The Problem: Video content owners are comfortable making their programming available over the internet only if the delivery device is a computer hitting a website (i.e. hulu.com or the thedailyshow.com).  More compelling platforms such as tablets (and, um, televisions) are denied access to this premium content – precisely because they are more compelling platforms  (and would be too disruptive to incumbent business models).  For example, note hulu’s cat-and-mouse maneuvering to fend off access by boxee television software for almost two years now – or Viacom’s threats to sue various cable providers over their new internet-based on-demand mobile device apps.

The Solution (for now, at least): If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.  Until internet television really ‘happens’, the best solution (for me and many others) is to get video and audio from the computer over to the television, so I can appear to the internet to be someone sitting in front of their computer – when in fact I’m a guy sitting on his couch in front of his television.  This way, I have access to all that web-only content (take that, hulu!).

It does involve solving the technical problem of getting audio and video (in at least 720p resolution) over to the television, though.  That’s a lot of data to move, and an HDMI cable running across the floor is not an option – what’s required instead is a  ‘short fat pipe’ capable of moving a lot of data over a short distance wirelessly.  I’ve written about the various options available (and what I’ve been using for the past few months) here.

Is my solution a bit clunky?  Sure – I have to go to the computer, enter full-screen mode, and then control the video transport from there.  But the fact remains that until the business-side issues preventing true internet television get resolved, the web will continue to offer a richer video selection than dedicated systems such as Apple TV or Google TV – and for all its lack of elegance, my low-cost solution makes that problem just go away.

In fact, it has been working so well for me, I wonder if there’s a business opportunity being missed…

I did a test recently:  I moved my my $34.99 wireless Logitech keyboard/mouse further & further away from my computer and found that it still functioned 3/4 of the distance to the couch before the signal dropped.   Assuming this can be extended a bit to at least match the physical range of the $99 ‘short fat pipe’ device that’s already doing an acceptable job of  transmitting my computer’s audio and video to my television, one could imagine combining these two products into one…

Such a product could consist of three pieces of hardware:

• A single USB computer-side dongle transmitter/receiver (w/driver software).   This would communicate with two television-side devices:
• A small simple keyboard/touchscreen (for the coffee table)
• A ‘short fat pipe’ receiver with an HDMI output similar to the one I’m using now (for the television)

Like the more primitive device I’m currently using, this product would effectively get around the stubborn internet television business-side impasse that’s resulted in so much content being available only via a computer’s web browser.  However, it would also allow you to control your computer from in front of your HDMI-compliant television or set-top box – for uses, I might add, not limited to just viewing internet video.

And wait, there’s more: the 96.3% of us who aren’t blog-writing geeks (and even some of the 3.7% of us who are) don’t want multiple devices with multiple operating systems to have to buy/learn/configure/keep updated – especially in our living rooms.  In consumer electronics, simplicity is king (something  Sony, for one, has yet to figure out).  This product would avoid such ‘device redundancy’ by keeping all the actual computing on your computer where it belongs. In fact, you could think of it as cloud computing – but the cloud is hanging there in your living room.

Best of all, based the cost of my two devices (the ‘short fat pipe’ and the wireless keyboard/mouse), such a product could be sold for under $150 US.

I’m left to wonder why someone isn’t building it…