Re:Wait...

[thegarbz]

If they do this they better be damn sure that whatever spec or standard they use will play happily along with modem / router. If you can plug your TV into your modem, and the modem fries then something is wrong, namely the choice of plug.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. for digital signaling, HDMI wasn't really a good idea. It uses 2 level signaling. This is wonderful for cheap, on-pcb and short range transmission. But for anything else it just isn't a good choice. This is why 1000BASE-T won out over 1000BASE-TX. BASE-T used 4 lanes at half the rate and needed some clever circuity compared to BASE-TX's 2-in 2-out scheme that needed special cabling.

as for deskew, for digital systems its trivial. if you have a PCIe video card you have it already. Its simple channel bonding -- each lane is buffered for a few data words. occasionally, a bonding symbol is transmitted on all channels at the same time. the reciever looks for these, and aligns the data.

compared to the requirements for decoding video, its quite cheap. Likewise, once the market moves from a niche market to mainstream, you see the costs drop to the floor.

Re:Wait...

[reiisi]

... this will require devices on each end to use codecs and video to/from packets, raising costs for consumer electronics.

... giving INTEL more guaranteed manufacturing business?

Re:Wait...

[Walt Dismal]

Maybe not Intel because they're not much into codecs and packet processors. I'd figure various vendors having custom chips, ASICs for it. CISCO this year bought Tandberg for their technologies in this area.

Re:Wait...

[RisingROI]

TVs already have the capability to use codecs and packets, there are a number of models that stream netflix off a wireless network. It's just a matter of adding the protocol. For components, some of them already do different codecs, dvd players have hdmi output which is packet based just without the codec, unless you want to use one of the video codecs it can play.

Re:Wait...

[seanadams.com]

I have looked at the varying twist rates in CAT6 and it is not as you describe. It cycles down the length of each pair from tight to loose twisting, with each pair being 90 degrees out of phase from the next in this cycle. The "wavelength" is something like 3 feet IIRC. So you could never get a meaningful skew between pairs regardless of cable length - if that happened, gigE would simply break because it uses two synchronous pairs in each direction.

I rather suspect that the effects you're seeing has nothing to do with time skew but is general noise and distortion occurring at the longer lengths. Certainly with analog video this would happen unless you used proper baluns and impedance matching, which is probably the "active electronics" you're thinking of.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to read the Technical discussion section here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

HDMI is DVI with encryption and sound by the way. Like grandparent mentioned, video data is not packet-based. The auxiliary (sound etc) appears to be.

Re:Wait...

[asukasoryu]

You must be thinking about all the pr0n you're going to route to every room in your house (or mom's basement).

Re:Wait...

[ZERO1ZERO]

Or indeed, all the pr0n routed from rooms in the house to a central video encoding and web broadcasting console.

There comes a point...

[ICLKennyG]

I would tag this as a sudden break out of common sense, but I am not sure that it is. Yes, it's better in that I will be able to terminate my own video cables again, but how many cable standards do we need? I fully welcome our new Cat5e overlords but I just want the madness to stop.

Re:There comes a point...

[Anonymous Coward]

But this follows a long line of standards, RJ-45 interfaces are internationally in use in business and home technology. It all sounds a bit too-good-to-be-true right now, ahh I see the 1.0 spec is capped at 100Mb/s for ethernet right now. Still, looks good.

Re:There comes a point...

[X0563511]

... but I just want the madness to stop.

It won't. That's how technology works these days, sorry.

Re:There comes a point...

[scaryjohn]

I fully welcome our new Cat5e overlords but I just want the madness to stop.

Screw that! In a couple weeks, they'll wrap up the spec for 802.11-HD and we'll all look like chumps.

Re:There comes a point...

[oh_my_080980980]

You're kidding yourself if you think this will be the end.

I fail to see the need. My TV is network-able. So I can stream content from any computer in the house to the tv and the computer doesn't need to be next to the TV.

And the problem using HDMI to connect your DVR, bluray player and your gaming station to your TV is???? That's just 3 cables and you don't have to get a fancy router to hook everything into to get those devices to work with your tv using HDBaseT.

FYI sending power down a cat 5 cable is not a smart idea. RF interference anyone....

Aaaarrg

[Cylix]

I'm rather divided on this particular bit of news.

I'm invested in the HDMI technology already and I don't really want to replace everything. With the HDMI 1.4 spec they will address most of the current issues with the technology and provide backward compatibility with the existing devices on the market. HDMI 1.3 kinda sucks if you have an AV receiver and 5.1 setup. (Long story short video processor creates delay and without an auto-sync setup there will be issues with video and audio). This is all made possible because of the requirement for a protected path and downgraded audio on analog ports!

In theory HDMI 1.4 provides a built in protected return audio path, networking, power and a kitchen sink. Regardless, it is rather unimportant to me at this juncture because I doubt I will be upgrading my television and receiver in the near future.

The entire HDBaseT looks like they did mostly the same offerings but in an entirely new cable
which has been around for ages. I get the feeling that actually plugging the cable into a switch won't do much good.

I'm going to assume that in the end they really just get around some royalties and introduce even further market fragmentation.

Good jorb!

Re:Aaaarrg

[Gothmolly]

Sucks for you to be an early adopter then doesn't it. My RCA cables work just fine, thanks.

Re:Aaaarrg

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm divided as well. I'm also pretty deeply invested in HDMI, and this does feel a bit like just another "universal cable" in the vein of DisplayPort, LightPath, HDMI, and I can't remember all the rest. However, there are two pretty great things about this standard that actually make me hope it succeeds:

1. Cheap cables. Yea, you can get cheap HDMI cables, but they tend to use cheap, stiff insulation that breaks way too fast. They also tend to be short, even the cheapest 20' HDMI cable is miserably overprice.

2. 100m max distance. This one is the real dealbreaker, the distance limitations of HDMI flat out suck. Yea, you can buy longer cables that exceed the spec, but they're expensive as hell and they don't work with all devices. Was a real good time spending close to $100 on a 50' HDMI cable money can buy only to have my receiver balk at the signal.

The thought of being able to use my existing spool of CAT5e and run wires from one end of my apartment to the other makes me willing to replace all my equipment if this spec takes off at all.

Re:Aaaarrg

[Sporkinum]

That's what I was going to say. I love watching TV/DVDs on my free craig's list acquired 60" non HD analogue TV. No encryption problems there!

Re:Aaaarrg

[spire3661]

You can do that now. They make wall plate adapters, amplifiers to run HDMI over 2 stands of Cat5/6 From Wikipedia: HDMI extenders that are based on dual Category 5/Category 6 cable can extend HDMI to 250 meters (820 ft.), while HDMI extenders based on optical fiber can extend HDMI to 300 meters (980 ft.).

Re:Aaaarrg

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rather divided on this particular bit of news.

The fact that SONY is involved is reason enough for me to stay away. Somehow, some way, you just know that their first order of business will be to integrate a way to fuck consumers after the purchase.

Re:Aaaarrg

[Cylix]

I've had good luck with the Amazon basic cables and fiber optic cables. Granted I am not moving the stuff around enough to test the stability over long term use, but the quality seems fair enough to me.

However, I would suggest holding off a few years on your purchase because HDBaseT is going to take over the market.

Re:Aaaarrg

[EdIII]

1) It's expensive. $100+ plus per outlet last time I checked, and that is just the cost of the parts.

2) Requires TWO Cat5/6 cables. Most houses are still built like shit, and anything already built is probably shit. Any average house that had networking run it (most of them with complete incompetence and negligence like tacking the wires to the frames and breaking them) only has a single cable run to each outlet for networking. You would have two of them, however the 2nd one is usually for telephones and you would need to modify the outlet, and change out the wiring in the patch panel (labor costs) and then lose the telephone. Losing the telephone is not the end of the world since most people use wireless telephones with multiple handsets and it becomes much less of an issue.

3) Does NOT support Ethernet. You sacrifice two whole cables and don't even get the benefit of of an 802.x Ethernet network anymore.

This is a new connection standard and explicitly states it supports networking. That means it must be able to operate on a switch. This is infinitely more valuable then an HDMI wall plate pair. Now add USB and POE to it. I am a little skeptical at the claims of 100W of power over a CAT5 cable.... but if it works... ok.

I love the idea. We are finally getting rid of all the optical cables, speaker wires, RCA, etc. That was the idea of HDMI in the beginning, and we are just expanding it.

Re:Aaaarrg

[spire3661]

I was mostly replying to the parent in regards to the max distance as his dealbreaker, and the ability to make a cable vs having to having to buy an expensive out-of-spec one. The point is, with this CURRENT technology, it makes implementing edge cases MUCH easier.

Re:Aaaarrg

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy it for as long as you can (which will be for a while).

However, the "Analog Sunset" will eventually disallow you from using analog connections to watch a Blu-Ray disc one way or the other - via a flag embedded in a disc by a studio, or if you have to buy a new player after 2013 (after your current one breaks according to the manufacturer's carefully-timed plan to avoid giving you warranty service) it won't have analog outputs. Blah blah HDFury - as soon as they're popular enough for studios to notice, their HDCP keys will be blacklisted so you're one involuntary firmware update away from being broken again. If you think the studios won't do that because it could disable a bunch of legitimate players, think again.

Also, your cable and satellite providers have the go-ahead from the FCC to shut off analog outputs at will, which is purportedly for PPV and certain on-demand content.

+1 for promotion of piracy yet again.

Re:Aaaarrg

[Sporkinum]

Not running any HD content now as I don't have Blu-Ray and the cable doesn't have HD (they only have stereo sound on a few channels!). My cable is through the local phone co-op (think mom-n-pop cable co) and I don't think they have any plans to upgrade equipment anytime soon. Though they might by 2013.

Important details kept out

[Anonymous Coward]

How will this help close the analogue hole and keep people from steeling my works?

Re:Important details kept out

[X0563511]

Go back to your hole, troll.

Re:Important details kept out

[Anonymous Coward]

How will this help close the analogue hole and keep people from steeling my works?

I'm in ur HDMI, steelin yer werks!

It's all just a money grab...

[yogidog98]

to change standards again to sell a new generation of TVs to a soon-to-be-saturated HDMI market. HDMI is good enough for now. If they're going to progress from HDMI, just take the extra effort to move to wireless. Can I be the first to patent/trademark HD.b/g/n and HD.Wi-Max?

Re:It's all just a money grab...

[quantumplacet]

Well, you can Trademark it, but you'll have to actually make use of that trademark or you'll lose it, and if you do trademark it, the actual inventor will just use a different name. You could patent it, but you'll have to actually invent something to do that, which would be pretty cool, but probably not that easy. Or you could just be another whiny 15 year old bitching about "imaginary property" on the internet without even the slightest concept of how patents, copyrights and trademarks work.

Re:It's all just a money grab...

[yogidog98]

Not a whiny 15 year old;I have a good understanding of intellectual property law and a couple of patents to my name. What I lack is a sense of humor good enough to write a comment funny enough to be modded up.

Re:It's all just a money grab...

[X0563511]

Forget your meds this morning? Or did you do an extra line of coke?

(reread what you just said. you completely exploded over something retarded)

Re:It's all just a money grab...

[quantumplacet]

Please tell me what in my comment could conceivably be considered "exploding". I'm just sick and tired of people bringing up patents, trademarks and copyrights on every single goddamn thread on slashdot these days, all with little to no understanding of what any of them are.

Displayport v1.2?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different from Displayport v1.2?

  http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/01/19/1338205/Displayport-V12-To-Take-Giant-Leap-Over-HDMI

I don't like network connectors

[hkmwbz]

Maybe I've just had bad luck, but the little pin that is supposed to keep the network cable in place always breaks on me. And when it does, the cable never seems to sit as tightly as it should.

Am I doing something wrong, or does everyone else have similar experiences? If it's the latter, using it as the connector for this new thing sounds like a terrible idea.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[Paul Rose]

>> Am I doing something wrong Maybe. For me these break when I'm too lazy to properly detangle a pile of wiring, and I resort to pulling the cable out of the pile. The connector goes through backwards and often damages the retainer. I've never had one get damaged any other way.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[Pojut]

In my experience, spending the extra 25 cents on a quality connector (or an extra couple of bucks on a quality "pre-made" cable) is worth it.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?q=rj45+boot

Re:I don't like network connectors

[I'm not really here]

Get / make cables that have the "boots" on them. (Search for Cat5e booted ends to see what I mean).

Re:I don't like network connectors

[twmcneil]

I think you're supposed to depress the little pin before you yank it out of the jack, and I don't mean tell it a sad story.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[X0563511]

As others have said, boots are your friend.

If you buy them premade, they are usually called "snagless"

Re:I don't like network connectors

[holmstar]

I hate those boots. They inevitably get hard and make depressing the retaining clip difficult. If you have to use one of those in a place with little finger room, good luck getting it out without a flat-head screwdriver or something.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[pak9rabid]

Maybe I've just had bad luck, but the little pin that is supposed to keep the network cable in place always breaks on me. And when it does, the cable never seems to sit as tightly as it should.

Am I doing something wrong, or does everyone else have similar experiences? If it's the latter, using it as the connector for this new thing sounds like a terrible idea.

Invest in an RJ-45 crimper and some terminals...problem solved.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[noidentity]

Yeah, that plastic tab breaks off too easily. I have a few cables with a protective cover over the end, so it doesn't get snagged on anything. I think this goes a long way to preventing breakage. But it's silly to use a connector with such a fragile part that will fail at some point, since the plastic can't keep bending like that forever.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[green1]

the pre-made cables we use at work have a great compromise on them, instead of the full "boot" you see on many cables, they have just a rubber tab that sits over the retaining clip, without sides to the boot it doesn't harden and make it difficult to operate, however it still keeps those retaining clips from breaking off when disentangling cables.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[Anonymous Coward]

First thing I do nowdays is break those stupid tabs off. Seriously, you have to be a contortionist to disconnect them. I've found, by inserting a drop or two of epoxy between the plastic and the wire, gives it enough strength to hold together so i can just give the wire a quick jerk when i need to disconnect it. If I really need something to stay put, I hammer a toothpick into where the tab use to be. (no epoxy there please!)

That's why I really miss 10base2 cable. That stuff is really strong and saved by ass a few times when the servers started slipping out of the rack. (ok it wasn't really a rack, it was more like a pile of old refrigerator shelves, but i digress...

Re:I don't like network connectors

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they do. I know I do. And that's probably why they invented those annoying little rubber boots.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look around, you can find some with boots that slide back on the cable, making it easy to connect/disconnect, yet they are still relatively well protected. The ones I have I beleive came in an old Linksys network in a box offer. I have yet to snap one of the clips on them.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[lw7av]

It depends on the quality of the connector. I had similar problems a few years back and used a folded piece of paper to act as the pin so that the contacts would touch. After discovering that it was a quality issue, I switched manufacturers and the last time I bought new cables was when CAT6 was introduced - and they are still good.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[sjames]

Get the cables with a rubber boot that covers the tab. Then it won't get bent backwards and break.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[sjames]

Grow a fingernail longer.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[SheeEttin]

This.
I immediately thought of this when I read the summary.
What we REALLY need it some cable, kinda like USB, that holds itself in, is easy to disconnect, and is easy to insert correctly the first time, even when you're doing it blind on the back of a device.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[SharpFang]

http://www.instructables.com/id/Repair-a-Broken-Ethernet-Plug/
Repair a broken ethernet plug using a zip tie

Re:I don't like network connectors

[miketee]

Me too! Having a fragile-but-necessary clip right in the position where it can break if the cable is involved in tangles or tight spaces, is dreadful design for a connector, especially for cables that are regularly removed and replugged. Connector boots help, but they can make insertion and removal difficult in tight spaces (beside other connections etc).

BTW, you can sometimes do a MacGuyver by using a piece of matchstick in place of a broken clip.

However, I think the idea of using Cat5/6 for a video/network/USB/etc cable is a great idea.

Re:I don't like network connectors

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with USB cables is that you usually have to make 3 attempts to get it right. The first way you try to plug it, it won't go in so you flip it. Then it still doesn't go in. Flipping it back to how it was will in fact allow it to enter your slot.

Light Peak

[TempeNerd]

And let the battle for a new standard begin.

I had thought Light Peak was the likely replacement technology.

10Gbps and backward compatible with USB.

"At 10Gb/s, you could transfer a full-length Blu-Ray movie in less than 30 seconds. Optical technology also allows for smaller connectors and longer, thinner, and more flexible cables than currently possible. Light Peak also has the ability to run multiple protocols simultaneously over a single cable, enabling the technology to connect devices such as peripherals, displays, disk drives, docking stations, and more."

http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/None/1813.htm

Re:Light Peak

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I still want to know what Intel has up their sleeve with light peak.

10Gb/s over fiber isn't new or all that interesting; but, in the networking world, it isn't all that cheap. What have they done to make the equivalent of shoving a 10GbE fiber interface into random bits of cheap consumer electronics remotely viable?

Second, while neither optical cables nor optical connectors are quite in "will die if you give them a funny look" territory, they definitely won't stand up to the kind of abuse that even ghastly quality copper will, never mind being rolled over by chairs and filled with pocket fuzz. What do they have in mind?

= Buy all new Tv's and Home Receivers!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I'm guessing now this makes our hdtv's worthless, as well as our home receivers if we want to use these new features.

RJ45 bad idea

[Darkness404]

Its -always- a bad idea to keep different cables with the same connector. Good luck getting the average person to know the difference between all of the cables with the same connectors.

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[interval1066]

"Good luck getting the average person to know the difference between all of the cables with the same connectors."

No, I don't think that's the architecture being described. It appears to me, if I read this http://www.hdbaset.org/files/HDBaseT_Comparison_Table_Nereus.pdfchart correctly we'll be plugging everything in to one port in the media device (tv). We'll be getting our ac, ethernet, and video sigs from one cable. Kind makes me wonder what the amperage rating for 10baseT copper is...

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[thwack328]

They'll learn the difference rather quickly when they plug the 100W powered cable into their laptop's NIC.

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article this sounds like standard 100Mb/s ethernet with (I guess) standard PoE. Presumably the companies involved are defining higher level protocols (for DRM, simulating USB, etc.) rather than redefining ethernet.

If so, this should work over existing networking equipment. It seems to be a great idea, though it'll probably have enough paranoid restrictions in it to render it barely useful.

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[Aksimel]

The "average" person doesn't know the difference between DVI, HDMI, VGA etc. anyway. The only thing that will make it easier for John Q. Average is less wires period.

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[sexconker]

They'll learn the difference rather quickly when they touch the end of 100W powered cable.

RJ-45 connectors expose the wiring enough that everyone who's having iPhone 4 reception issues would get electrocuted.

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[Rene S. Hollan]

If it's PoE (power over ethernet) based, that's not really a problem.

The PoE source samples the target DC impedence presented between pairs of differential signal lines and determines if the target supports PoE, or not.

There are a couple of standard variations (using spare pairs, muxing DC and data on different differntial pairs), but the basic principle is this:

Data signals are sent differentially on a pair of wires (this protects against common mode noise, since the difference between received signals is what matters). Imagine transformer coupling at each end, with a center-tap on the "line side" of the transformers. Now, take the two center-taps on two such differential pairs and place a DC voltage across them. Voila! You can tap that DC voltage off the receiving side. A little DC to DC conversion and "Bob's your uncle."

The neat thing is that you can plug in an ordinary non-PoE piece of equipment and it will work just fine, because it will not tap across differential pairs.

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[sexconker]

That's all well and good when you're running at low power, like for detecting when your headphones are plugged in (though this shit is never reliable) but they want to push 100 watts down cat 5.

100 watts.

Even if you don't get shocked, your cables' insulation will melt.

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[Rene S. Hollan]

You don't "push" 100W. The equipment either draws it, or not.

Now, to push more current, you do need a higher voltage, but again, that can be negotiated after making an initial connection. PoE already allows for such things.

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[sexconker]

You'll need a complicated communication scheme for asking for power to avoid problems with the countless number or devices that have RJ45 jacks.

And PoE only allows for low power applications.
It's got a max of just under 13 W.
There's a reason for this.

Re:RJ45 bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

PoE *already* supports this negotiation.

The way it works is like this: PoE power source detects PoE termination, applies minimal power, and then listens for negotiation to change it.

Basically, the idea here is to leverage the existing PoE mechanisms and extend them.

However, there may be *electrical code* issues with running that much power on a "low-voltage" circuit already in a low-voltage conduit separated from power. There are certainly existing limits to bundled cable aggregate PoE power limits.

Why?

[evilviper]

/.ers who were crying for Ethernet instead of HDMI back when HDTVs were first coming out, were doing so for reasons of data sharing with PCs, cable range, price, and available peripherals (eg, switches).

If you're using some proprietary protocols, so you don't get the same range, and you can't use standard network switches to route and boost the signals, why bother? Why not use 9P9C jacks (like cheap UPSes)? All of 10 cents more expensive for a larger jack/connector, and then you wouldn't confuse the two and burn-out your equipment.

They missed again

[jvillain]

The proper solution was to go to fiber. They could do long runs, it would have had better expandability and provides better electrical isolation between the components. The expandability may not seem important until you spend a boat load of money burring a cable in a wall or a ceiling only to have to rip it out again later.

Re:They missed again

[cheesybagel]

Like Light Peak? Maybe the video interface after this one.

Seriously, obsolescence is getting ridiculous. It used to be you could use the same video interface for a couple of decades. Heck a TV could easily last a decade or more.

Now everything gets obsolete quickly. Plasma? LCD? Perhaps OLED next? Crikey.

Re:They missed again

[RisingROI]

Of course, you can't deliver power that way. They could combine it with a couple copper wires though.

The reason you can't connect your monitor

[Burning1]

Can we please kill HDCP? Please? There is no technical reason why my monitor should not be able to be connected to an HDMI-capable entertainment device by means of an HDMI-DVI adapter.

Yes, there is a technical reason your monitor can't be connected to your entertainment device... Your monitor doesn't support HDCP decoding. Mine does. A HDMI > DVI adaptor works fine, and I've been using my computer monitor as a television for more than a year now.

With that said, the solution works best when your monitor supports native HD resolutions.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[tepples]

Yes, there is a technical reason your monitor can't be connected to your entertainment device... Your monitor doesn't support HDCP decoding.

Then what's the technical reason to require HDCP in the first place?

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[Burning1]

HDCP is a copy protection system. I'm all for getting rid of it, but I strongly doubt that doing so would earn any support from content creators.

If you want to know the reason for HDCP's existence, you need look no further than Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[serviscope_minor]

Yes, there is a technical reason

You are confusing should with can. The statement is that "There is no technical reason why my monitor should not", not "There is no technical reason why my monitor cannot".

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no valid reason at all for HDCP.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[Miseph]

"I strongly doubt that doing so would earn any support from content creators."

s/creators/financiers

Actual creators tend to be pretty happy just knowing that somebody thought their content was cool, and if they can find some way to do it while putting food on the table they're downright ecstatic. The money guys who promise to put that food on their table if they'll please just sign on the dotted line, then often sue the actual creator into bankruptcy and forbid them from ever seeing their creation again are never happy with anything, even increasing sales and profits (which would, inevitably, have increased more if it weren't for the damned pirates).

All of the most creative people I've ever met, and most of the ones I've even heard of, have done what they do with virtually no expectation of financial reward and happily spread it into the world for people to see. Many of them find ways to monetize the endeavor to pay the bills without actually charging anyone to experience the work itself. I don't know many people living like rock stars from their creative works, but I do know many who make a decent living with them. I also know a lot of people who make absolutely no money, or even lose money, from their work, but do it anyway because that's what they love to do.

HDCP exists because a lot of suits decided they wanted it, and decided that anybody who didn't want it would have no real choice in the matter. They are able to enforce the decision by making sure that the only equipment available to end users is fully enveloped in whatever protection systems they want: even the creators who don't want it have the option of using it, or not distributing at all, and either way the executives win.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the solution works best when your monitor supports native HD resolutions."
That is really hard to find on any 20"+ monitor ?

It is in fact a lot easier to find full HD capability (1920x1080 nonInterlaced) in a 20" monitor than in a same size TV.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[ultranova]

HDCP is a copy protection system. I'm all for getting rid of it, but I strongly doubt that doing so would earn any support from content creators.

HDCP, just like all DRM, is a joke. Anything anyone is interested in will end up at Pirate Bay withing a week of release, and often before it; HDCP does absolutely nothing to hinder this in any way.

And that's a good thing, since it ensures that our culture will endure and not be destroyed by bit rot.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[commodore64_love]

So what is this guy supposed to do? Throw-out a perfectly good monitor and spend ~$300 to buy a new one? How convenient for the greedy bastards at Time0-Fucklign-Warner.

Damn. We really, really need to have a Pro-choice solution to cable. Have the state government revoke the monopoly, run 100-fiber bundles under all city streets, and then lease 1 fiber to 1 company at a time. Then we'll have choice: If Time-warner screws you, switch to Comcast or Cox or Cablevision or AppleTV or GoogleTV or Verizon or Mom&Pop Cable or whoever else you desire.

Okay I need to calm down. Talking about Ass... I mean corporations gets me a little riled up
.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[commodore64_love]

>>>ensures that our culture will endure and not be destroyed by bit rot.

Like when all the CGI to Babylon 5 was lost, or several Doctor Who #2 and #3 episodes destroyed, due to carelessness. Yes I agree..... our culture benefits when things are copied so that even if the original is gone, the copy can still be seen. That's how at least one Doctor Who was recovered - a Canadian made a copy on Betamax in the 70s and later donated it to the BBC. But alas the Babylon 5 CGI can never be recovered. Why? Because WB threw-out the hard drives.

Bastards.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[DDLKermit007]

Which I find hilarious. The people making HARDWARE give a crap about people making content that may or may not be viewed over their hardware. The level of collusion there is insane. The people making the junk with HDCP owe the content guys jack.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[reiisi]

Then what's the technical reason to require HDCP in the first place?

INTEL's profit margin.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[wirehead_rick]

HDCP is not all about copy protection.

It's a long term bait and switch. Eventually monitors (not just playback sources as it is now) will refuse to display non-HDCP encoded content.

Why?

Because content creation equipment that rivals the the quality most expensive HD television and film movie production equipment today can be had for less than $20k (Look at the Canon 5DMKII DSLR + Final Cut Pro).

In short any ol' regular guy with enough talent to create a movie is not prevented from doing so by cost of production alone. He can make his work and it has the potential be better in production values than Mafiaa content without having to go through them to make it.

If they can't control distribution of content then they lose.

HDCP gives them back distribution control by preventing independent content from being seen.

Mafiaa has smart people. Copy protection is the cover story to sell to law abiding people and politicians. The real [purpose is to continue to set up barriers to entry in content creation.

It's just business the old fashion way.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[tepples]

Eventually monitors (not just playback sources as it is now) will refuse to display non-HDCP encoded content.

I see where you're heading (digital imprimatur), but video cards would just work around this by always using HDCP if the monitor requires it. It wouldn't prevent independent film from being seen any more than it prevents the document that you just typed into a word processor from being seen.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[wirehead_rick]

Agreed.

But with control on both sides of the digital cable and with Mafiaa controlling HDCP certificates over time they can slowly reduce what can and can't be seen. They simply will have the control.

Just because that control doesn't exist today (or they are playing nice today) doesn't mean the bait and switch isn't lying in waiting. They could easily let you see word documents and prevent SW from playing non HDCP video (similar to iTunes DRM) in the future.

It's also why blu-ray players have to be internet capable. So they can do the bait and switch there too. It's all in the plans.

Will it happen? Maybe not.

But I believe it is why Mafiaa makes such a big deal about HDCP and why it exists in the first place. They saw the proliferation of high quality audio technology and wanted to get HDCP in with the intent of doing a bait and switch . . . someday.

HDCP doesn't make much sense otherwise.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[sjames]

Then what's the technical reason to require HDCP in the first place?

Because the MPAA is absolutely certain you're a dirty thief (and probably a mother stabber and a father raper as well). Since they're not allowed to cut out your frontal lobes and turn you into a slave, they're forced to settle for making you to pay for HDCP.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[my $anity 0]

Not to diminsh your point at all, but the missing episodes were mostly Doctor #1 (William Hartnell) and #2 (Patrick Troughton). Doctor #3 (Jon Pertwee) had some missing episodes in his first season (and perhaps later), but they were all recovered, albeit some restored from black and white copies. The Missing Episodes are such a disappointment to every Whovian. Apologies if this is off-topic, but I would like to inform about Who history.

Re:The reason you can't connect your monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is a technical reason your monitor can't be connected to your entertainment device... Your monitor doesn't support HDCP decoding.

Then what's the technical reason to require HDCP in the first place?

technically the reason is that people like to own stuff

Will it Route, Switch, or Hub?

[OITLinebacker]

My biggest beef with HDMI is the various quirks you have to go through to make it work properly. Most of that is due to the HDCP handshake business. To me the real question is this: Can I buy something like an ethernet switch to connect all of my "magic" cat5 cabled devices together? Then I would be able to mix and match what I want displayed to where I want it displayed. All I want to do is watch any of my legal HD content on any of my legal HD displays without having to deal with severe cable length limitations or annoying signal routing/switching.

Re:Will it Route, Switch, or Hub?

[Hast]

According to the PDF someone else linked to, yes.

Networking: Extended-range Daisy Chain and Star topologies. Entire home and in-room coverage as well as commercial and industrial installations.

Sounds really, really nice if it works out. Personally I have both a TV and projector in the same room, running signals to both requires quite a bit of tweaking. This would make it possible to simply plug devices into the network and it would work.

Interesting

[dasherjan]

If it doesn't have some sort of mandatory DRM built into the spec, I'm all for it.

Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connectors?

[Burning1]

Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connectors? Installing ports that are physically, but not electronically compatible on consumer devices is a stupid solution.

Given that a lot of receivers and devices currently have built in Ethernet ports for network connectivity, I can't see this as being a particularly good idea... It's not as if hard wired Ethernet ports are common in residential walls...

for those wondering when

[nimbius]

this madness will end with new standards, it wont. The connector standard has become as much a marketing phenomenon as it has a control of the customers choice of provider and repeat purchase options. Just take a look at cellphone power connectors as a prime example. or for us old farts, i can simply whisper betamax and we're all sent running for cover. The easiest thing to do in light of all these changes is wait a few years for the price to drop substantially, and upgrade components as needed. yeah, i still have VGA for my monitor, and composite or svid for my video. things that need to go a long distance get baluns or repeaters.

at the risk of getting the troll stamp, you could go so far as to say the entire HDMI standard and its accompanying 720p/i 1080p/i standards are complete poppycock. computer monitors have had resolution superior to these standards for years before their inception.

Re:for those wondering when

[Anonymous Coward]

4096 x 2048 on a 21inch trinitron tube monitor, and I set that up at least 4 years ago, it still works fine, It heats the entire damn room but the picture ROCKS.

LCD's are kind of lame and plasma has other, worse problems but 1920×1080 being called "High resolution"!? Don't make me laugh.
Better, don't expect me to give you money.

Re:for those wondering when

[CronoCloud]

Yes. but how much did that Triniton cost? How much does it weigh? How much did the computer you connect to it cost, back in 2006. How much power does the whole thing suck down? Probably quite a bit considering the "heats the entire damn room" phrase.

Re:for those wondering when

[srleffler]

Actually the cellphone makers agreed to standardize their power connectors a few months ago, at least in Europe. All smartphones will have a common power connector, and you'll be able to use any power supply. Eventually, phones won't come with a power supply, you'll just keep using the old one. I believe the new standard is one of the small USB connectors.

Re:for those wondering when

[Ant P.]

720/1080 "standards" my ass! My 1080p TV is just a 1680x1050 monitor with some tuner hardware inside the case, and that's actually a good deal considering that a lot of HDTVs (even huge, expensive ones advertised as 1080p) are ripoffs running at 1366x768.

I'm waiting for DisplayPort to take over on the computer side - it might put an end to these lame 96DPI screens we've been stuck with for the past decade.

Re:for those wondering when

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone might want to remind Apple that they helped to push this new EU standard. Apparently they forgot when they shipped the iPhone 4.

MPAA doesn't want you doing long runs

[tepples]

The proper solution was to go to fiber. They could do long runs

The major U.S. motion picture distributors don't want you to do long runs. You could be doing runs to a nonsubscriber's house or doing long runs through a building that is large enough for a commercial public performance. That's why HDCP requires proximity.

Dennon Link is Vastly Superior

[Khue]

And it's old technology... read comments to appreciate: http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM

A long as cable and sat boxes don't have this it w

[Joe The Dragon]

A long as cable and sat boxes don't have this it will not take off and it can take 1-2 years for new boxes to roll out.

Sony PICTURES, NOT "Sony"

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the article's claims that manufacturer Sony is part of the alliance, the HDBaseT page itself states that "Sony Pictures Entertainment" is part of the alliance. That is NOT the same thing. Last I checked, the Sony Pictures sub-set of Sony didn't make TVs, which seems to me to be a very important distinction.

Exactly

[Chelmet]

That's what this game is all about. Normal tv replaced by HD TV replaced by 3D TV. They're shortening the upgrade time with each cycle, and people are happy to pay it. I'm currently still using a CRT with a scart cable - and while I would be upgrading in the near future, I suppose I'll have to wait until I see how this pans out.

I would at least have expected them to wait until 3D TVs have been slurped up - this connector change will disrupt the cydle and hurt sales.

On the other hand, I truly wish that this was all genuine. LAN sockets in the walls to pass my AV anywhere in the house is, in my opinion, about the perfect future situation, but something tells me that it'll not work here. And what an opportunity to drop drm - except that, with Sony on board, that'll never happen.

It'd be so easy for them to do this right and have it settled for the next 50 years, as all equipment could be made backwards compatible, but I seriously doubt this'll break the 3 year mark. Everyone's locked into HDMI with their AV receivers.

Re:Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connector

[Nadaka]

Hopefully anything using this connector will poll the other side of the cable for its capabilities before it starts dumping 100w of power out the other end. Similar occurs with current systems using PoE and detection of 10M, 100M or 1G network speeds.

This is actually something I am very much looking forwards to. It can cut down on the expense and hassle of a half dozen different cable types. Cat5e/Cat6 is fairly cheap compared to a lot of cable types and can be custom fit.

Imagine a monitor with this and the following features:
1 cable to the computer, 0 cables to the outlet.
A built in USB hub for your memory stick/mouse/keyboard/webcam/etc.

Think of how much clutter you can save and how much more freedom you have in placing your workstation in relation to your cpu.

This makes sense

[steveha]

Remember how parallel ATA was replaced by serial ATA? Despite fewer wires, it can handle more data, because it's easier to push a serial protocol at a very high clock rate than to get a bunch of wires to synchronize perfectly at a high clock rate. And crosstalk between signal wires is a serious issue; check a parallel ATA cable sometime and notice how many ground wires it has. (To use the fastest parallel ATA modes, you must use an 80-wire cable, and over half of those 80 wires are ground wires, just to guard against crosstalk.)

So I found it surprising that HDMI was a parallel cable spec! And I do not find it surprising at all that this new standard will be a very high clock rate serial protocol over standard Ethernet cabling.

Note that this came out of industry, and not out of an ivory-tower standards group.

steveha

Re:This makes sense

[wagnerrp]

So I found it surprising that HDMI was a parallel cable spec!

HDMI is a serial cable spec. It consists of three independent serial data channels.

Re:This makes sense

[JavaBear]

That was the defining difference between 40 and 80 wire IDE/ATA cables, every second wire in the 80 wire variant were a ground.

HDMI is basically just a DVI with sound.

Re:This makes sense

[drinkypoo]

Remember how parallel ATA was replaced by serial ATA? Despite fewer wires, it can handle more data, because it's easier to push a serial protocol at a very high clock rate than to get a bunch of wires to synchronize perfectly at a high clock rate.

Or they could have simply had multiple serial buses in the first place; this would have increased costs, but ATA disks already have to be intelligent.

I thought SATA was made possible by higher-speed ASICs becoming available at lower cost...

Re:This makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

hdmi is not a parallel spec. each lane carriers a high speed serial link in a similar manner to pcie, sata, srio, xaui, ect... It's most similar to pcie really -- multiple serial data lanes.

the protocol then defines certain patterns to be used for synchronization. this is called channel bonding. it certainly makes sense for things like PCIe and SATA, where the cable length is short.

ethernet uses multi-level signaling. this makes the transmitter/reciever more complex, but allows cheaper cable to be used. If you want a higher-end system, things like DOCSIS will get very high spectral efficiency, allowing the cheapest cable.

Fffffffff

[shish]

I've only just finished spending ~$600 refitting my flat from a rat's nest of VGA / component / coax / SCART cables to all-HDMI in the hopes that it would last ~25 years like VGA has :(

Dear audio / video companies, can you please stop raping us with new "standards" several times per year?

Re:Fffffffff

[speedlaw]

You must be new here.....

Re:Fffffffff

[DDLKermit007]

Wait...how many devices do you have? The most expensive rig you should have in cables is like $100...MAYBE $150 TOPS unless your buying into junk like Monster Cables...then $600 is EASY to hit.

Re:Fffffffff

[shish]

Not just cables; new graphics cards, new monitor, new KVM switch, adapters for various bits of legacy equipment, and while I was at it, hacking up the building to add elegant cable management (thankfully that bit's cable-agnostic though)

Re:Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connector

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as if hard wired Ethernet ports are common in residential walls...

You didn't see the home I wired in Allen, TX circa 2001.

There's about a kilometer of cable (RJ-45 and quad-shielded RG-6) in them walls.

10 gb/s? That's got to be expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

This HDBaseT claims to offer comparable bandwidth to Displayport (>10 gb/s). 10 gb/s ethernet costs a few hundred dollars per port on a switch. Why would such an expensive tech be used for cheap monitor/video card communication?

Re:10 gb/s? That's got to be expensive

[wagnerrp]

Because this is not a switched protocol. It is a point-to-point serial data link using standard Cat6 cabling.

Plugable reviever bays?

[RightwingNutjob]

Given how much digital horsepower you have to put in a flat panel screen anyway, at some point the TV will turn into something that looks like your desktop PC, where instead of having external scsi cards for your external CD burner, and a firewire port for your external TV tuner, you'll have internal CD bays and internal tuner cards. My prediction is that the final word in the standard might be an internal PCI-like bus in the TV that accepts standard devices like DVD drives, cable TV cards, etc that have a standard interface amount manufactures, so that you only need one cable for power instead of a bunch for different media converters.

Re:Plugable reviever bays?

[ZERO1ZERO]

A lot of the modern TV are like this already - standard screens, standard cases, standard layout, and modules are added at manufacture to produce the different ranges.

Some of the pro panels actually have user removeable modules for things like tuners/video feeds and combinations thereof etc, check the commercial panels of Panasonic / Pioneer

Drop the power part to much that can go wrong

[Joe The Dragon]

Drop the power part to much that can go wrong and 100w may be pushing it for thin e-net cables.

Just way for the day that the cable plugs this into the cable box Ethernet port that is hooked to the built in modem the blows the cable line out and not the tv out rj-45 port.

Why not media over IP (over 10GBASE-T)?

[Anonymous Coward]

10GBASE-T will eventually become commodity technology, and one can fit quite sufficiently high-definition bitstream on it, even entirely uncompressed. If wanted, proper encryption and authentication could be implemented on it. Hell, even multiple sources could be multiplexed on the same display device (or multiple displays) without much effort. IP traffic could be naturally bridged and routed, given sufficient equipment. Buses such as USB could be run on the side. "Display adapters" could become just co-operation of GPGPUs and offloading Ethernet adapters, and on dedicated devices this all could be implemented in reasonably easy fashion even with an FPGA off the shelf these days, not to mention ASICs.

Only problem that I can see in this is currently prohibitive extra cost and power use, but these will go down in five years, yet nobody can really claim they need single-display refresh pixel rates beyond 300 megapixels per second.

Well, of course: universal video over IP would cut margins of AV cable manufacturers.

All this stems from the desperation of pushing my computing equipment far from my display equipment; like most apartments, mine has ample cat 6A wiring and several single mode fiber pairs to the basement, but there just don't seem to be "natural" products to solve this: uncompressed over-1080p video over ethernet/IP...

Go with a protocol standard rather than a cable

[submain]

IMHO, it would be better to start defining media protocols to stream hi def audio through TCP/IP. This way we would get rid of cable standards, and be able to tune in different devices on the tv just by changing which server it connects to (goodbye A/V switchers and the like).

Of course, giving an IP address to your TV may cause people to go nuts about security issues, but in a world where your printer, your router, and your computer are constantly on-line, this could be worked out.

Re:Go with a protocol standard rather than a cable

[submain]

Sorry: read hi def audio *and* video

Crimp your own???

[RapmasterT]

Oh baby, the thought of being able to crimp my own AV cables to the CORRECT length is actually giving me sexual arousal. I'm so F'ing sick of having to measure and special order cables to get within 3 feet of the correct length. Being able to make my own cables would be a godsend.

Still asking why

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't see what the advantage to HDMI is. Everything on one cable? I suppose that's convenient if you're connecting one device to one device, but it's merely a convenience and does you no good when you want to connect one device to multiple devices. Component to monitor and RCA to amplifier is working quite well for me. Picture's just as good and I probably get better audio than people using built-in speakers.

So...if I haven't bothered with HDMI yet I don't anticipate jumping on a new all-in-one standard any time soon.

Re:Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connector

[Ruvim]

Well, if they are just expanding on existing Ethernet/PoE wiring standard and just using "leftover" twisted pairs for video/USB, etc..., it should work just fine if you plug in your regular LAN cable (with or without PoE) into the new HDBaseT port.

My LCD already has three connectors on the back

[noidentity]

My LCD already has VGA, DVI, and HDMI inputs. Do we really need yet another freaking input type? This is getting quite absurd. I guess in a couple of years we'll have the new connector that also delivers power in addition to everything else. Then a few years later, one that delivers cold water as well (for the ice dispenser on the TV, of course). Who knows what after that.

HDMI was a marketing success as much as anything

[johncandale]

HDMI was a marketing success, the technical specs are of little meaning. The bread and width of HDMI sales were done to people who barely understood the tech beyond 'I'm told it's better'. Another month, another cable spec. None of them will ever mean much of anything unless the marketing on all lvls (vendor, end user, distributor, OEM) iis successful. I have a feeling the one that does this will have very little to do with which ever one is the best.

Media switch

[JavaBear]

I'm assuming that my current 1Gbps switches will need to be replaced, or are the HDBaseT going to be Point to point only?

Wait, can they kill my TV?

[drumcat]

As someone who got really annoyed with a bad firmware update on a new Samsung LED, why would I want to allow my manufacturer internet access to my hardware by default? I call shenanigans. This is an ability to monitor my viewing by someone I don't want monitoring. Imagine if Sony knew I was watching DirecTV, and they told Comcast. Wouldn't that be a marketing bonanza... Maybe this is that "Interactive TV" from 1991...

Copy protection and happy gods

[tepples]

I strongly doubt that [dropping one form of copy protection] would earn any support from content creators.

Can you phrase that without reference to happy gods? Words like "content" (presumably meaning "any work of authorship other than a computer program") and "creator" (comparing authors to deities) have connotations too sympathetic to the incumbent commercial publishers that demand HDCP in the first place.

If you want to know the reason for HDCP's existence, you need look no further than Wikipedia.

Which only illustrates my point. Preventing the owner of a lawfully made copy from making use of the work in a way permitted by fair use or other limitations of copyright isn't a "technical reason". HDCP is a technical solution to a rent-seeking problem.

Re:Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connector

[holmstar]

Mod me off-topic if you like, but the term "CPU" stands for the main computer chip that is inside of the metal box that you are referring to as a CPU. You should be calling that metal box a "computer".

I don't know where that computer is a "CPU" stuff started, but I find it annoying as hell.

10.2 Gb/s?

[Animats]

The spec claims that this approach can pump 10.2Gb/s over unshielded twisted pair. So this is really 10Gb/s "Ethernet" technology.

But only in one direction. Like ADSL, it's high-bandwidth only from the "content source". Video travels only in one direction; the reverse direction is 100Mb/s Ethernet packets.

They don't propose to power displays via this cable. The idea is to power disk players, cable boxes and such from the big-screen display. Control them from there, too. "PC-based media servers are no longer required and CE devices are once again the emperors of the living room." If they can get the inter-device control issues figured out (something the consumer device people have a history of botching), that could accelerate acceptance.

Onion on belt

[boristdog]

HDWhat?

Am I the only person that still has a TV with a picture tube that connects to that fancy DVD player via RCA jacks?

And I likes it!

Re:Onion on belt

[Tapewolf]

No, but I'm starting to become a little scared about how much might need to be replaced when mine finally dies. I do like the idea of having a particle accelerator in the living room, though.

No kidding

[Sycraft-fu]

Because, here's a shocker for many smug "I know everything," geek types: Cable quality DOES make a difference! When you start talking extremely high bandwidth signals, like you are talking with HDMI especially the "beyond HD" stuff you are talking some tight tolerances that are needed. This is even more true when using smaller cable for longer runs (you can solve a number of problems simply by throwing copper at it and using larger cables). So you may well find that a cable that worked just fine for an old 720p TV doesn't work at all, or has sparkles and dropouts when you hook it up to a 1080p 120Hz connection. Suddenly your bandwidth is beyond its capabilities.

So you can't just say "Ha! Cables don't matter! Anything works fine!" because that's false. As we do higher and higher bandwidth stuff, cable tolerances become more and more important. That's why you can have Cat-3/5/5e/6/6a cables all of which look fundamentally the same, yet have drastically different performance. They are all 4 pairs of unshielded twisted wire. However Cat-3 is good for maybe 16MHz whereas Cat-6a is good to 500MHz. Why? Much, MUCH tighter tolerances and specs.

So cable quality DOES matter as people can find out, but then there are assholes like Monster that rip people off with it.

Re:No kidding

[Bakkster]

So cable quality DOES matter as people can find out, but then there are assholes like Monster that rip people off with it.

Right, but only to a point. Once worst-case noise and signal loss are below the threshold for proper reception at operating conditions, no further improvement can be gained (except perhaps to further shield from harsh environments not typically found in a living room).

There may be cables that fail to meet specifications, but vastly surpassing those specifications (which is the problem here) provides no improvement to signal integrity. As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.

Re:No kidding

[commodore64_love]

Not really. If you have a copper cable that works just fine transferring the HD signal from your Bluray to your TV, then that's all you need. Going out and buying a $100 gold-plated cable will not make digital bits any more "bittier". 1s and 0s are 1s and 0s, and you will see no improvement.

Re:No kidding

[sortius_nod]

What you're talking about in reference to the "sparkles and dropouts" is the difference between HDMI standards.

1.0/1.2 are very limited in bandwidth capabilities, if you attempt to run 1080p over these cables it won't work, 1080i & 720p will. Any cable that meets the 1.3 or above will do this fine.

There are standards in cable for a reason. So long as it meets the standard, it will do what you expect. No matter if you pay $5 or $500. You're missing the point completely here, Monster adhere to the same standard as the cheap Chinese cables you can buy. The only difference is the bullshit the salesmen say. To profess that there is a difference between cables that meet the standard is buying into the bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Versions

It's like saying that higher quality telecommunications (TP) copper in the street will make a difference on identical line length services. This is not true, you have different gauge wires (.25, .5, .75, etc) for different line lengths and applications. You can't run some services over the lower gauge wires, ISDN being most notable, but that's not to say that a POTS/ADSL service will work better on the same gauge as ISDN. It doesn't, if you have problems it's going to be attributed to line length, number of joints, and how many faults are on the line.

Re:No kidding

[sentientbeing]

The best way to improve signals over long lengths is use some sort of repeater. I said the best way to improve signals over long lengths is use some sort of repeater

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

Right up until you're pushing data so fast you can't tell the difference between the ones and the zeros.
 
It's so enlightening when complete morons comment on a topic they know nothing about.

Re:No kidding

[garyebickford]

Tis true - the assumption that cable doesn't make any difference in digital depends on the notion that the noise (of whatever kind) is small compared to the transitions in the digital signal. Also, the effect of noise in networking is mostly visible as an increase in the packet error and retransmit rate, and associated loss of bandwidth - but since most people do not have the capability to monitor error or retransmit rates, all they are likely to see is a drop in bandwidth, which is not usually noticeable until it is severe.

If the LAN has multiple machines or is connected to the Internet, then it's usually assumed that there is some traffic congestion 'somewhere'. So all we get is complaints that the 'internet is slow' - but it could be because the LANs bandwidth is nowhere near what it is purported to be. In the case of a monitor, where the bandwidth has to keep up with the increasing demands of high res and 3D monitors, as soon as bandwidth drops the monitor is going to start showing digital drop-outs just like TVs, and/or audio breaks.

I just learned that a) running Gbit ethernet over Cat5e is really just turning all that expensive switching into 100 Mbit ethernet; using punchblocks to distribute the cabling does the same thing; and that if the pairs are untwisted as little as one inch going into the terminating connectors, you can lose 1/2 of your Gbit, so it's now a 500 Mbit LAN. The Cat-6 spec is for less than 1/2 inch untwisted, but some folks recommend as little as 1/8 inch (basically none).

Re:No kidding

[Miamicanes]

There's one tiny detail that throws a monkey wrench into just about *everyone's* understanding: a disturbingly large percentage of recent-vintage low-cost cable from China has been made using "copper-coated steel" (CCS) and NOT pure copper.

CCS has been used for years as the center conductor in 75-ohm coax, but its appearance in things like network cable alleged to be "cat5e" is a VERY recent phenomenon (as in, even 2 or 3 years ago, it was basically unheard of). When you throw CCS into the cable equation, everything you know about cable based upon past experience and external observances goes to hell. For the most part, it's safe to say that CCS does absolutely nothing GOOD for applications like ethernet, and has plenty of potential to do really bad things to it. I'd be shocked if the CCS cable pawned off as "cat5e" on eBay (and quite a few discount vendors online) would meet official cat5e specifications at a HUNDRED feet, let alone a thousand or more. Worst of all, unless you're making a point of watching out for CCS network cable, it actually looks BETTER upon casual inspection than decent pure-copper cable, because the wires are thicker. The problem is, the steel core does nothing for the signal, so you're basically trading a hair-thin AWG26 copper wire for a micron-thick hollow tube of copper electroplated onto a strand of steel wire, and using it in a scenario where the conductivity difference really, truly DOES matter.

Don't believe me? Go to eBay and search for "cat5e CCS" (sans quotes), checking the box to search the description as well. You'll find at least a page of results, and when you read the descriptions, you'll see that they most certainly ARE "CCS".

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the reason it's halfway-legal to sell CCS UTP cable as "cat5e Cable" is because (in America, at least), "cat5e" only has specific legal meaning if you use it in conjunction with "TIA/EIA-568-B", or make specific claims about its suitability for network use at a given speed and/or length. As long as you claim nothing beyond "AWG24 Cat5e Cable", you could probably get away with just about anything capable of conducting electricity and 4 twisted pairs of wire.

Anyway, beware. CCS "cat5e" cable is real, and is a growing problem unless you make a point of trying to avoid buying it.

Re:No kidding

[mjwx]

So you can't just say "Ha! Cables don't matter! Anything works fine!" because that's false. As we do higher and higher bandwidth stuff, cable tolerances become more and more important. That's why you can have Cat-3/5/5e/6/6a cables all of which look fundamentally the same, yet have drastically different performance. They are all 4 pairs of unshielded twisted wire. However Cat-3 is good for maybe 16MHz whereas Cat-6a is good to 500MHz. Why? Much, MUCH tighter tolerances and specs.

And the difference to John Q Redneck who wants a 2 metre cable so he can hook up his new TV and watch NASCAR whilst drinking that rat urine Americans refer to as Beer is?

When we refer to Monster Cable(TM) we are talking about a 2 metre off the shelf bit of cable to connect a TV to a set top box. You have a point if we were wiring up a building with dozens of metres of video cable that required exacting standards, but then you're hiring professional cablers who will provide you with cables meeting exacting standards at wholesale prices. Most people just want a cable that goes from the TV to the Cable box, what level of attenuation is happening here?.

I'll concede that in a few rare cases you do need a shielded or ruggardised cable (to be run outdoors for example), but Monster Cable doesn't provide these either.

Re:No kidding

[countertrolling]

As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.

As the dumb mechanic who has to constantly repair barely serviceable components when they're new, I beg to differ. Going beyond the minimums makes the system more robust and reliable as time and corrosion set in. Failure to do so just means the bean counters have taken over. It's no fun replacing expensive equipment only to find out the cable/connector has turned to dust.

Re:No kidding

[sjames]

There is a big difference between calling Monster's claims (repeated frequently at Best Buy) crap and claiming that a wet shoelace is good enough!

Naturally, the cable needs to meet specifications.

Re:No kidding

[jgagnon]

I was tempted to mod this redundant. :p

Re:No kidding

[Bakkster]

As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.

As the dumb mechanic who has to constantly repair barely serviceable components when they're new, I beg to differ. Going beyond the minimums makes the system more robust and reliable as time and corrosion set in.

That's what the safety margin is. Design enough above the specification so it still meets it over the expected service life, and in less-than ideal conditions.

The problem comes from designing a cable whose conductor will meet specifications for 100 years, wrapping it in an enclosure that will last 50, and putting it in a system that will only last 10.

Re:No kidding

[drinkypoo]

As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.

As a person who lives in the real world who has seen what happens when marginally-specified systems suffer partial failure, I think you are a bozo. Especially in cabling it is useful to overspecify so that if the environment is especially noisy the effects are felt less severely. No matter how much cleverer than the users you think they are, they will always find a way to use your hardware in such a way that it doesn't work properly even when it's installed "properly" (by the book.)

There may be cables that fail to meet specifications, but vastly surpassing those specifications (which is the problem here) provides no improvement to signal integrity.

It does when you use the hardware outside of specifications, or when the specifications are inadequate (often.) For instance, grounds on common automobiles (here comes the car analogy) are adequate. But when I replace one, I replace it with a part with total overkill, so that if it gets half abraded away by dragging my pickup over a rock (or whatever) it will still work.

Obviously we don't do this to every part because we'd end up with 12,000 pound sedans, or two-foot WiFi antennae, or whatever. But I've definitely found that some places, it pays to overspecify. Using a heavier conductor than you need means not frying it in a brownout. Etc etc.

Re:No kidding

[Bakkster]

As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.

As a person who lives in the real world who has seen what happens when marginally-specified systems suffer partial failure, I think you are a bozo. Especially in cabling it is useful to overspecify so that if the environment is especially noisy the effects are felt less severely. No matter how much cleverer than the users you think they are, they will always find a way to use your hardware in such a way that it doesn't work properly even when it's installed "properly" (by the book.)

That's the safety margin I mentioned. Give a margin beyond expected (or worst-case) usage, just in case. But that's for reliability, not because it makes the pictures prettier.

There may be cables that fail to meet specifications, but vastly surpassing those specifications (which is the problem here) provides no improvement to signal integrity.

It does when you use the hardware outside of specifications, or when the specifications are inadequate (often.) For instance, grounds on common automobiles (here comes the car analogy) are adequate. But when I replace one, I replace it with a part with total overkill, so that if it gets half abraded away by dragging my pickup over a rock (or whatever) it will still work.

Obviously we don't do this to every part because we'd end up with 12,000 pound sedans, or two-foot WiFi antennae, or whatever. But I've definitely found that some places, it pays to overspecify. Using a heavier conductor than you need means not frying it in a brownout. Etc etc.

I didn't say it couldn't increase reliability. I was only talking about signal quality. Monster doesn't promote its cables as 'rugged', but as something that will improve the quality of your picture. Increasing signal integrity doesn't even make the cable more rugged necessarily. In your case, you would be better off with a mechanical shield around your grounds that will better resist abrasion, rather than a larger ground that is just as likely to wear off.

And rather than using a larger conductor, a fuse or overvoltage protection diode is usually better, since it prevents whatever's downstream from failing. The cable then should be sufficient to carry that load.

Re:No kidding

[omnichad]

Well, there's the possibility that Monster cables exceed the HDMI standards - and are in essence futureproof for a few versions ahead. But it's not worth it at their price. Too bad there isn't a site that actually rates all generic brands of HDMI.

Re:No kidding

[Phantom Gremlin]

I just tested a bunch of my random UTP cables with a magnet, and they all seem OK. A magnet shouldn't have any problem distinguishing between copper and steel. It wouldn't work if the conductor was something like aluminum, but that wouldn't be likely. Steel is much cheaper than aluminum.

Re:No kidding

[Miamicanes]

Apparently, copper is now SO expensive, there ARE companies making CCA (copper-coated aluminum) wire, too. It's still pretty rare, but it doesn't surprise me. Once word starts getting out about testing cable with a magnet, it's almost natural that the same Chinese companies would come up with a way to substitute a different metal that's still cheap compared to copper, but passes "the magnet test". In fact, here's just one company that makes all of the above: http://hengdeli.en.ecplaza.net/2.asp (used to prove that such companies exist, not encourage the use of their products). Though I guess that all things considered, CCA is at least a tiny improvement over CCS... at least aluminum conducts electricity with some degree of usefulness compared to steel, and doesn't rust through (I think it only oxidizes on the surface... not good, but at least the wire maintains its mechanical integrity instead of turning into red powder over time).

Still... is copper *really* that expensive now, or is the market for aluminum and copper in China just artificially distorted enough to tip the scale enough to make a difference?

Re:No kidding

[Muad'Dave]

Remember that at Ethernet frequencies the skin effect is well and fully at play - the fact that the core of the wire isn't copper makes little difference. At 10MHz the bulk of the current is no deeper than 21 um into the conductor. At 10 GHz, the skin depth is down to 0.65 um. If they could copper coat fishing line it'd be fine. Also see Litz Wire.

The only down side to CCS would be its lack of resistance to flexure.

Distance limits?

[JSBiff]

My guess would be this has some kind of distance limit much shorter than 10Gb/s ethernet. I don't know much about electrical engineering, but it's my understanding that, generally, the shorter distance limit you allow, the greater bandwidth you can get with 'cheaper' parts (to an extent). Maybe they can get 10Gb/s, but with like a 6 foot limit or something, using 'cheap' parts?

Solution to HDCP

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you decided that you wanted, when you got your Time Warner Cable box. If, instead, you just download pirated copies, then you'll have cool, clean, pure HDMI or DVI coming out of your media computer without any HDCP nonsense to keep it from working right.

DRM-compatible inputs (like on a TV): (mostly?) harmless. DRM-insisting outputs (like on a cable box or optical disc player): no sale. Media that requires boxes with such outputs: no sale.

I don't know whose interests DRM is intended to serve, but it sure isn't the media companies. They had me as a reliable recurring customer for years, and then one day, they decided they didn't want money anymore. And you know what? I think I like saving that money, and am starting to get used to it.

Incorrect

[aepervius]

All of those people which buy wooden knob and oxygenated golden cable fall into the same trap : they don't even do the modicum research themselves (like, I dunno check on wiki or around) to see if there is anything to the claim. They just hear from the vendor "it is better" see the 4 digits cable price and just swallow it hook and sinker. You don't need to be educated into physic, you just need to be educated enough to google.

Re:Incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

But they probably have read Wikipedia and Google.

The thing is that they can hear the difference. Don't underestimate the power of suggestion and placebo.

Also, it makes people feel important when they think they hear things that nerds and scientists tell them they can't hear.

Hang onto your old component cables...

[Benanov]

I am sorry to inform you that this is not the case. Per earlier comments this new standard is now compliant with HDCP.

Fiber optics

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we just use fiber optics?

The power idea worries me

[Anonymous Coward]

I note with interest that it can only do 100Mb/s Ethernet. That requires 4 wires of the 8 - sounds like they are using the other 2 pairs to carry the 100W of power. That bodes ill for anyone plugging one of these cables into a gigabit Ethernet socket - 100W should be enough to toast the circuitry in the port. Hmm, maybe it will convert the port from gigabit to 100Mbit?

Some examples

[rickb928]

Some examples of blind tests, purporting there is no difference. None.

I suppose it might work

[Pop69]

Might even use it if I'm forced to.

Still boycotting Sony over their rootkit fiasco.

Re:I suppose it might work

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh give it a rest already.... while your at it boycot Microsoft for killing Netscape and Stacker (or whatever those drive compression guys were called back in DOS 6 days)

Reality Check

[nigeljones]

The HDBaseT documents (http://www.hdbaset.org/files/HDBaseT_Comparison_Table_Nereus.pdf) suggest that it will be compatible w/ standard networking.

As for powering a TV via the cable, don't we call this Power over Ethernet? Unfortunately looking at Wikipedia, none of the PoE standards offer 100W, so it'll be interesting to see if they propose an updated PoE standard.

My real concerns with this is:
- No mention of IPv6
- No Gigabit ethernet for now - seriously
- No 'n' wireless? Surely that'd be fast enough to watch some TV via the Satellite/Cable box on the other side of the house?

This standard has all the hallmarks of the "This standard is SOOOO good everyone, so good infact we'll declare it rubbish in 1-2 years time and force everyone to update their TVs/media centres/etc to get everything we could have implimented now" pitch.

Argh!

How on earth does this work?

[Kanasta]

First with modems we used crappy wiring, then they invented ISDN and better wiring for faster signal, then ADSL said they can go faster using that crappy wiring again.

With TV, we used crappy wiring, then HDMI with its fancy connectors, yadda yadda, then these people come out and say plain old Cat 5e from 10yrs ago can do all that + a dozen other things.

In both of these cases, why couldn't we have skipped the costly middle part?

But at what level?

[Sycraft-fu]

Depending on what you are doing, it takes more bandwidth. 720p video at 60fps takes much less bandwidth than 1080p video at 120fps. So a cable that works for the lower signal may not work for the more intense one.

Now for short runs, this is generally not a problem. At 2 meters pretty much any cable will do the trick. However longer runs this becomes a real consideration. It becomes even more of a problem if you want a thin cable. The nice thin HDMI cables are 28 AWG wire. However getting a high bandwidth signal over that at a distance can be a problem and require a cable of superior construction. Belden makes such a cable (sold through Bluejeans) that will get you more bandwdith at longer range over a smaller wire gauge.

As an analogy you might be more familiar with, take GigE over Cat-5. It works just fine for many people. There are plenty of NICs and switches that say Cat-5 is fine. However, according to the spec, it isn't. You need Cat-5e. So what's up? Well, with a short run, it just isn't such a big deal. The lower tolerances of Cat-5 are fine. However if you try and do a 100m run, and try and do it near a bunch of other cables and so on you may find that it no longer works. You may even have a situation where you sync at a gig, but it doesn't give you good speed because there are bit errors.

There are in fact certifiers for this purpose from people like JDSU and Fluke. They check the analogue response of the cable and do a bit error test to see if it really is up to spec, or if there are problems. When you run your own cables at a good length, as we do at work, you want one of those.

Same shit with HDMI but even worse, as there aren't any length specs. You can make an HDMI cable as long as you like. Question is, will it work for the kind of video you want? Also will it work for the kind of video you'll want later?

Quality DOES matter in some situations. However quality means "Tight tolerances," not "Brand name and shiny connectors." So you get people like Monster ripping folks off. It is actually fairly technical to learn about all the details, and forget about testing your cables, HDMI testers are off the charts expensive.

Re:But at what level?

[Leebert]

There are plenty of NICs and switches that say Cat-5 is fine. However, according to the spec, it isn't. You need Cat-5e.

Incorrect. The standard calls for minimum category 5 cable, not 5e. In fact, the 1000BASE-T standard pre-dates the category 5e standard.

Re:But at what level?

[BLKMGK]

What video are you watching on your TV that's being pushed at 120FPS over HDMI and where did you get it.... Hint: 120hz TVs receive the same bandwidth signal as more normal HDTVs so that ain't it.

Certainly it's possible in longer runs to have issues with crosstalk and other things. Been there done that with Cat5 myself. However a 3foot HDMI run from TV to stereo in your living room does NOT require a gold plated Monster cable - Monoprice stinky rubber cable works just fine..

Re:But at what level?

[Sycraft-fu]

3D video. It requires 2 full frames of data to make one display frame (since it alternates left and right). Takes 120Hz to make that happen. That's why you need a new, high speed, display for it. It isn't the "120Hz motion plus" stuff, which is just temporal interpolation basically. You really have to send 120 distinct frames.

Will it take off? I don't think so personally, but it is real. You can buy TVs and Blu-ray players that support it, on the computer front there are 120Hz monitors that nVidia cards can use for 3D display of games (easy to do since games store Z data in the card) and the PS3 is now supporting it for a few games.

Still not hard to do over HDMI, provided you are talking 10 feet or less. Past that you find that cheap 28AWG cables fail the certification. You either need better cable (Belden being the only one I know of) or thicker wire.

Re:But at what level?

[BLKMGK]

Ah yes, THAT. When it can be ripped and played I'll be more interested in it - I think eac3to pulls one channel but MKV or some other issue holds the process up for doing the 3D never mind playback. I'm aware of the format, just not exactly jumping around looking to use it. ALL of my media is ripped for playback and I've not got a projector so this isn't an issue I'm going to have to deal with anytime soon. Especially if it means a new switching receiver and TV not to mention hand-fulls of $150 glasses heh

Re:But at what level?

[drinkypoo]

Incorrect. The standard calls for minimum category 5 cable, not 5e. In fact, the 1000BASE-T standard pre-dates the category 5e standard.

"The" standard? Some manufacturers have mandated all the way up to cat6 for gig over copper, on some equipment.

Re:But at what level?

[Leebert]

Yep. IEEE 802.3ab, which I cannot cite because I do not have a copy, but every credible reference I've seen indicates category 5 cable as the minimum.

For example: http://docs.hp.com/en//784/copper_final.pdf

A select quote: "The IEEE 802.3ab standard deals with one of the four physical layer specifications. It gives GbE customers the ability to use existing 100BASE-TX CAT5 cabling with 1000BASE-T."

Re:But at what level?

[omnichad]

Technically, that's only true for interlaced, non-film material. A 3D film would only require 48Hz. The TV might bump it up to 120Hz for display, but that's not a concern of the cable.

Re:But at what level?

[Firethorn]

"The" standard? Some manufacturers have mandated all the way up to cat6 for gig over copper, on some equipment.

That's because it was a standard

1000BASE-TX - 'uses a simpler protocol than the official 1000BASE-T standard so the electronics can be cheaper, but requires Category 6 cabling'.

Certain other, more specialized standards, might require it for non-ethernet uses.

Re:But at what level?

[Anonymous Coward]

HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 run at the same rate. So if you are doing 1920x1080x60p at 48-bit color, you will have to drop to 30p to do 3D. Not that there is an issue with that. Movies are all 24p, and you can always decrease to 24-bit color for game consoles.

so did I win?

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

Dear UserCrisCanter4 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1251091&cid=28216951 It only took a year.

Is it digital?

[rrohbeck]

If yes, can we please stuff it into IP jumbo frames and be done with the new standard?

Astroturf week?

[cozytom]

First it was D*Star, those goofy french are making our proprietary stuff illegal. Now we hear HDMI is dead, this new DRM crap will replace it.

Puleze will someone with some common sense filter these articles, get 'em out of the front page, and let the technical people make technically necessary products so we can have progress.

I am tired of people taking working stuff, making it worse, and blaming everyone for not buying into their stupid ideas.

Wire Gauge?

[Anonymous Coward]

People run speakers over Ethernet cables? Seem to be an awefully high gauge for that.

Of _our_ time?

[IBitOBear]

Caveat Emptor buddy. "Let The Buyer Beware" has been the rule of exchange for thousands of years.

The easy U.S. lawsuit machine has made a small but lucrative Caveat Vendor skim stuff off the top of the market, but the definition of economy is "take what you can get from any you can get it from."

I'm only ever surprised when I meet someone who thinks this is new to our age, or surprising.

Single Pair or 50 ns Diff

[dunc78]

Two Thoughts: First. Could one send the entire digital audio/video signal over a single twisted pair. Second: 50 feet is approximately 50 ns. I would think 50 ns of difference would be imperceptible

FiOS/U-verse, DIRECTV, or DISH Network

[tepples]

We really, really need to have a Pro-choice solution to cable.

There is already plenty of choice for pay TV: cable TV, FiOS/U-verse, DIRECTV, or DISH Network. Anything more pro-choice would get aborted before launch.

Re:FiOS/U-verse, DIRECTV, or DISH Network

[commodore64_love]

>>>cable TV, FiOS/U-verse, DIRECTV, or DISH Network.

Not really. Where I live FiOS doesn't exist yet and satellite is not practical for internet. So really it's just two choices: DSL or Cable, which is a duopoly, which is about as pro-choice as the Republicrat Duopoly running Congress. My idea of having upto 50 companies serving each home would give us a true choice and true free market, just like we have with food markets or retail stores.

Bonus View vs. BD-Live

[tepples]

They could easily let you see word documents and prevent SW from playing non HDCP video

How would the monitor tell the difference between video that requires HDCP and video that has had HDCP added by the video card?

(similar to iTunes DRM)

As far as I know, the iTunes DRM doesn't block playing unencrypted M4V, just like it doesn't block playing unencrypted MP3 and M4A. Did you mean "iOS App Store DRM"?

It's also why blu-ray players have to be internet capable.

Since when was BD-Live profile mandatory in BD-Video players? As I understand it, the low-end BD-Video players still have only Bonus View profile.

Planned obsolescence out of control?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonderful, another new A/V cable spec. After investing in an all-HDMI home theater system with expensive and high-quality components, I can look forward to throwing most of it away in the next 5-10 years since nothing then will likely support HDMI anymore when I start to upgrade again. Even though the components will likely still work fine after 20 years, I won't be able to use any of it with new gear.

What the hell is wrong here, planned obsolescence is really kicking in these days. It used to be with good old analog A/V connections anything would work with anything else, literally any component made by any manufacturer. Components from the 60's will work with stuff made this year over analog connections. This is getting fucking ridiculous and out of control. Speaking as an engineer, this constant need to reinvent the wheel is really unnecessary and very anti-consumer.

Re:Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connector

[SharpFang]

Better "CPU" than "Hard disk" which is the recent de facto standard name for it.

100 W?

[hcdejong]

Pushing power through the same cable as data is asking for problems, IMO. Especially when you're talking about this much power.

- Power spikes leak into your data channels
- pushing 10 A through tiny RJ45 connector pins generates a lot of heat.

It can in terms of future proofing

[Sycraft-fu]

Now for a small run from a Blu-ray player sitting on top of a TV, there is clearly no point. If a better cable is needed later, then simply buy a new one. Cheap and easy. However what about a in-wall installation? You want to have your equipment in a separate room in the house. This can be done (and is done often when building new houses) but is rather expensive to retrofit. So, perhaps it is good to overspec a bit. Had you put in HDMI right when all this HD shit was getting kicked off, 720p and 1080i at 60fps was all you'd see. Don't need a ton of bandwidth for that, so you could probably run the cable out of the technical spec limit some. However, now you can find things that want 1080p at 120Hz. You can also find things with more than 24bits/pixel for colour. Suddenly bandwidth has gone way up. If your cable was near its limits for 720p, it is not insufficient, and a retrofit is expensive.

What it comes down to is that not all HDMI cables are created equal. It isn't terribly complex, but it does require more than a passing knowledge to be able to tell if a given cable will work for a given application.

I am NOT trying to say Monster Cable is the way to go, just point out that the blithe geek statements of "Cables don't matter for digital!" is not correct. They very well can, and it can happen in real world situations. HDMI cables start failing Category 2 certification at 10 feet or so. It isn't hard to have a cable run longer than that with a big TV and stands for media equipment. It is real easy if you do in-wall stuff.

Same deal with optical cable. All the damn time I see people say "It doesn't matter, it's digital and fiber!" Yes it does. Most optical audio cable is POF. That's great because it is cheap, flexible, durable, and the right size for the connectors. However it has some really bad losses with distance. You can't use it for a run of more than 50 feet, and even then only if your transmitter has a nice bright diode and your receiver is good with locking on to the signal. To go longer you either need to revert to coax, or use real glass fiber, which is of course much more expensive.

Re:It can in terms of future proofing

[Bakkster]

I am NOT trying to say Monster Cable is the way to go, just point out that the blithe geek statements of "Cables don't matter for digital!" is not correct. They very well can, and it can happen in real world situations. HDMI cables start failing Category 2 certification at 10 feet or so. It isn't hard to have a cable run longer than that with a big TV and stands for media equipment. It is real easy if you do in-wall stuff.

Let me clarify what I mean. For digital cables, you either meet the specification, or you do not. Given expected conditions, you may need a margin above that specification to handle noise or component degradation. However, going far beyond the specifications does not improve the signal. If your application's needs are within the specification (for example, by cable length and ambient noise), then any cable which meets those specifications is sufficient. You are wasting money to use a cable significantly beyond meeting specifications in the worst-case environment.

Re:It can in terms of future proofing

[Muad'Dave]

However what about a in-wall installation?

Do what I did - run a couple thousand feet of 3/4" Carlon RiserGard innerduct. I can pull cables as needed, and replace them as technology advances. I was able to pull 2 10m HDMI cables from the basement up into the living room in a single 3/4" run without any problems other than having to shave the edges of the connectors a little to make it thru the innerduct fittings.

Re:100 W? 2 Amp at 50 volt..!

[leuk_he]

Cat 5e is rated to about 0,5 A per conductor, so at 8 conductors you have a max of 4 Amp (2 Amp if you take the ground into account) . You will have a voltage of about 50 volt however to reach 100Watt. It too much heat is generated it will not be approved. Power over Ethernet uses also 48 volt at 0,5 ampere with dedicated lines.

It is possible to use the same conductor wires for signal and power, just a matter of specification, interference and power spikes is just a matter of specification.

The only problem i can see is that if you connect a HDBASE powered cable to a tradition network connector in your "old" tv you will blow up the tv. That really is not a problem since this is all about upgrading all the hardware again anyway.

Cable for DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they didn't tell you is that the Cat5e carries the video, but you also need a 15 core, individually screened cable with a complete new connector to carry the DRM signals. That cable will cost $100 per centimetre.

Different connectors exist for a reason

[brufleth]

Okay I guess you could just have a really fancy cable that splits that power/video/internet/usb/etc mess out into standard connectors to be hooked up to my wall/tivo/access point/computers (or whatever)/etc but that is going to be the mother of all cables. More likely you'll need yet another powered splitter box to do the transition. I like the idea of fewer cables but I don't see the value of this unless we're going to all get our homes rewired to have these master plugs instead of wall outlets.

Re:Haven't we learned anything from PS/2 connector

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck, I've heard it referred to as a modem just as many times as I've heard it called a CPU.