Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?

Thanks!

Aaron Fude!

wrote in news:1164949371.967646.186580
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?



Probably cost a hell of a lot more than running 60' of coaxial cable.....

wrote:
Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?

Thanks!

Aaron Fude!

Hmmm,
Do you know how wide the bndwidth is to carry TV video and audio signal?
You must have a 10,000 square foot house?, LOL!

wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?

Thanks!

Aaron Fude!



Perhaps a wireless video sender will work for you:
http://www.markertek.com/SearchProdu...ff=1&sort=prod

Tony Hwang wrote:
wrote:
Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?

Thanks!

Aaron Fude!

Hmmm,
Do you know how wide the bndwidth is to carry TV video and audio signal?
You must have a 10,000 square foot house?, LOL!

NTSC video (baseband)- a little less than 150 million bits/sec, 10-bit
video, uncompressed.

Dave

There are wireless solutions but the picture loss is noticeable. The
wireless boxes will run you between 75 and 100 bucks. How much will
running the coax cost? You will need to have a tv or some other device
with a tuner where the coax ends to send the signal too! The devices
use 2.4 ghz and can be bothered by cordless phones and microwave ovens

Wayne


wrote:

Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of
the house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there
a good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?

Thanks!

Aaron Fude!

A number of techniques exist for transmitting wireless TV around the house,
but the one I have had great success with is SageTV and its' $149 wireless
media modem. They use MPEG2 compressed video at around 5 or 6 MBits/sec much
like normal DVDs. They transmit using the 802.11.b wireless scheme used by
all of the home computer networks such as those from Linksys, DLink, etc.
There are also MPEG4 techniques using higher compression to do wireless
HDTV.

They have been around for at least a year since I got mine going over a year
ago.

Smarty


wrote in message
oups.com...

Tony Hwang wrote:
wrote:
Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?

Thanks!

Aaron Fude!

Hmmm,
Do you know how wide the bndwidth is to carry TV video and audio signal?
You must have a 10,000 square foot house?, LOL!

NTSC video (baseband)- a little less than 150 million bits/sec, 10-bit
video, uncompressed.

Dave

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:12:39 GMT, propman wrote:

wrote in news:1164949371.967646.186580
:

Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?



Probably cost a hell of a lot more than running 60' of coaxial cable.....

Yes, it probably would. It would also be a lot less reliable.

A wireless video link would be one-channel only, so you'd need to have
some way of controlling the source, another point of decreased
reliability. You may even get a free dinner bell (microwave oven
interference, when picture returns food is ready).
--
24 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:17:11 -0600, "wayne" wrote:


There are wireless solutions but the picture loss is noticeable. The
wireless boxes will run you between 75 and 100 bucks. How much will
running the coax cost? You will need to have a tv or some other device
with a tuner where the coax ends to send the signal too! The devices
use 2.4 ghz and can be bothered by cordless phones and microwave ovens

Wayne


The one I tried was nearly useless when the microwave was in use. I
said "nearly" because that does provide some information (No TV, no
dinner).


wrote:

Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of
the house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there
a good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?

Thanks!

Aaron Fude!
--
24 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

The wireless media modems are not "one channel only"; instead, they use a
server to record the programming and the wireless modem with its' daily
updated "program guide" to allow selection of both live TV channels and
previously recorded channels. They are extremely versatile. I use 5 around
my house, and my wife watches one program, for example, I watch a second,
and it is also recording yet another all at the same time!

There are also cheap one way wireless links to send standard TV video with
stereo audio over short distances of, let's say, 50 or 75 feet, which are
single channel. I use to used the Leapfrog. a $79 device, to do this. It
also transmits in the 2.4 GHz band, same as the Linksys computer gear and
also microwave ovens and some cordless phones. It worked fairly well, but
not great.

Smarty

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:12:39 GMT, propman wrote:

wrote in news:1164949371.967646.186580
:

Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?



Probably cost a hell of a lot more than running 60' of coaxial cable.....

Yes, it probably would. It would also be a lot less reliable.

A wireless video link would be one-channel only, so you'd need to have
some way of controlling the source, another point of decreased
reliability. You may even get a free dinner bell (microwave oven
interference, when picture returns food is ready).
--
24 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:58:19 -0500, "Smarty" wrote:

The wireless media modems are not "one channel only"; instead, they use a
server to record the programming and the wireless modem with its' daily
updated "program guide" to allow selection of both live TV channels and
previously recorded channels. They are extremely versatile. I use 5 around
my house, and my wife watches one program, for example, I watch a second,
and it is also recording yet another all at the same time!


Are you referring to a DVR that you can access and control over a
network?

There are also cheap one way wireless links to send standard TV video with
stereo audio over short distances of, let's say, 50 or 75 feet, which are
single channel. I use to used the Leapfrog. a $79 device, to do this. It
also transmits in the 2.4 GHz band, same as the Linksys computer gear and
also microwave ovens and some cordless phones. It worked fairly well, but
not great.

Smarty

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:12:39 GMT, propman wrote:

wrote in news:1164949371.967646.186580
:

Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?



Probably cost a hell of a lot more than running 60' of coaxial cable.....

Yes, it probably would. It would also be a lot less reliable.

A wireless video link would be one-channel only, so you'd need to have
some way of controlling the source, another point of decreased
reliability. You may even get a free dinner bell (microwave oven
interference, when picture returns food is ready).
--
24 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

--
24 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

Yes Mark. The server I referred to at the other end of the wireless link is
a computer running SageTV software in the background, and acts as a digital
form of VCR called, as you correctly stated, a DVR. This solution may be far
too complicated for the original poster, and certainly costs more than 60
foot of coax or a Leapfrog RF link.

Smarty


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:58:19 -0500, "Smarty" wrote:

The wireless media modems are not "one channel only"; instead, they use a
server to record the programming and the wireless modem with its' daily
updated "program guide" to allow selection of both live TV channels and
previously recorded channels. They are extremely versatile. I use 5 around
my house, and my wife watches one program, for example, I watch a second,
and it is also recording yet another all at the same time!


Are you referring to a DVR that you can access and control over a
network?

There are also cheap one way wireless links to send standard TV video with
stereo audio over short distances of, let's say, 50 or 75 feet, which are
single channel. I use to used the Leapfrog. a $79 device, to do this. It
also transmits in the 2.4 GHz band, same as the Linksys computer gear and
also microwave ovens and some cordless phones. It worked fairly well, but
not great.

Smarty

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:12:39 GMT, propman wrote:

wrote in news:1164949371.967646.186580
:

Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of
the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?



Probably cost a hell of a lot more than running 60' of coaxial
cable.....

Yes, it probably would. It would also be a lot less reliable.

A wireless video link would be one-channel only, so you'd need to have
some way of controlling the source, another point of decreased
reliability. You may even get a free dinner bell (microwave oven
interference, when picture returns food is ready).
--
24 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

--
24 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 09:33:32 -0500, "Smarty" wrote:

Yes Mark. The server I referred to at the other end of the wireless link is
a computer running SageTV software in the background, and acts as a digital
form of VCR called, as you correctly stated, a DVR. This solution may be far
too complicated for the original poster, and certainly costs more than 60
foot of coax or a Leapfrog RF link.

Smarty

I was considering simpler solutions when I said "one channel". A lot
of people seem unable to handle things like DVRs.

I do have such a setup.


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:58:19 -0500, "Smarty" wrote:

The wireless media modems are not "one channel only"; instead, they use a
server to record the programming and the wireless modem with its' daily
updated "program guide" to allow selection of both live TV channels and
previously recorded channels. They are extremely versatile. I use 5 around
my house, and my wife watches one program, for example, I watch a second,
and it is also recording yet another all at the same time!


Are you referring to a DVR that you can access and control over a
network?

There are also cheap one way wireless links to send standard TV video with
stereo audio over short distances of, let's say, 50 or 75 feet, which are
single channel. I use to used the Leapfrog. a $79 device, to do this. It
also transmits in the 2.4 GHz band, same as the Linksys computer gear and
also microwave ovens and some cordless phones. It worked fairly well, but
not great.

Smarty

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:12:39 GMT, propman wrote:

wrote in news:1164949371.967646.186580
:

Hi,

I have cable but I want to use my tv in a totally different part of
the
house and it would cost me a lot to run the cable there. Is there a
good wireless solution that would work over about 60 feet?



Probably cost a hell of a lot more than running 60' of coaxial
cable.....

Yes, it probably would. It would also be a lot less reliable.

A wireless video link would be one-channel only, so you'd need to have
some way of controlling the source, another point of decreased
reliability. You may even get a free dinner bell (microwave oven
interference, when picture returns food is ready).
--
24 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

--
24 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

--
23 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy