I'm glad to hear about audio and especially wireless speakers getting more attention. The comment about "not by forcing consumers to wire up a complex 5.1 channel setting" was spot on. Even for those consumers who have a room that was pre-wired for 5.1 channel sound are discovering that 7.1 channel support is there in all newer home A/V receivers -- and digging into the walls to add wires for 2 more speakers isn't a very attractive option.
Over the holidays, I had an inquiry from a relative who was shopping for new HDTV. After advising her on that, she asked if she should get a sound bar. I replied that she should get an A/V receiver and a bunch of good quality speakers, but she felt that hooking all that up was way too much hassle -- and hiding speaker wires is always the biggest hassle -- so I advised her to at least get a sound bar rather than simply relying on the speakers in the TV.
Unfortunately, even in the A/V receivers that have built-in wireless support (WiFi and/or BT), the wireless is geared toward bringing audio into the receiver, not sending it out. To set up a truly wireless surround sound system with appropriately placed speakers still requires more gadgets and more effort than most consumers are willing to accept -- but hopefully that will start to change.
Broadcom has to sell wireless chips. I think the emphasis is simply on the wrong links of the chain.
Surely ISPs know that in-home networks are not a big obstacle. Both 802.11g and 802.11n, readily available and cheap to households, are perfectly adequate already for in-home HD distribution. ISPs should worry instead about their broadband links.
As you and others have said, these broadband links are expensive in the US (mostly due to the large distances and low population densities in many parts). And they are often not that fast. Most are probably at or less than 4 Mb/s. Way less than even 802.11g can carry. If the ISPs would take care of that, the rest is easy.
You are absolutely right, Bert. 802.11ac is not designed for the last mile, but service providers like cable operators who are responsible for that last mile, are apparently feeling confindent, long at last, to adopt 802.11ac in their set-tops to enable HD video delivery within home, according to Broadcom.
As to this quote:
"Broadcom CTO Samueli said this is 'the first time carriers are convinced that they can deliver reliable HDTV programming throughout the home.' In this scenario, carrier-grade video content comes to a media gateway that distribute it to set tops, notebook computers and smartphones."
I think this in-home server idea is far fetched, unnecessary, and unlikely to be adopted by the vast majority of households. It's good for geeks, perhaps, but as long as I've heard it touted, hasn't happened big time yet. There's a reason.
Why bother with this home server thing, if each device in the home can get that content via the ISP, independent of every other device? Isn't that what this "cloud computing" is all about? Why bother having to set up the server to fetch the material first, when any device in the home can bypass the server and go directly to the source(s)?
We have PCs, tablets, smartphones, and my TV-with-PC-STB at home. I can see all these devices listed in my ADSL modem/router status display. And each device is perefectly capable of doing its own thing, independent of all the others, fetching any content it wants. Our "home server" is called "the Internet."
Once again, though, 802.11ac is *not* "designed to "bring HD video to the home." At best, you might say it is designed to distribute HD video inside the home, once that video has been received over your broadband link (or stored in some hypothetical in-home storage device).
What "brings HD video to the home" is the ISP last mile link, or perhaps BluRay stored onto some home server device. In the real world, the weak link continues to be the broadband connection from ISP to homes. The best ones today are no more than 100 Mb/s. Hardly need 802.11ac for that.
As to distributing HD inside homes, 802.11n is plenty good enough. One compressed HD channel requires about 10 to 20 Mb/s. Surely 270 Mb/s of 802.11n is MORE than adequate to distribute several of these channels inside homes?
I'm anxious, though, to see what develops about better sound. Even there, though, the sound we now get from TV over the air or over the Internet is more than excellent, if people bother to send it through a good sound system. The weak link there is definitely the audio equipment on the premises, and not the source or the transmission channel.
However, I understand why vendors feel the need to sell new stuff. I just wish they would address what really needs addressing, such as real web browsers on smart TVs.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.