If a CEO of an internet software or hardware company is making money with
their product, it is naïve to think they are in a position to open their
code or share their technology in the hopes of creating an industry
standard for that market segment; only the Government under the FCC could
mandate such a process. After all, a company that makes a software
encoder cannot be equated with Facebook, which recently opened its
platform in hopes of creating a community standard towards mass adoption.
In addition, no one product can “complete the picture” as it is currently
far too diverse and fragmented an audience to know how even to tackle the
problem.

Aside from the technical challenges there are many other social and
monetary implications which where not mentioned either. For example, in
the current writers strike members want a share of the revenue from
programming destined for Internet delivery. The problem, however, is that
most of the current ventures by large media outlets have yet to make any
money, which makes it veritably impossible to assign profits on
non-existent or future revenues. It is questions like these that will
require a new set of definitions as to what is iTV programming, how are
people compensated, what do consumers want and on what platforms and what
will they pay, let alone the technology challenges.

Those of us who have been in the business since the mid-nineties when
postage-stamp-size streaming media was just being deployed understand the
industry is in a time of fast-moving change, not unlike the Wild West.
That we are faced with a myriad of technical and social questions as to
how people will use Internet television over fixed and mobile platforms
requires patients, perspective, and not misrepresentation.