FCC keeps secret Google TV landgrab under wraps forever

Re: Genuine question

I think the author got carried away. I don't think the issue is that the video content would end up on youtube.

I think the idea which the author opposes is that that Google is allowed to create a web frontend that users might have access to the EPG so that you access your cable channels as if they were youtube channels. In reality the content would be pulled from the content user's have purchased, but it would look like google is providing it.

Or maybe he does mean that the content would be transmitted via google, but that the user's rights to the content would be checked by google and confirmed back to the cableco's - everyone get's paid except that cableco's would find it hard to compete as content providers against youtube.

Either way google could overlay adverts etc (like youtube does) because it controls the frontend.

There are problems. If content is all search-able it is likely that popularity will depend on rankings which might give google a lot of power to mess with things. If interactivity is all via google servers it gets first bite at all the data, including viewing data. What happens if one company sponsors a program's creation and someone else pays google for the adwords?

Personally I find it unlikely people would accept more advertising for content they have paid for, if someone else offering less, though it is quite funny to watch the cableco's wail about vertical integration. I think there are massive problems with with both solutions. I like my TV broadcast, not streamed, but that's just me.

That sounds somewhat evil to me.

That was their old motto - it's been changed since then.

I think it is "Monetize Evil" now.