That would be stupid. Why would you do that? Just plug it in with the mains power lead, exactly like you do now.

Good idea, but:
What does it do to normal network traffic?
Wouldn't it be expensive because you'd need to shield the power to not interfere with the data?
Does this mean network displays? Or would every computer have to have multiple NICs, one for the home network and one for a private network between it and the display?



I'm presuming Matt wasn't talking about the aesthetics of the plug, but rather it's ability to break easily, get caught on things when you pull it through a tight space and wearing easily after a few uses...

No - the technology is designed to run the other way.

From the Valens White Paper:


The idea is that you run a peripheral, such as a DVD player or set-top box, from the HDBaseT outlet on the TV.

There is nothing in the technology AFAIK, however, to stop you running a low-power display from the outlet of a DVD player or games console.

So it's better than HDMI how now again?

HDBaseT isn't meant to sit in the same situations as Ethernet. HDBaseT allows two-way 100BaseT Ethernet but is actually very different.

Say you have a Monitor connected to a PC which is on the internet. You could have one HDBaseT connection to the monitor using a normal network cable. You could have another HDBaseT connection to your modem.

• HDMI connection to monitor
• Power connection to monitor
• Network connection to modem
• Power connection to modem

Net result is that you've half as many cables but on a data level it's exactly the same


Not really. My understanding is that it would work somewhat like Phantom Power in a microphone lead. The power is at such a low frequency that you can combine it with the data and very easily split it at either end.


Possibly - if you have the correct equipment. I don't think that normal Ethernet equipment would support HDBaseT


You would need multiple RJ-45 sockets but remember that the HDBaseT socket would replace the HDMI socket.


Remember though that the normal Ethernet cables that HDBaseT runs on are ten-a-penny so wear isn't so much of an issue. If you use it statically as an HDMI connection then wear is negligible.

Besides which, no cable should ever be being pulled.

Nothing. It doesn't use a network socket at all. It simply uses teh same type of cable but in a totally different way.
You won't be plugging this into the network card in your PC.

Ah Ha! So it looks like a network cable, it has the same interface as a network cable, in fact it is a network cable. Am I the only one who can see a bunch of people sticking the cable in their TV and network port and wondering why it doesn't work?
You may laugh, but the number of people I've seen try and get network traffic out of an RJ-45 serial management port, and these people supposedly know what they are doing!

You've still lost the major selling point which is 'only one cable'. As it is you've got the HDBaseT cable into the TV plus the power cable. Then you've got a cable to each device. Oh, possibly more than one actually; early adopter variants of consoles are notoriously high in power requirements - the first variant of the PS3 pulled 180W in use, and the first variant of the XBox 360 used 170w. They're both now under 100w but it's taken four years of iterative development to get to that point. So you'd still need a power cable for either of those (you could power a Wii by this method, which was much lower consumption).

I'm not convinced. It's probably a more elegant solution than HDMI but given the limitations and the fact you can connect devices to the internet via WIFI just as easily as by cat5, I don't honestly see how it's got a USP over HDMI. And given we've all just bought 'HD ready' TVs, games consoles and upscaling DVD players/BR players all of which have HDMI ports on them, it's going to take something that is 'obviously better than HDMI' not just 'slightly better than HDMI'.

And I'm not sure that HDMI is all that good...I'm still using scart!

Firstly it supports lengths up to 100m.
Secondly it uses cheap cables
Thirdly it could be easily included in standard network equipment.

As for powering a 400W plasma from a DVD player, you wouldn't; you'd power the DVD player from the TV.

Since it's very easy to design onto existing TV designs, I imagine they will co-exist for a long time. Personally I do see a single-cable solution for providing control, power, data and video as "obviously better" in many situations.

History is on it's side. I use lots of USB and PoE powered devices which would previously have required separate data and power connections. Just because you can't run a high current device from PoE or USB hasn't prevented them from being useful and popular in powering low powered devices. It took several years for USB to replace parallel and serial ports as the primary means of connecting computer peripherals, but it happened. You now laugh at people who need a separate power supply for their phone / portable disk / bar code scanner / TV tuner / personal rocket launcher.

I suspect for data only. I'd be very surprised if you could push 100W for 100m down cat5. In any case most people's houses aren't 100m in any dimension.


I can buy a HDMI cable in Tescos for 2 quid. It's a digital protocol, it either works or doesn't. That's not a selling point.


It's not supported in anything that currently is in people's homes. So to use this thing at it's best you now, as well as a new TV and a new DVD/Bluray player, have to buy a new router too? Joy!

I've yet to hear anything which would be even close to convincing 'bloke in the street' to buy into this. Nobody out there gives a damn whether a cable is HDMI or Cat5, it's just a cable. Find me something which I could use to explain to my brother who sells cars for a living that this will be worth him buying new kit to use. He has a DVD recorder and a Sky+ box. They are both in a stand underneath his TV. He has a laptop and he connects that to the internet via wifi because he likes to be able to sit on the couch and surf. He wouldn't care about the 'one cable' thing - he just plugs stuff in and leaves it anyway, so whether it's one cable or two is simply not an issue. Just exactly what will this give him that is better than what he already has?

Jon

No you haven't.

Normal: Mains ------ TV ------ DVD ------ Mains
HDBeT: Mains ------ TV ------ DVD

It's the DVD player that only needs one cable

Or again

Normal: Mains ------ Console ------ small TV ------ Mains
HDBeT: Mains ------ Console ------ small TV

Or again

Normal:

DVD ------ 2m HDMI ------
XBox------ 2m HDMI ------ AV Receiver ------ 5m HDMI ------ TV
HTPC------ 2m HDMI ------
Sky ------ 2m HDMI ------

HDBaseT:

DVD ------ <=100m HDBT ------\
XBox------ <=100m HDBT -------\
HTPC------ <=100m HDBT -------- HDBT Switch ------ <=100m HDMI ------ TV + AV Receiver
Sky ------ <=100m HDBT -------/
Modem --- <=100m HDBT ------/

That extra length and network topography allows a hell of a lot more flexibility in use.

So am I.
But only because nothing in my house is new enought to have HDMI.

Well, there is that too
Plus I don't have a TV the size of a house to benefit from HDMI...