It seems the days of HDMI are numbered as the industry is rallying around Ethernet based cables as the new industry standard.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18902

You've got to be kidding me! We're just done changing all scart cables to HDMI here and now we'll have to replace those yet again?

What does this mean for HDMI1.4, which supposedly has a bigger bandwidth and is the standard for HD 3D? Will that standard change?

I'm skeptical. I don't think today's Ethernet cables have enough sheilding, so that means new cables anyway, and they will be expensive. Also, I don't know where there will get enough connections to carry both standard Ethernet and equivalent HDMI without some kind of multiplexer / converter - again expensive.

Then there is the whole matter of digital rights management used between displays and other devices such as Blu-Ray players and set top boxes, so the compromise will likely be some sort of HDMI adapter.

So, the upshot will be that we will replace HDMI cables with another set of expensive cables / adapters / plugs - phooey baloney.

Don't believe the Hype!!! We will all suffer, no matter what they say!   

(Getting down off soapbox, and reaching for another cool one in sweltering 100+ heat .... )

Ok, it's even worse. Try replacing all your equipment to be HDBaseT compliant.

There is a company called Valens that will have the first chipset. It has all the conversion and multiplexing that I was mentioning before. There is a transmitter and receiver (old days we used to say "mux / demux"). The tramsmitter can consolidate HDMI, Ethernet and other signals such as RS232 and IR (USB??) into one multiplexed signal that can be sent over Cat5/6. The receiveing end then demultiplexes the complex signal back out to its component parts. This the way all modern communications systems work today, sending massive amounts of data over, for example, a single optical fiber cable. (Apologies to the many of you that know all this stuff already).

So, if this thing takes off, it could be cool, but get ready to be innundated with new "HDBaseT compliant" devices with the chips built in, and various converter boxes that you plug all your legacy junk into, and one wire out the back into the wall (and then vice-versa on the other end.)

Personally, I think it would be more successful if they chose either fiber optical or COAX as the transmission. At least with COAX, most residences are already wired. Fiber would have more long-term capabilities.

Happy shopping! 

Quoting jmbox:

Quote:
I wouldn't say this was a replacement for HDMI between your components, but rather a solution for multi-room installations. Start thinking hotels, office buildings, hospitals, churches etc

Cat5/6 is cheaper than Fiber and COAX does not have the bandwidth for all that data.

Yup, I agree that is the right perspective - although I thought COAX could handle it, given it can transmit multiple high-GHZ TV signals. I get Ethernet plus a gazillion HD channels over the RG-6 cables in my house (FIOS Actiontec Router has Ethernet over COAX).

Anyway, no matter about those details. It does seem kind of exciting, right?

The problem with HDMI is the longer the cabel has to travel to the source the more the quality degrades. This issue might not be a problem for joe six pack but for those with home cinemas. Although i don't see this as being the main reason.

The main reason is a prep for the future for streaming and dowloading i think.

@scotthm

Thanks for your detailed responses. I think you sort of missed the whole issue of bandwidth and high frequency signal propagation. Transmission of typical computer "data" does not require anywhere near the bandwidth of HD video. Also, at very high frequencies, sheilding is required both to eliminate interference with other devices, but to prevent signal degradation. HF signals can actually creep out and snake along the shield if the cable is damaged or poorly constructed.

The other point was made by jimbox - that this is really a standard for distribution. The cables will be long (room to room), and while the standard is designed for today's Cat5e/Cat6 (up to 328 feet), I'll bet there will be "HD" versions of those cables that will allow transmission over longer distances. With this thing, you can use your existing cables to connect to the transmitter and receiver.

And most people might not care about DRM, but you can't use Cable Boxes or connect HDMI without it, so the new stuff has to support it.

Anyway, I can see how it could be confusing if you don't have an engineering background.

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
@scotthm

Thanks for your detailed responses. I think you sort of missed the whole issue of bandwidth and high frequency signal propagation. Transmission of typical computer "data" does not require anywhere near the bandwidth of HD video. Also, at very high frequencies, sheilding is required both to eliminate interference with other devices, but to prevent signal degradation. HF signals can actually creep out and snake along the shield if the cable is damaged or poorly constructed.

The other point was made by jimbox - that this is really a standard for distribution. The cables will be long (room to room), and while the standard is designed for today's Cat5e/Cat6 (up to 328 feet), I'll bet there will be "HD" versions of those cables that will allow transmission over longer distances. With this thing, you can use your existing cables to connect to the transmitter and receiver.

And most people might not care about DRM, but you can't use Cable Boxes or connect HDMI without it, so the new stuff has to support it.

Anyway, I can see how it could be confusing if you don't have an engineering background.

You may be thinking about this wrong.  I don't imagine sending a HF signal down the cat 5/6.  I see more of an IP based system.  I don't need a lot of higerend frequencies, and chipsets are plenty fast enough to decode an IP based ethernet signal. (FULL HD)

Charlie