Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is wireless

[Arno Wagner]

Regardless of what technology they use, there are laws and regulations
that assign bandwidth and there isn't a large spectrum hole anywhere
that one can plug into without a transmitter license.

In any case, some of the wireless monitor connections _do_ use 802.11.

And they can, at significant degradation. If, for example,
you are contend with 1025x765 @ 5Hz with 8 bit color, then
you need only something like 32Mbit/sec to transfer it
lossless. But the resolution and color depth was current
something like 10 years ago and the 5Hz refresh rate
even annoys when working on a command line.

For a slide-show, however, that has very large fonts anyways
and only slow, localized movement, it is enough. But not if
you want to work, play and watch movies with the display.
What I am just saying is that a general-purpose, full
cirrent PC graphics quality solution is not available now and
is very unlikely to be available in the near future. There
are a lot of specialized solutions with specific limitations.
They all work by degrading signal quality significantly,
but in different ways.

Arno

 

[CBFalconer]

No loss. HDTV is the example because there is little demand
currently for the wireless computer monitor function. But your
assumptions are still incorrect; " ... this will require roughly
2.3GHz Bandwidth (!) to transfer wirelessly. Currently, there is
no large enough available space in the RF spectrum for this."

....

No. You can transmit any resolution as slowly as you want. The
only problem is the wait for a revised picture (which may be only
partly revised, and need only transmission of that revised
portion). So such things as HDTV, which need to transmit motion,
have to concentrate on means of identifying the changed picture
portions, and their importance. A computer display doesn't need
this, it just transmits the revised picture. The screen change can
appear instantaneous by simply having an output buffer.

As a result, their is no connection between bandwidth and
resolution FOR COMPUTER DISPLAYS.

 

[Phil Weldon]

'CBFalconer' wrote:
| No. You can transmit any resolution as slowly as you want. The
| only problem is the wait for a revised picture (which may be only
| partly revised, and need only transmission of that revised
| portion). So such things as HDTV, which need to transmit motion,
| have to concentrate on means of identifying the changed picture
| portions, and their importance. A computer display doesn't need
| this, it just transmits the revised picture. The screen change can
| appear instantaneous by simply having an output buffer.
|
| As a result, their is no connection between bandwidth and
| resolution FOR COMPUTER DISPLAYS.
_____

Bandwidth is bandwidth.

HDTV is an example of high bandwidth usage. Of course uncompressed WGA and
higher monitor video requires a wider bandwidth. But you truncated the cite
I gave, removing the information that the equipment bandwidth and the
spectrum space ARE available.

"I gave in the message to which you are replying,
http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/7034/nec_develops_wireless_hdtv_tranceiver
discussing a bandwidth of greater than 2.5 GHz in the now available RF
spectrum ~ 40 GHz. Mobile phones were severely limited in the days when the
HF band was used ... but things change.

Phil Weldon



| Phil Weldon wrote:
| > 'Arno Wagner' wrote:
| >
| >> HDTV again. I will stop answering to you now until you have looked
| >> up the difference between HDTV and the image by computer monitor.
| >
| > No loss. HDTV is the example because there is little demand
| > currently for the wireless computer monitor function. But your
| > assumptions are still incorrect; " ... this will require roughly
| > 2.3GHz Bandwidth (!) to transfer wirelessly. Currently, there is
| > no large enough available space in the RF spectrum for this."
| ...
|
| No. You can transmit any resolution as slowly as you want. The
| only problem is the wait for a revised picture (which may be only
| partly revised, and need only transmission of that revised
| portion). So such things as HDTV, which need to transmit motion,
| have to concentrate on means of identifying the changed picture
| portions, and their importance. A computer display doesn't need
| this, it just transmits the revised picture. The screen change can
| appear instantaneous by simply having an output buffer.
|
| As a result, their is no connection between bandwidth and
| resolution FOR COMPUTER DISPLAYS.
|
| --
| Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
| Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
| <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
|
|
|
| --
|
|

 

[Gene S. Berkowitz]

HDTV again. I will stop answering to you now until you have looked
up the difference between HDTV and the image by computer monitor.

Arno

IBM, MediaTek Team on New Wireless Broadband
The partners will develop and market mmWave technoloogy to replace Wi-
fi.
Dan Nystedt, IDG News Service
Monday, October 22, 2007 07:00 AM PDT

IBM Corp. and Taiwanese chip designer MediaTek Inc. on Monday announced
a three-year pact to develop wireless chipsets for a new technology to
transmit large volumes of information, such as full-length high
definition (HD) movies, between DVD players, HD-TVs, hand-held devices
or other gadgets around the home or office.

The chipsets will use IBM Labs' mmWave (millimeter wave) radio
technology as a faster wireless networking alternative to Wi-Fi.
....
IBM has spent the past four years developing mmWave technology. Last
year, the company demonstrated prototype chipsets the size of a U.S.
dime able to wirelessly transmit _uncompressed_ HD video.

--Gene

 

[Ed M.]

'J. Clarke' wrote, in part:
| Regardless of what technology they use, there are laws and regulations
| that assign bandwidth and there isn't a large spectrum hole anywhere
| that one can plug into without a transmitter license.
_____

That turns out not to be true. See
"In the United States and several other countries, the 24 GHz and 60 GHz
unlicensed bands are available for non-spread spectrum short-haul
point-to-point applications. AIRLINX offers 24 GHz and 60 GHz band
unlicensed radios, with future radio designs up to 100+ GHz in progress."
at
http://www.airlinx.com/products.cfm/product/1-0-0.htm .

If indeed it works as advertised, that can open up some really neat doors
(like getting rid of all that mess behind my home theater/TV) among other
things.........


Ed Medlin

 

[J. Clarke]

'J. Clarke' wrote, in part:

_____

How about this
http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/7034/nec_develops_wireless_hdtv_tranceiver
?

The bandwidth is not far, far too high.

All I see there is a picture of a box and some description. When I've
seen it providing a good quality image then I'll believe that it is
something other than yet another crappy wireless video gizmo.

You seem to believe everything that you see in an advertisement.

<snip>

 

[J. Clarke]

If indeed it works as advertised, that can open up some really neat
doors (like getting rid of all that mess behind my home theater/TV)
among other things.........

Actually you'll just have all that mess plugged into little boxes
unless someone comes up with a standard for interfacing everything.

 

[J. Clarke]

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke



Indeed. But it is not what you need for a computer monitor. The
requirements for video-only are much lower than for video and
high-quality text and graphics output.

The desktop does not often change rapidly--it's actually more
compressible than live video. Have you ever seen a computer desktop
displayed on an HDTV?

Indeed. And A simple XGA output at 1280x1024@60Hz is some orders
of magnitude more than 802.11g if you do not want degradation.

Which may very well be acceptable for the intended use.

What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another jumping
at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees posted on the
net.

The question is not whether it can be done technologically, the
question is what it costs and whether there is a commercial product
available that does it satisfactorily.

 

[J. Clarke]

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Phil Weldon



HDTV again. I will stop answering to you now until you have looked
up the difference between HDTV and the image by computer monitor.

Why don't you try explaining to us how 1920x1080 pixels of HDTV is
different from 1920x1080 pixels of desktop?

 

[Phil Weldon]

'J. Clarke' wrote:

One guy of which has actually worked in the video, television, and computer
fields since 1965 and has been a member of SMPTE B^)

Phil Weldon

| Arno Wagner wrote:
| > In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke
| >> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Marc Ramsey
| >>>> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>>>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
| >>>>>> Hi,
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> Does anyone know about a good Wireless computer monitor
| >>>>>> (Monitor's
| >>>>>> video connection is wireless) ?
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> Thx in advans,
| >>>>>> Karthik Balaguru
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high.
| >>>
| >>>> Hmm, you better tell these guys it won't work:
| >>>
| >>>> http://plextor.com/english/products/PX-PA15AW.htm
| >>>> http://addlogix.com/peripheral_sharing/echoview.htm
| >>>
| >>>> Marc
| >>>
| >>> As to this and the other replays: If you are satisfied with slow
| >>> changes and basically no possibility to display movies, or other
| >>> faster animated contents then of course solutions exist. These
| >>> things
| >>> are rather limited. Their primary focus is for presentations that
| >>> mostly consist of static and/or low-details lides. A seconday use
| >>> if
| >>> dor a remote console for system administration of systems that do
| >>> not
| >>> have reasonable log-in possibilities. I tested one of these and it
| >>> feels jerky and slow. Not usable to work with for a longer
| >>> duration.
| >>>
| >>> Example: 1280x1024@60Hz with 24 bit color requires 3*1280*1024*60
| >>> Bytes = 230MB/s to be transferred for losless video
| >>> transfer. Compression can not solve that for all content. Also
| >>> this
| >>> will require roughly 2.3GHz Bandwidth (!) to transfer
| >>> wirelessly. Currently, there is no large enough available space in
| >>> the
| >>> RF spectrum for this.
| >
| >> Arno, HDTV gives 30 frames/second at 1920x1080 over a 6 MHz channel
| >> and if you've ever watched it you'll find that it's neither jerky
| >> nor
| >> slow.
| >
| > Indeed. But it is not what you need for a computer monitor. The
| > requirements for video-only are much lower than for video and
| > high-quality text and graphics output.
|
| The desktop does not often change rapidly--it's actually more
| compressible than live video. Have you ever seen a computer desktop
| displayed on an HDTV?
|
| >> Now, I'm not saying that a 300 buck wireless adapter will give
| >> those
| >> results, because for the most part they won't, but bandwidth isn't
| >> the real obstacle--802.11g has almost ten times the bandwidth of
| >> HDTV.
| >
| > Indeed. And A simple XGA output at 1280x1024@60Hz is some orders
| > of magnitude more than 802.11g if you do not want degradation.
|
| Which may very well be acceptable for the intended use.
|
| What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another jumping
| at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees posted on the
| net.
|
| The question is not whether it can be done technologically, the
| question is what it costs and whether there is a commercial product
| available that does it satisfactorily.
|
| --
| --
| --John
| to email, dial "usenet" and validate
| (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|

 

[J. Clarke]

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke




And they can, at significant degradation. If, for example,
you are contend with 1025x765 @ 5Hz with 8 bit color, then
you need only something like 32Mbit/sec to transfer it
lossless. But the resolution and color depth was current
something like 10 years ago and the 5Hz refresh rate
even annoys when working on a command line.

For a slide-show, however, that has very large fonts anyways
and only slow, localized movement, it is enough. But not if
you want to work, play and watch movies with the display.
What I am just saying is that a general-purpose, full
cirrent PC graphics quality solution is not available now and
is very unlikely to be available in the near future. There
are a lot of specialized solutions with specific limitations.
They all work by degrading signal quality significantly,
but in different ways.

I believe that you will find that in the real world there are several
technologies that operate over an 802.11 connection that provide
performence considerably better than the "1025x765@5 Hz that you
claim. Some of these are used to provide multiuser capability for
Windows hosts.

You seem to think that the choices are lossless transmission or
totally unacceptable degradation. If you would quit arguing absolutes
and insted demonstrate stick to actual results of real world devices
you would both be more convincing and come across as less of an
annoying pedantic prig.

 

[Phil Weldon]

In reply to 'J. Clarke' writing, in part:
| What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another jumping
| at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees posted on the
| net.
_____

Oops, sorry about dropping the quote!

The post should have read:

'J. Clarke' wrote:
| What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another jumping
| at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees posted on the
| net.
_____

One guy of which has actually worked in the video, television, and computer
fields since 1965 and has been a member of SMPTE B^)

Phil Weldon

| Arno Wagner wrote:
| > In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke
| >> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Marc Ramsey
| >>>> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>>>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
| >>>>>> Hi,
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> Does anyone know about a good Wireless computer monitor
| >>>>>> (Monitor's
| >>>>>> video connection is wireless) ?
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> Thx in advans,
| >>>>>> Karthik Balaguru
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high.
| >>>
| >>>> Hmm, you better tell these guys it won't work:
| >>>
| >>>> http://plextor.com/english/products/PX-PA15AW.htm
| >>>> http://addlogix.com/peripheral_sharing/echoview.htm
| >>>
| >>>> Marc
| >>>
| >>> As to this and the other replays: If you are satisfied with slow
| >>> changes and basically no possibility to display movies, or other
| >>> faster animated contents then of course solutions exist. These
| >>> things
| >>> are rather limited. Their primary focus is for presentations that
| >>> mostly consist of static and/or low-details lides. A seconday use
| >>> if
| >>> dor a remote console for system administration of systems that do
| >>> not
| >>> have reasonable log-in possibilities. I tested one of these and it
| >>> feels jerky and slow. Not usable to work with for a longer
| >>> duration.
| >>>
| >>> Example: 1280x1024@60Hz with 24 bit color requires 3*1280*1024*60
| >>> Bytes = 230MB/s to be transferred for losless video
| >>> transfer. Compression can not solve that for all content. Also
| >>> this
| >>> will require roughly 2.3GHz Bandwidth (!) to transfer
| >>> wirelessly. Currently, there is no large enough available space in
| >>> the
| >>> RF spectrum for this.
| >
| >> Arno, HDTV gives 30 frames/second at 1920x1080 over a 6 MHz channel
| >> and if you've ever watched it you'll find that it's neither jerky
| >> nor
| >> slow.
| >
| > Indeed. But it is not what you need for a computer monitor. The
| > requirements for video-only are much lower than for video and
| > high-quality text and graphics output.
|
| The desktop does not often change rapidly--it's actually more
| compressible than live video. Have you ever seen a computer desktop
| displayed on an HDTV?
|
| >> Now, I'm not saying that a 300 buck wireless adapter will give
| >> those
| >> results, because for the most part they won't, but bandwidth isn't
| >> the real obstacle--802.11g has almost ten times the bandwidth of
| >> HDTV.
| >
| > Indeed. And A simple XGA output at 1280x1024@60Hz is some orders
| > of magnitude more than 802.11g if you do not want degradation.
|
| Which may very well be acceptable for the intended use.
|
| What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another jumping
| at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees posted on the
| net.
|
| The question is not whether it can be done technologically, the
| question is what it costs and whether there is a commercial product
| available that does it satisfactorily.
|
| --
| --
| --John
| to email, dial "usenet" and validate
| (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|

 

[Arno Wagner]

The desktop does not often change rapidly--it's actually more
compressible than live video. Have you ever seen a computer desktop
displayed on an HDTV?

Which may very well be acceptable for the intended use.

What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another jumping
at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees posted on the
net.

The question is not whether it can be done technologically, the
question is what it costs and whether there is a commercial product
available that does it satisfactorily.

Well, what I actually meant, is that the requirements
stated are not enought o find a matching product, since no
generic one is available. Should have said that earlier.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

I believe that you will find that in the real world there are several
technologies that operate over an 802.11 connection that provide
performence considerably better than the "1025x765@5 Hz that you
claim. Some of these are used to provide multiuser capability for
Windows hosts.

Indeed. And an X-term typically works very well over 10Mbit ethernet.
But these things do not work on pixel-level. I once had the
doubtful pleasure of using a system that does work on picel level.
This was mostly unusable.

You seem to think that the choices are lossless transmission or
totally unacceptable degradation. If you would quit arguing absolutes
and insted demonstrate stick to actual results of real world devices
you would both be more convincing and come across as less of an
annoying pedantic prig.

And thank you for that charming description. My point
is that there is no generic, no degradation option available
as the OP seems to have asked for.

Arno

 

[J. Clarke]

In reply to 'J. Clarke' writing, in part:
_____

Oops, sorry about dropping the quote!

The post should have read:


_____

One guy of which has actually worked in the video, television, and
computer fields since 1965 and has been a member of SMPTE B^)

If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity,
because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe that
all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until he's
seen it himself.

 

[Arno Wagner]

If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity,
because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe that
all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until he's
seen it himself.

Hmm. I have ben in CS for not nearly as long, but I have seen
a lot of "super-whizbang technocrap" working significantly worse
than advertised or not at all. Seems the worse the product the
more fantastic the promises made by marketing.

Al-time favorite: Softram by Syncronis
Current product favorite: ReadyBoost by MS

And of course all the Snake-Oil security products out there.


Arno

 

[J. Clarke]

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke



Hmm. I have ben in CS for not nearly as long, but I have seen
a lot of "super-whizbang technocrap" working significantly worse
than advertised or not at all. Seems the worse the product the
more fantastic the promises made by marketing.

Al-time favorite: Softram by Syncronis
Current product favorite: ReadyBoost by MS

And of course all the Snake-Oil security products out there.

My favorite was the "Chang Modification".

I think the inmates have taken over the asylum at Microsoft.

 

[Phil Weldon]

'J. Clarke' wrote:
| If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity,
| because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe that
| all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until he's
| seen it himself.
_____

Perhaps this thread might be more useful if we did not get frozen into
positions (I am just as guilty as anyone else.) I have indeed been involved
in these fields in technical capacities since 1965 (as well as in
documentary production.) To make my point of view somewhat more clear, I
will boil it down to four points.

#1. The 60 GHz RF spectrum band (7 GHz wide) is available at this moment,
at least in the USA capable of supplying a several GHz bandwidth signal with
UNLICENSED transmitters. IEEE has had an interest group for millimeter wave
wireless personal networks using this band for more than 5 years.

#2. Chips are in production at this moment capable of supporting digital
video transmission in the 60 GHz band and with a several GHz bandwidth.

#3. Lossless compression is not a necessary requirement for many wireless
monitor applications.

#4. No reasonably priced consumer products are currently marketed for video
transmission with a several GHz bandwidth; but these products will appear
soon ( less than three years.)

Finally, I believe in many things I have never SEEN work. Knowing HOW to
accomplish the task is enough. The rest is engineering and marketing for
consumer products.

Phil Weldon



| Phil Weldon wrote:
| > In reply to 'J. Clarke' writing, in part:
| >> What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another
| >> jumping at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees
| >> posted on the net.
| > _____
| >
| > Oops, sorry about dropping the quote!
| >
| > The post should have read:
| >
| > 'J. Clarke' wrote:
| >> What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another
| >> jumping at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees
| >> posted on the net.
| > _____
| >
| > One guy of which has actually worked in the video, television, and
| > computer fields since 1965 and has been a member of SMPTE B^)
|
| If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity,
| because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe that
| all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until he's
| seen it himself.
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > | >> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke
| >>>> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>>>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Marc Ramsey
| >>>>>> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>>>>>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
| >>>>>>>> Hi,
| >>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> Does anyone know about a good Wireless computer monitor
| >>>>>>>> (Monitor's
| >>>>>>>> video connection is wireless) ?
| >>>>>>>
| >>>>>>>> Thx in advans,
| >>>>>>>> Karthik Balaguru
| >>>>>>>
| >>>>>>> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high.
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> Hmm, you better tell these guys it won't work:
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> http://plextor.com/english/products/PX-PA15AW.htm
| >>>>>> http://addlogix.com/peripheral_sharing/echoview.htm
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> Marc
| >>>>>
| >>>>> As to this and the other replays: If you are satisfied with slow
| >>>>> changes and basically no possibility to display movies, or other
| >>>>> faster animated contents then of course solutions exist. These
| >>>>> things
| >>>>> are rather limited. Their primary focus is for presentations
| >>>>> that
| >>>>> mostly consist of static and/or low-details lides. A seconday
| >>>>> use
| >>>>> if
| >>>>> dor a remote console for system administration of systems that
| >>>>> do
| >>>>> not
| >>>>> have reasonable log-in possibilities. I tested one of these and
| >>>>> it
| >>>>> feels jerky and slow. Not usable to work with for a longer
| >>>>> duration.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Example: 1280x1024@60Hz with 24 bit color requires
| >>>>> 3*1280*1024*60
| >>>>> Bytes = 230MB/s to be transferred for losless video
| >>>>> transfer. Compression can not solve that for all content. Also
| >>>>> this
| >>>>> will require roughly 2.3GHz Bandwidth (!) to transfer
| >>>>> wirelessly. Currently, there is no large enough available space
| >>>>> in
| >>>>> the
| >>>>> RF spectrum for this.
| >>>
| >>>> Arno, HDTV gives 30 frames/second at 1920x1080 over a 6 MHz
| >>>> channel
| >>>> and if you've ever watched it you'll find that it's neither jerky
| >>>> nor
| >>>> slow.
| >>>
| >>> Indeed. But it is not what you need for a computer monitor. The
| >>> requirements for video-only are much lower than for video and
| >>> high-quality text and graphics output.
| >>
| >> The desktop does not often change rapidly--it's actually more
| >> compressible than live video. Have you ever seen a computer
| >> desktop
| >> displayed on an HDTV?
| >>
| >>>> Now, I'm not saying that a 300 buck wireless adapter will give
| >>>> those
| >>>> results, because for the most part they won't, but bandwidth
| >>>> isn't
| >>>> the real obstacle--802.11g has almost ten times the bandwidth of
| >>>> HDTV.
| >>>
| >>> Indeed. And A simple XGA output at 1280x1024@60Hz is some orders
| >>> of magnitude more than 802.11g if you do not want degradation.
| >>
| >> Which may very well be acceptable for the intended use.
| >>
| >> What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another
| >> jumping at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees
| >> posted on the net.
| >>
| >> The question is not whether it can be done technologically, the
| >> question is what it costs and whether there is a commercial product
| >> available that does it satisfactorily.
| >>
| >> --
| >> --
| >> --John
| >> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
| >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
| --
| --
| --John
| to email, dial "usenet" and validate
| (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|

 

[J. Clarke]

_____

Perhaps this thread might be more useful if we did not get frozen
into
positions (I am just as guilty as anyone else.) I have indeed been
involved in these fields in technical capacities since 1965 (as well
as in documentary production.) To make my point of view somewhat
more clear, I will boil it down to four points.

#1. The 60 GHz RF spectrum band (7 GHz wide) is available at this
moment, at least in the USA capable of supplying a several GHz
bandwidth signal with UNLICENSED transmitters. IEEE has had an
interest group for millimeter wave wireless personal networks using
this band for more than 5 years.

#2. Chips are in production at this moment capable of supporting
digital video transmission in the 60 GHz band and with a several GHz
bandwidth.

#3. Lossless compression is not a necessary requirement for many
wireless monitor applications.

#4. No reasonably priced consumer products are currently marketed
for video transmission with a several GHz bandwidth; but these
products will appear soon ( less than three years.)

Finally, I believe in many things I have never SEEN work. Knowing
HOW to accomplish the task is enough. The rest is engineering and
marketing for consumer products.

Fine. Show me an independent test of a product such as you describe
that can be bought ff the shelf right now. Not a paper in a journal,
not a spec sheet for a chip, but a box that is on a shelf in a store
with a price tag and an independent product review.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Nice. So let me get this right: Personal networking...Ranges of
1-2 meters maximum? BTW, IEEE having a working group does not
necessarily mean anytging, besides that they can get funding for it.

Care to reference a datasheet? You know there are also quantum
chips in production, ultra-fast digital chips, that unfortunately
need liquid air cooling, CPUs that cost more than a house, etc..
Being in production does not mean a lot.

Relevance?

Fine. Show me an independent test of a product such as you describe
that can be bought ff the shelf right now. Not a paper in a journal,
not a spec sheet for a chip, but a box that is on a shelf in a store
with a price tag and an independent product review.

I especially like the "less than three years". It seems to be
a constant in these type of announcements. Most never make it
to market. A large part never even makes it to a working
prototype.

Arno