ZeeVee's ZvBox streams your PC to your HDTV over coax

Startup ZeeVee isn't out to flood the market with yet another ho hum media streamer, it's out to change the way you look at 'em. The June-bound ZvBox ($499) plugs into one's computer (VGA) and sends on-screen content to every TV in the house over existing coaxial cabling. Put simply, the unit enables users to view any kind of internet media right on their television with no subscription fees or wireless dropouts. Aside from bringing internet video over, users can also access any other computer application (web browser, built-in DVD player, etc.) right from their set. In order to handle said tasks, the box comes bundled with a wireless ZvRemote / Zviewer, but those comfortable with managing their own desktop won't be bothered with any fancy interfaces. Suffice to say, those looking to easily pipe their Media PC recordings to the family TV will certainly find reason to take notice. Head on the past the break for a few more details.

Gallery: ZeeVee's ZvBox streams your PC to your HDTV

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Put simply, the ZvBox ports your computer desktop to every HDTV in your house by creating its own channel (RF) that is picked up by the tuner packed within your set(s). Here's a few tidbits to clarify how the thing actually works:

• PC's content piped through VGA, which is then sent through coaxial cabling to every TV in your home
  
• VGA pass-through ensures your PC monitor continues to operate normally
• Audio (including Dolby Digital 5.1) is inputted via USB
• No equipment is needed at the TV end for reception; all signals are received from the TV's QAM-capable internal tuner
• Users can opt to view their unadulterated desktop
• Otherwise, the Zviewer lays out customizable launch icons to take you directly to Netflix, Hulu, ABC.com, YouTube, MOJO, KoldCast or any other destination you choose
  
• Users have total control of their PC from their television; watching back PVR recordings, playing DVDs, viewing photos, etc. is all possible
• ZvBox possesses no fan, thus there's no noise
• ZvRemote controls volume / channels, has built-in touchpad for interfacing with PC
• Optional ZvKeyboard coming this summer (no price disclosed)
• Shipments will begin in June, consumers can pre-order exclusively from Amazon beforehand
  

Quite honestly, this looks like the device to bridge the gap between living room TVs and internet / OTA-accessible content. Rather than being locked into material available on a number of other STBs, the ZvBox is only limited by the amount of content accessible via the web, your computer's DVD player and your PC-based OTA TV tuner. Needless to say, that's an awful lot of media. We'll be getting our hands on one and giving you the rundown just as soon as we can.

[deep @ May 1st 2008 7:10AM]

Does it do HD? Just 'cause it can be picked up by a HDTV set doesn't mean anything.

[Andrew Jones @ May 1st 2008 2:10PM]

That's what I'm trying to figure out... does it encode the VGA signal to ATSC? That would make sense and be a great solution, although the price point is a little steep for me.

[sockatume @ May 1st 2008 7:13AM]

Clever, but coax? Bleh. I doubt they'll be able to encode it as a Freeview (or other digital TV) signal either.

[sockatume @ May 1st 2008 7:14AM]

Oh, hold the phone, it's a box at the TV end too. That's much more promising actually.

[Kristen @ May 13th 2008 9:54PM]

Guys:

I don't think you get it. As a woman and a mother, this is the perfect solution for internet TV (I may be watching Desparate HWs and Idol re-plays, but we all agree we want our shows on demand, right?). When we got our first flat panel TV and hung it on the wall, I refused to let my husband add any new cords connected to it-- way too ugly. With ZvBox all I need is a remote control to watch everything, plus check email (soccer games, school schedules, etc.) and browse my favorite news and blog sites and weathercasts from the couch (and for me, from bed before I go to sleep at night), slide-shows, and kid-friendly sites. You get the idea. I have a DVR, but I would still rather use internet sites to watch shows when I want rather than scheduling recordings. To do all this, my family needs FLEXIBILITY. Why watch Internet TV if your shows are limited to iTunes? Instead, I am going to sign up for the Netflix "all you can eat" plan, watch my current internet shows, and cut back on all the monthly fees I pay for cable. Even at this price (one box for the whole house), I bet I will save money. By the way, I am not very technical, but I do know I get HDTV channels on my cable wires, so I am hopeful that ZvBox will look just as good.

[Ziria @ May 1st 2008 7:24AM]

Deep and sockatume,

Read the specs carefully at the manufacturer's website. Looks like it's generating a QAM channel. No box at the TV end if you have a TV with QAM-tuner. Looks pretty interesting but at $499, it's kinda pricey.

Comparing this to a DVI balun though, the price is quite reasonable. Especially if you have multiple TVs around the house.

[gfar @ May 1st 2008 7:33AM]

You know what else "streams your PC to your HDTV" ?? A DVI to HDMI cable...and it's _not_ coax.

[momotarosan @ May 1st 2008 7:45AM]

or specifically DVI over CAT5/6 with HDMI adapter

[bob @ May 1st 2008 7:49AM]

VGA......COAX.....is this the 80's, im sure appletv is cowering

[looseinthedeuce @ May 1st 2008 10:38AM]

I think you mean the '90s.

[m @ May 1st 2008 8:02AM]

Can you watch different content on each TV using only one PC plugged into the Coax?

[slarity @ May 1st 2008 8:08AM]

Ya but can it play doom?

Someone had to do it... no really, I play PC games and wonder if this could stream those as well. Does coax really have that kind of bandwidth?

I did a quick wikipedia and google search with no definative answer for bandwidth.

[Tim Hartle @ May 1st 2008 9:09AM]

Im sure the cable itself can handle it..But what tv can display hd content via the coax?...Is that even possible

[justme @ May 1st 2008 8:20AM]

@slarity....
Umm the cable companies send HDTV over coax....unless you get yours over the air, how else would you get it? :)

[Heather @ May 1st 2008 8:25AM]

But - you have to have a direct COAX run from your computer to all the TVs in the house for this to work as described ... its a non-starter

[Ben @ May 1st 2008 8:43AM]

Yeah, cause cable modems are so rare these days.

[Craig @ May 1st 2008 10:08PM]

Yes COAX has the bandwidth it has more than enough bandwidth. One of the best pictures you can get is an antenna connected to an HDTV over COAX. Anyone who scoffs at the COAX connect clearly does not understand the technology that modern TV's use. Now the coax layout of your house may be an issue but if they could get one of these to encode an ATSC signal for more like 200 bucks then I would absolutely love one, two if you can select the channel that it encodes on.

[PSU_Boss @ May 1st 2008 8:47AM]

No, it says it adds an rf channel to the existing cable. So, you just need a box at your computer that's plugged into your regular cable.
http://www.zeevee.com/home

[Justin @ May 1st 2008 11:48AM]

What are you smoking?

Every house or apartment I have ever lived in is pre-wired with coax to every room. This box uses the the coax cable that is already in your house or apartment. So much for a "non-starter"...at least for every home I have ever been in.

[Mike @ May 1st 2008 8:46AM]

This is a great solution and is what most ad systems in retail stores use to send the HD Content you see running over and over at Best Buy and the like. Coax supports more than enough bandwidth to handle a measly 1080i stream. This is a simple solution and almost everyone has the infrastructure in place to handle this. I can see the price being what it is currently because QAM modulators are expensive. I have searched one out before and they were only available in professional channels and cost upward of $1000 plus.

[kaspro @ May 1st 2008 9:00AM]

I used to use the composite out connection on my ATI video card dongle to transmit (quite cheaply in fact) to the living room. A fair ammount of tweaking had to be done to get this to work but I could still watch movies off my pc. Just an idea :)

[Ryan @ May 1st 2008 9:55AM]

What's with all the haters? Could you at least do a little research before unloading your hate?

I, too, initially thought it was a simple NTSC RF modulator, and thought 'What's the point of that?!?'

But it's a QAM or ATSC modulator, which is quite cool. I don't think it's expensive for the technology involved, but it's still a big chunk of change in a general sense.

But compared to the OWLink 2850 ($800) - which sends HDMI and keyboard/mouse over 100 ft of fiber - it's not a bad deal. No running of new wiring, plus a one to many solution rather than one to one. (http://digitalconnection.com/Products/Cables/fo2850.asp)

[Adam @ May 1st 2008 10:46AM]

Does it matter what form of modulation it is? If the cable companies are sucking up ALL of the bandwidth, then the option to pick a channel to broadcast on is irrelevant.

[pimpcity @ May 1st 2008 10:00AM]

$499? Think I'll stick with a $20 VGA cable (TV has a VGA input).

[Mike @ May 1st 2008 11:43AM]

Don't know why you're so proud, you overpaid for that VGA cable

[Justin @ May 1st 2008 11:51AM]

Nice Mike.

And good luck getting that cable to run upstairs to the bedroom, or any other room, or to multiple rooms.

But I guess you live in an efficiency with one TV in it.

[Logboy @ May 1st 2008 9:31PM]

Wow...how many times CAN you vote a comment down?

[Dave @ May 1st 2008 11:15AM]

Sounds perfect for me: Computer tucked away in upstairs bedroom, main tv downstairs in living room - cable company coax throughout the house. If I can assure myself the remote will reach between the 2 rooms I might just buy one of these over the Archos TV+ that I've been pondering.

[Hodgdon @ May 1st 2008 12:31PM]

The remote has a range of 150 feet through walls and such, so you should be fine.

[Shaunaatkin @ May 1st 2008 11:47AM]

With the restricted bandwith already coming from the cable company and using it for TV and internet how will this effect or not effect the speed once running all three.

[Ahhk @ May 1st 2008 12:10PM]

Shaunaatkin:

How much the cable company does or doesn't limit your (internet) bandwidth has no affect on the capacity of the coax cable.

[ian9outof10 @ May 1st 2008 12:15PM]

I happen to think this is an excellent idea. My only hope is that they can put together a DVB one for the UK. To be able to set up my second monitor out, as a media streamer and then tune in all my digital ready TVs would be epic.

As long as it could do, say 720p HD. Which, of course, most TVs won't decode (Freeview TVs that is, obviously American TVs are built in with support for MP@HL)

[palehorse @ May 1st 2008 12:27PM]

Throw in Sling-like capabilities for access to this device via the web too, and I'm in for one!

But I have a few questions:

1) Will this intefere with, or be limited by, the QAM signals already traveling on the same coax from your Cable provider?

2) Will each TV be able to watch unique content, or will it only broadcast one source at a time?

3) Can all HDTV's translate COAX input to 1080i, or will their UI's prevent this setting? (In other words, I've never tried COAX input for HD resolutions... will 720p/1080i even be an allowable setting on COAX inputs for most TV's?)

4) How are keyboard/touchpad signals sent back to the base PC if there are no special boxes on the TVs to send data back out?

looks interesting...

[davesa @ May 1st 2008 2:20PM]

This is really intriguing. In a lot of ways it solves a lot of problems I currently face with viewing my digital content in various rooms in my house. All 'extender' type devices all leave a little to be desired. This seems to improve on that theme. I am concerned, however, with this thing's ability to handle HDCP protected HD content. In Windows (XP or Vista) it is my understanding that Blu-Ray content or protected wmv HD must pass through a HDCP compliant display connection architecture in order to be viewed. This is either HDMI and DVI-D. Possibly DisplayPort in the future. As I interpret the specs on this device, this would mean that playback of protected 'HD' content would not be possible as hookup to the computer video source is 'VGA'/DB-15 analog component. That is a drawback, in my opinion, but not necessarily a dealbreaker at this pricepoint. There are, of course, ways around this. Just thought it interesting. It is also a shame that they do not currently offer Mac support. But I'm sure there are good reasons for that.

[blakehew @ May 2nd 2008 12:46AM]

Wow, This is truly a revolutionary product in my opinion. It is amazing to me how ignorant most people are about this technology. It's a QAM or ATSC modulator. Its is in my opinion the ideal way to distribute HD content around a home. I wish they would make one that had an hdmi, or component input on it. That way i could distribute my HDTIVO to all rooms in the house. I hope they let you choose the channel that the signal is modulated on, so that you could have multiple devices running on different channels. It is a bit pricey for what you people are comparing it to, but for what you are getting and what has been avalible in the past it is really very well priced. I mean you get the device, the RF remote reciver and the remote (which looks like a decent remote) for the 499. Now if they would just do an IR option so that it could be integrated into my home automation system that would be perfect!!

[Logboy @ May 1st 2008 9:41PM]

Didn't they show a Mac using Mail and Safari on the demo video?

[ksmith @ May 2nd 2008 8:19AM]

Hak.5 did this a couple years ago. Pretty sweet idea. They event embellished it by writing a mobileweb web page that would allow them to use their cell phone as a remote...anywhere (not just in the house).

[messerschmidt @ May 6th 2008 9:30PM]

Hold your horses.
This is not a "cable extender". It's a QAM / ATSC modulator. I.e. it acts as a digital cable broadcaster with the HDTV content nicely MPEG compressed. I can see why this box costs $499.
Futhermore, you can connect the zv box to your PC server in your closet and use the remote control to control the mouse on the TV, far away.
It bridges PC and TV content using my existing coax network out of the box.
Very clever.
I want one.
I'm my own broadcaster.

[messerschmidt @ May 6th 2008 9:41PM]

palehorse:

1) Will this intefere with, or be limited by, the QAM signals already traveling on the same coax from your Cable provider?
Answer: It automatically scans for available channels.

2) Will each TV be able to watch unique content, or will it only broadcast one source at a time?
Answer: It sounds like the demo talks about one input. So one channel out, broadcasted.

3) Can all HDTV's translate COAX input to 1080i, or will their UI's prevent this setting? (In other words, I've never tried COAX input for HD resolutions... will 720p/1080i even be an allowable setting on COAX inputs for most TV's?)
Answer: Probably a setup thing. And even if your TV doesn't have a direct ATSC connection, you may have a cable set top box that tunes into the zv box, eh?

4) How are keyboard/touchpad signals sent back to the base PC if there are no special boxes on the TVs to send data back out?
Answer: RF.

[Andrew @ Jun 8th 2008 3:10PM]

The alternative to this is to have a dedicated PC or PS3 for each HDTV in the house. Each PC or PS3 will connect to Internet via Wi-Fi. This is a much more realistic solution since each HDTV will be able to be tuned to a different "Internet TV" channel.

The cost of this alternative approach will be similar or lower (PS3 is about $399, comes with WIFI and wireless controller, get a free DVD and Blue-Ray player). PC will be about same but with ability to run other applications.

With price of $499 and requirement to be wired into coax network (vs. wireless), the ZeeVee solution is not compelling.

[dbone1026 @ Jun 10th 2008 5:44PM]

I am very interested in this product, but have one major concern. From reading around, it appears that when a user wants to watch their ZeeVee channel they basically lock up the host computer (i.e. I would assume if someone is watching ZeeVee and another person wants to use the computer to surf the internet, do work, etc... something has to give). If you have several people on your household this does not seem viable to me, almost like you would need to let everyone else know that the computer will not be available because you are watching ZeeVee. You would need to get a dedicated computer just for this, or maybe get a dual monitor setup? Either way, you are already forking over $500 for the ZeeVee, so having to then spend additional money seems out of the question. This really seems like a great product, especially because you hook it up to your pc and not your tv (I have an Apple TV/PS3/Xbox360/Wii hook up to my tvs along with cable boxes, etc... and it is starting to get out of hand). Curious though what people think of this, especially you have multiple people in your household who use the host PC.

[khaver @ Jun 11th 2008 6:23PM]

dbone,

Your idea about using this as the second monitor should alleviate the problem of tying up the computer while watching the TV. You could setup the second monitor to match the res and aspect of your HDTV while the primary monitor could have its own res and aspect. Then use some specific software on the computer that would translate the remote signals to only open apps on the second monitor. You could even VNC into the main monitor from your TV to adjust things if needed. The PVR program GBPVR can be set up to open on the second monitor.

The only downside to this device is that you can only watch one source at a time on all TVs. (Maybe a quad head video card with 3 ZeeVees ;^)