(1920 * 1080 * 3 * 60) / 1024.0 / 1024.0 => 355.96 MB/s
300mbps wireless n:
300 / 8.0 => 37.5 MB/s
Given that the whole point of HDMI is image quality, how are they going to shove 355MB/s through a 37.5MB/s link without lowering the quality hugely?
It all seems rather pointless to have a large, high quality display and content, and force it through a small link.
There are a few protocols out there that manage to send high-performance video across remote devices without requiring lots of bandwith: RemoteFx is an extension of Window's RDP for instance; Citrix has stuff like HDX-3D Pro, etc.
You certainly do not need to send every pixel through.
Sky HD in the UK probably encodes each channel at around 12-18 MB/s.
The key is in the compression and latency for real time applications.
OnLive and Sony/Gaikai are streaming game A/V over the public Internet, and Amazon has a new platform to do it for arbitrary Windows apps. Again, a decent in-home wireless network is a far superior medium and should have no problem.