The Active-TV movement -- the ecosystem that is developing in support of a PC-assisted methodology for getting Internet-based content to your TV -- has a big supporter and resource in Daniel Mann. His recent post shows why PC-assist is a stronger technology than other proposed options. It is inexpensive -- it can be built into almost any networked STB or TV for a negligible increase to the Bill of Materials (BOM), and it is built for the future -- what I mean is that whatever new technologies are used on the Web to support video and other applications, Active-TV can handle them. Since Active-TV leverages the PC's processing power, and PC's can keep up with the new web technologies, it is an elegant solution to the problem. The other options don't offer affordability or sustainability. One option is to offer an expensive incremental STB, but many folks don't want another set-top, much less spend hundreds of dollars on it. Or, you can attempt to build it right into the TV, but in that case the technology will never be able to keep up with the web given the useful life of a TV is 8 yrs -- think about what video formats we were using 8 years ago, in 2000.... I didn't even watch video on the web back then. The fact that they are expensive and not "built to last" leads me to believe they are simply less elegant solutions. But, there is also lots of hesitancy around the Active-TV solution. PC-assist worries TV OEMs. They don't want the proper operation of their TV to depend on another device -- the PC. But -- they need to get over it. The PC is an asset, not a liability, and it can make the TV significantly more functional, opening the door to more content than we ever dreamed we'd be able to consume on our TVs.