Belkin's FlyWire does 1080P without wires

We've all dreamed of wire clutter-free home theaters for years (admit it), and Belkin is about to make things a lot easier with the FlyWire. The new wireless transmitter and receiver can send 1080p video over a 5GHz band. Belkin promises little to no interference and no latency even for you gamers. As for connections, we're looking at three HDMI ins, two component ins, one composite, and one HDMI out. Remote control is done via IR, which should be welcome news to those of you with universal remotes. FlyWire will come in two packages: The FlyWire AV69003 at $999.99 is meant for a whole-home solution with an IR backchannel for multi-room control, while the FlyWire R1 AV69000 at $699.99 is meant for a single room without the IR backchannel. Not exactly cheap, but a heck of a lot cheaper than those custom wireless installs, and a lot more pretty than ripping a hole in your wall for cables. FlyWire should hit stores in October.

Gallery: Belkin FlyWire

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Mark Anderson @ Jul 10th 2008 9:40AM]

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

[bohsocks @ Jul 10th 2008 9:52AM]

So... wouldn't this make the name FlyWire a misnomer? Or does FlyWire mean like.... fly away wires......?

And is that a stove burner on the top of it? So I can make pancakes on it? God bless you, Belkin.

No, but yeah I'd rather have wires than ream my munnies for this thing.

[SITEiNK @ Jul 10th 2008 4:16PM]

so this thing has wireless power right? 'cause if it doesn't then it's not really wireless, but might perhaps just have a wireless capability.

[The Aggie CEO @ Jul 10th 2008 9:44AM]

cant wait til these come down in price..........

I love the fact that it supports 3 HDMI inputs tho......, thats my PS3, 360, and HTIB

[Tubalcain @ Jul 10th 2008 9:49AM]

Still not sold on wireless 1080P or 720P for that matter.

[ShadowMaker @ Jul 10th 2008 9:49AM]

So, if it's wireless, how do I connect it to my HDTV?

[kal326 @ Jul 10th 2008 9:56AM]

They include a wireless receiver, hence the 1 HDMI out specified in the description. That or you could try RTFA next time.

[ShadowMaker @ Jul 10th 2008 10:11AM]

I take it that the lack of smiley faces made you overlook the fact that I was joking? Apart from that if you use the HDMI port to hook it up to my HDTV, I still need a cable right? So ít's no longer a wireless setup as far as I can tell. From a certain point of view.

[OneLove @ Jul 10th 2008 11:59AM]

you can only use that "smiley face" excuse once.

[wizzle @ Jul 10th 2008 12:04PM]

@ShadowMaker

don't let these uptight stiffs keep you down. i thought it was quite hilarious. maybe it just needs to be said in a seinfeld voice.

"why do they call it ovaltine. the jar is round. the cup is round. it should be called roundtine."

[Mike @ Jul 10th 2008 9:57AM]

This is interesting, but think about it. If you want to wall mount your flat screen, you still may not have a power outlet hidden behind the TV, so you either have a visible power cable, or you still have to rip the wall open for a totally clean look. The only advantage I see to this device would be for homes that did provide a wall outlet and coax cable for a flat screen, yet never included an HDMI cable in the original install. And I'm skeptical as to whether the video is an interference free as they claim.

[kal326 @ Jul 10th 2008 10:00AM]

They quote custom cable installs reaching $3000 in price, seriously what TV are they installing that would warrant somebody spending $3000 to hook the damn thing up. The technology has some merits, allows for some clearer installs. However, I think I'll save hundreds of dollars and just punch a few holes in the walls till this comes down in price by quite a bit.

[Todd @ Jul 10th 2008 10:14AM]

I think what they're quoting are costs to have a wirefree clean install. You know, cutting holes in the wall, running an HDMI cable up from your cable box, re-plastering the wall, painting, etc...

What's appealing to me about this type of idea is that of moving all audio/video components from having to be stored under the TV. They could be tucked next to the couch inside an end-table or something, which for my place would be nice.

What I'm also curious about is the wireless range. It would be pretty slick to have my one cable box hidden away and be able to send the HD video signal to different television sets in my bedroom or kitchen (places that don't have even COAX wired.)

[Jamie @ Jul 10th 2008 10:16AM]

The 'whole-home' moniker is a little misleading. In most installations, 'whole-home' means that you have several output devices (tvs, speakers) that are fed by this one system. I don't believe you can have one transmitter and many receivers, and if you did, if it would allow different inputs to be fed to each room (multi-casting). The cost savings is great now, but I'm sure that cost for custom installations will drop with products like these entering the market. It's about $3000 now because there are no alternatives, you have to have an installer creatively run wire, and you pay a premium for it.

I still think this is an incredible product and maybe they'll plan for that capability in the future. THAT would make it a killer.

[ds @ Jul 10th 2008 10:22AM]

6 total inputs, 5 of them HD.. impressive
Multi-room capable.. ir remote with rf repeater.. nice

If the quality is there, this is a hell of a product.. guess we'll wait til October to see if they get some competition.

[ds @ Jul 10th 2008 10:26AM]

Well.. i guess I had my hopes up too high.. "Multi-room" sounds more like a better range than multiple outputs.. weak indeed

[SirWalksAlot @ Jul 10th 2008 10:32AM]

For $1000 an electrician can certainly run an HDMI cable in your wall. This is a little silly.

[ds @ Jul 10th 2008 10:51AM]

Good point.. I had always assumed it would be $3,000 to have an electrician drop a cable in my wall so I never bothered to call and get a quote.. Now that you have pointed out the price is down to $1,000 fuck this device I'm calling an electrician!

[Dave T. @ Jul 10th 2008 11:26AM]

Um, yeah but if you're renting...

Or even if I bought the place I"m renting now, the electrician couldn't get the HDMI cable to the receiver because of studs and idiot construction even though everything was supposed to be "pre-wired" my 50 inch plasma has no HD right now and looks like crap. The smaller LCD in my bedroom looks great cause it is on a dresser top next to a box.

So my point is for someone like me I could do this and not rip up a wall costing probably more than $699.

[Nuno Albuquerque @ Jul 10th 2008 10:35AM]

I'm assuming there is some sort of latency with this making it just about useless for connecting it to a gaming console. No?

[Jamie @ Jul 10th 2008 11:10AM]

Since it says that they don't do any compression, it pretty much makes it a wireless bridge. Operating in the 5GHz band theoretically should give it more than enough bandwith to optimally feed an HDMI input. Wireless transmission makes it more susceptable to interference, but most homes don't run anything that would interfere at that frequency.

[tiuk @ Jul 10th 2008 10:38AM]

I don't buy the "no latency" bit.

[Woody @ Jul 10th 2008 10:51AM]

Those are some horribly gay looking pictures they have there. I mean look at her TV! She should have saved her $700 and bought a bigger TV for crying out loud. And 3 guys are grilling fresh veggies outside? Give me a break! Your advertising SUCKS Belkin.

[superfresh @ Jul 10th 2008 11:04AM]

I haven't bought my first HDTV yet, but I always wondered why they couldn't develop them with all the plugins on a separate box that connected to the TV through a single cord. That way, the box could fit nicely behind all of your components and only a single cord would travel to the screen.

So I guess as far as this wireless box is concerned, I wish it came standard with the TV, so that it was simply a wirless screen that hung from the wall.

[ds @ Jul 10th 2008 12:29PM]

Some manufacturers used to do that quite a bit. It also helped them from having to cram more electronics into the flat panels when the tech was never.. but i think people pretty much do that today buy just using an a/v receiver.. since thats what they are designed to do.

Also wireless video is being worked into TVs today by a few manufacturers.

[NONE @ Jul 10th 2008 2:35PM]

I expect Monster is going to make gold plated antenna's for this and sell them for $2k.

[Shinigami @ Jul 10th 2008 3:09PM]

I don't get it. Do you ALL put a HDTV on a WALL? Why? Just make a stand with all the receivers and dvd player or whatever else you need under the TV, and you don't need to tear anything apart.

[Cassini @ Jul 10th 2008 4:08PM]

This is a good solution for now - at least for video - but it still doesn't address the wires you'll need if you're pumping sound through separate speakers.

I'm looking forward to when this technology is embedded inside all our TV's and home theatre devices and no external hardware like this is needed. That'll make Monster Cable so happy! :) Away with the wires!!!

Of course, then we'll have to deal with surround speakers. I know if or when speakers go wireless, they may always have to be plugged into an outlet for power (I highly doubt batteries will ever provide enough power to drive good speakers (unless battery tech is greatly improved) - not to mention, having to deal with recharging and swapping that many batteries in and out in a surround system would be a pain), but having to deal with outlets would be much easier than dealing with routing speaker cable all over the place.

Then there's the hope that wireless power will happen, too, as I know some prototype examples of that have been effected. Who knows if and when enough of it will be able to be transmitted to power all these things?

I guess I'm just looking forward to cutting *every* wire.