<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wireless HDTV throughout the home?</title>
	<link>http://www.hdblog.net/2006/08/15/wireless-hdtv-throughout-the-home/</link>
	<description>HDTV Home Theater and Television</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2</generator>

	<item>
 		<title>Comment on Wireless HDTV throughout the home? by: Gabe</title>
		<link>http://www.hdblog.net/2006/08/15/wireless-hdtv-throughout-the-home/#comment-14415</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:59:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.hdblog.net/2006/08/15/wireless-hdtv-throughout-the-home/#comment-14415</guid>
					<description>802.11n will have more bandwidth than 3Gbps?  Wow...I thought it was limited to 200Mbps.  The only thing I can see being a problem with 802.11n is the encryption/DRM that may/may not be required to transport HDTV signals wirelessly throughout the house.  However, I agree an open standards based method would be preferable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>802.11n will have more bandwidth than 3Gbps?  Wow&#8230;I thought it was limited to 200Mbps.  The only thing I can see being a problem with 802.11n is the encryption/DRM that may/may not be required to transport HDTV signals wirelessly throughout the house.  However, I agree an open standards based method would be preferable.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
 		<title>Comment on Wireless HDTV throughout the home? by: Mole</title>
		<link>http://www.hdblog.net/2006/08/15/wireless-hdtv-throughout-the-home/#comment-14414</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.hdblog.net/2006/08/15/wireless-hdtv-throughout-the-home/#comment-14414</guid>
					<description>If we ever get 802.11n this will have more bandwidth and is standards based.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>If we ever get 802.11n this will have more bandwidth and is standards based.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
