53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | everything
needs to be resistant to cordless telephones. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by 53059959  :needs to be resistant to cordless telephones. It's really a non-issue, I think: cordless phones use either non-ultra-wideband including 2.4GHz (IIRC ultra-wideband is 3-10GHz) frequencies or have a dedicated channels at 5.8GHz. |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | yeah, but when we turn on the microwave, the cellphone, the PC , and the cordless phones...and the neighbor's wifi...
Yeah, I can see those space aliens cringing now! |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
1 edit | reply to kamm
said by kamm :It's really a non-issue, I think: cordless phones use either non-ultra-wideband including 2.4GHz (IIRC ultra-wideband is 3-10GHz) frequencies or have a dedicated channels at 5.8GHz. There are a lot of 900 MHz phones still out there in use and are still being sold very cheap.
But is not this technology aimed at the 2.4 GHz band? Can not find out the specifics without registering for the spec sheet, but that would be where I would think UWB would go (or the 5 GHz area).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
·Comporium
| Remember... UWB in this manner is pitched as a "USB replacement". Meaning less than 10 feet transmission, probably closer to 5 feet. We're not talking about whole-house connections here. We're talking about device to device sitting near each other w/o wires.
No... UWB does not operate exclusively in the 2.4 or 5.x ghz range. It uses a range of frequencies to either side of the center frequency - and does so at very low power.
In the US, the FCC mandated that UWB radio transmissions can legally operate in the range from 3.1 GHz up to 10.6 GHz, at a limited transmit power of -41dBm/MHz. That's how it got the name "ulta wide band"... the wide band of frequencies that provide enough spectrum to actually do high bandwidth, real-time applications.
For more info, see:
»www.intel.com/technology/comms/uwb/
}Davoice |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Wow, that would be awesome
A wireless video connection! No more plug between the monitor/TV and computer. Home theater enthusiasts won't have to run a cable to their projector. Sweet.
-- Rob
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
Smokey
Even drunk on a bet ya make it to Canada
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Va Beach
clubs:
·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to davoice
Re: everything
Only 5 feet? Doesn't that severally limit the application potential for the technology? I would think that something like this is designed for applications similar to mine where the video source is far from my viewing location. While I installed wire to suit my needs, if this would allow me to put the box in one location and the TV/monitor in another it would have fare more benefits.
Edit:
Now having read the story, I see that they claim to have made it work at 30 feet. That is more than I would need, and I think more than most others as well.
--
Para Bellum!! |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Interesting...
This will certainly make home theatre setup much easier for the average Joe whose often left confused by the tangled mess of cables that go to various outputs and inputs of digital and analog variety...
I doubt, however, serious AV buffs are going to jumping on this however. While this is billed as interference resistant, the slightest bit of interference that makes it through can cause distortion, pixelation, etc. and that's not something the AV guys are going to put up with.
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to davoice
Re: everything
Dav, the sub thread was talking about wireless phones and Kamm made a statement on wireless phones that was not totally true. The web site for the company in question seems to imply that it will be in the 802.11/? spectrum which could be either 2.4 or 5.8 GHz areas. Maybe that is for world wide compatibility.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Aleck79
join:2003-07-23
College Station, TX
| reply to bmn
Re: Interesting...
heh yeah, maybe less expensive too. I'm not sure about HDMI (i know its expensive) but so is DVI, expecially cause you can't run the cheap stuff over very long distances...
I think they called it 'Optical' DVI somethingin or other.
ROFL, it was so expensive that I tried to run my MCE's Display thru some very moddified Cat-5E net work cable, rofl... it didn't turn out very well |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | Its not enough bandwidth!
1920x1080ix60x8 = 995328000.
Bits per second.
Maybe this is meant for standard definition only? |
|
hmmmmm
@nuvox.net | It is enough bandwidth for everything except 1080p
1080i = *30 1080p = *60 it is enough for everything below 1080p |
|
