Wireless TV

I don.t know if this topic has been addressed previously, when I subscribed
to the newsgroup there were over 8000 postings - I just couldn't read them
all 8-).

I am moving to a new (for me) house. I don't want to build my home around
existing cable wires, so I thought, since cable is now primarily digital,
why couldn't I use some sort of wireless routing device to go from the cable
source coming into the house to my TV's. I would want the ability to be
able to watch different shows on each of the TV's, so some of the existing
technology that allows multiple TV's on one STB is not what I want. Many of
these solutions seem to be ways to get around paying the cable company. I
don't have a problem with that, although paying for junk content is another
story!!!

Any thoughts???

Paul

Paul Fillinich wrote:
> I don.t know if this topic has been addressed previously, when I
> subscribed to the newsgroup there were over 8000 postings - I just
> couldn't read them all 8-).
>
> I am moving to a new (for me) house. I don't want to build my home
> around existing cable wires, so I thought, since cable is now
> primarily digital, why couldn't I use some sort of wireless routing
> device to go from the cable source coming into the house to my TV's. I
> would want the ability to be able to watch different shows on each
> of the TV's, so some of the existing technology that allows multiple
> TV's on one STB is not what I want. Many of these solutions seem to
> be ways to get around paying the cable company. I don't have a
> problem with that, although paying for junk content is another
> story!!!
> Any thoughts???
>
> Paul

Depends if you want to send one channel at a time, or a whole bunch, so you
can surf channels at each TV.. looked into that myself, The bandwidth isn't
enuf on wireless to send lots of digital channels to all TV's, you can use
something to send maybe 4-5 channels over wireless (and only 1-2 in HD), and
control which ones are sent. Looked into it myself since I have wireless,
but my sister likes to surf, and her room is on the other side of a cement
load bearing wall with no wire/cable.. Easiest solution was Just to run a
cable in the attic with drops in the closets for each room. Now we can do
both cable TV and have DVD players and internet over the same cable.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 08:45:10 -0400, "Paul Fillinich"
<pjfillinich@comcast.net> wrote in
<deudnXILecqa367bnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@comcast.com>:

>I don.t know if this topic has been addressed previously, when I subscribed
>to the newsgroup there were over 8000 postings - I just couldn't read them
>all 8-).

>...

>Any thoughts???

Search newsgroups with Google Groups.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

Paul Fillinich wrote:

> I don.t know if this topic has been addressed previously, when I
> subscribed to the newsgroup there were over 8000 postings - I just
> couldn't read them all 8-).
>
> I am moving to a new (for me) house. I don't want to build my home around
> existing cable wires, so I thought, since cable is now primarily digital,
> why couldn't I use some sort of wireless routing device to go from the
> cable
> source coming into the house to my TV's. I would want the ability to be
> able to watch different shows on each of the TV's, so some of the existing
> technology that allows multiple TV's on one STB is not what I want. Many
> of
> these solutions seem to be ways to get around paying the cable company. I
> don't have a problem with that, although paying for junk content is
> another story!!!
>
> Any thoughts???
>
> Paul

forget it.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 08:45:10 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless , "Paul
Fillinich" <pjfillinich@comcast.net> wrote:

>I don.t know if this topic has been addressed previously, when I subscribed
>to the newsgroup there were over 8000 postings - I just couldn't read them
>all 8-).

Google groups is useful for searching old posts.

>why couldn't I use some sort of wireless routing device to go from the cable
>source coming into the house to my TV's.

google Wireless video Sender. And expect it to interfere with your
802.11 WLAN, if you have one

>I would want the ability to be
>able to watch different shows on each of the TV's,

Not likely, since the STB normally contains a single tuner. If and
only if your cable provider gives you an STB with multiple tuners, or
you can have more than one STB, could you do this with multiple video
senders.

Far far simpler to drop cables into each room before you move in...

--
Mark McIntyre

"Paul Fillinich" <pjfillinich@comcast.net> hath wroth:

>I don.t know if this topic has been addressed previously, when I subscribed
>to the newsgroup there were over 8000 postings - I just couldn't read them
>all 8-).

I'll add that to my list of excuses as to why one shouldn't be
bothered to use a search engine. Try:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/>
Insert the acronym "wireless TV" (with the quotes) into the search
box. That yields 27 articles, many of which are related to your
question.

>I am moving to a new (for me) house.

Welcome to the ranks of those supporting a mortgage and property
taxes.

>I don't want to build my home around
>existing cable wires, so I thought, since cable is now primarily digital,
>why couldn't I use some sort of wireless routing device to go from the cable
>source coming into the house to my TV's.

The answer is that it's a matter of speed. Each type of media has its
limitations in terms of how many bits per second it can handle. For
example:

POTS telco cable 2 Mbits/sec
RG-6/u coax cable 2000 Mbits/sec (satellite grade)
CAT5e per pair 150 Mbits/sec
CAT6 per pair 250 Mbits/sec
fiber optic Varies with modulation, mode, mux, etc
802.11g 25 Mbits/sec (for 54Mbit/sec connection)
Wireless USB 480 Mbits/sec at 3 meters
Wirelsss USB 110 Mbits/sec at 10 meters

As you can see the term "cable" has many meanings and performance
specs. If you wired your new deduction with POTS telco cable, you
might be able to send voice. If you wired it with fiber optic cable,
you would probably do video and most everything else. Wireless is
more problematic as 25Mbits/sec is barely enough to do uncompressed
NTSC video. If you want HDTV, you'll need to wait for Wireless USB.

>I would want the ability to be
>able to watch different shows on each of the TV's, so some of the existing
>technology that allows multiple TV's on one STB is not what I want.

Not yet and probably never. The problem is that each TV will want to
use *ALL* the available bandwidth. For example, an HDTV 1080i (not p)
will fit in 37MHz of bandwidth. 802.11g isn't going to do that, but
Wireless USB will. However, if you want two simultaneous channels,
you'll need twice the bandwidth. Wireless USB can still do it, but a
3rd channel will probably kill it. Note that this is at 10 meters
maximum range, so you're not going to be able to use this to
distribute video all over your new mansion.

>Many of
>these solutions seem to be ways to get around paying the cable company.

None of these solutions have anything to do with the cable company.
Methinks you might want to clarify your question by explaining exactly
what you want to accomplish. If you want different channels in each
room, the easiest and cheapest way is to order multiple cable settop
boxes for each TV. I dunno about cable, but extra receivers for my
DirecTV satellite system were all of

>I don't have a problem with that, although paying for junk content is another
>story!!!

Don't worry. My junk answers and junk content are free.

>Any thoughts???

Nope.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558