Dan Grimes wrote: > Second, there have been attempts to aggregate common > programming from small producers for decades and sometimes > it works and sometimes not. For instance, several people > over the years have tried to start a channel dedicated to > university programming. We usually took part in them but > never have they succeeded. Let's face it: there were a > few wonderfully produced shows buried with a lot of poorly > produced ones (actually, this sounds like the typical MVPD > channel). So along came internet streaming and it > appeared that this would be the answer with no need to > rely on a "brand" or aggregated programming. Wrong. It > is just as difficult to get noticed as it has ever been. Which is exactly why I have always questioned Craig's ideas concerning Internet distribution of TV content. When MVPDs came onto the scene, did not exactly the same thing happen to the three major TV networks? Didn't their content become diluted by a zillion other cable-only channels? Of course they did. And Craig delights in posting anything that shows a drop in the viewership of major network content. Well, exactly the same will happen to cable-only channels, once people use the Internet more than MVPDs, for TV content. Some small producers MAY get a cult following, others (most others) will be lost in the mob. Why would it be any other way? > I can't speak for all GoogleTV appliances, but doesn't > GoogleTV have the Google Chrome web browser built in, > allowing the use of search engines including Google, Yahoo > and Bing? I know that the version of GoogleTV on the > Logitech Revue does have Google Chrome and I have tested > searches on all aforementioned sites without hindrance. Are you saying you have used other search engines on the Logitech Revue, or are you saying you have browsed different sites? > I thought that Google's "pairing down" was really only a > way to make media more manageable and provide quick access, > not to limit or hinder access. You can't have one without the other, Dan. Just like you described what happened when they moved you guys from Ch 4 to Ch 70, any search engine, specifically designed to "make it easier" to find and view TV content, will have to make these same choices. Only, with potentially way many more choices than what MVPDs offered. So the problem is exacerbated. It seems clear that the congloms don't want to allow some overly influential middleman to decide whether they survive or not. Why is this surprising? They made all manner of deals with MVPDs, so why should we happily stand by and watch, while middlemen, either in cahoots with congloms or just on their own, mess up the Internet in the same way? The CE vendors THEMSELVES have it in their power to design sets, with generic browsers and search engines, not identifiable as "for TV only," that can be programmed with *each owner's* favorites and tastes. Then, if the congloms have problems with this, their only recourse would be to take everything off the Internet. Which, of course, they wouldn't want to do. Not anymore. Bert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.