...is a losing battle. The problem with lost advertising dollars is only going to get worse. With my cable service, I get a built-in DVR, see. I skip all annoying commercials anyway. So let them pull the plug on Internet TV; we've already broken out of their paid timeslot model and, in the process, get to skip over the commercials to boot. Content providers will be forced, kicking and screaming, to come up with a new revenue model regardless.

No production costs, no production values either. Just ego driven crap like most of the crud on Atom.

I've never owned a television in my life, but it's not because of the ads. It's because I have no restraint. If I owned a television I would watch it, and watch it, and watch it. For years I've been dreading all that talk of convergence and my computer becoming my television and blah blah blah, then along comes Hulu and bam: 30 Rock? Hooked. Burn Notice? Hooked. Serenity? Sure, sign me up. Bones? Oh, why not, it's not as if there's a world outside my apartment.

Please, please, please, advertisers, take this away from me before I watch again!

ReGenesis, huh? Sounds interesting ...

I'll go even farther than Ms. Caruso: viewers will *not* be kicked to the curb, content suppliers will. If advertisers or the TV industry close off the streaming of shows, then file-sharing such as bit torrent, etc., will find a way to distribute those shows for free. And then NO ONE will make any money.

As much as I hate those motion-crazy clickable ads, they appear to work and I'm willing to try and ignore them, to view my show. NBC's streaming (and many others) simply play an ad first, before the content. I'll put up with that. Change or die, folks!

Is that you also lower the incentive to participate, and consume. I'll riff on another letter writer's comment -- that he has cable service, and a DVR -- to give an example.

We got the VIP722 from Dish Network about a year or so ago, and really like it. It's got 350 hours of SD recording and 50 hours of HD recording capacity but, more importantly, lets you connect an external USB drive to it and store shows on the drive (once you've paid a one-time $39.99 fee). So for a while now, we've actually been taking advantage of Dish's PPV, paying $4.99/movie, and recording it to be viewed later. This is especially useful as my wife's (quite frankly odd) movie-watching preference is to do it while she's falling asleep, so it typically takes her 3-4 nights to watch a movie. I know, I know, don't look at me.

However, Dish recently started implementing 'limited recording' capabilities on most of its PPV offerings. limited recording basically limits you to keeping the movie on your DVR for no more than 30, 60, or 90 days (depending on the movie) but, more seriously, limit you to 24 hours for watching the movie. So if I start watching the movie tomorrow, I damn well better finish it in 24 hours, or it will no longer be available. This sucks. I can bitch and moan and complain about it. But frankly, I'm tired of doing that.

Anyone want to guess how many limited-recording PPVs we've purchased since we started seeing them pop up?

Yup. Zero.

Charge people according to the popularity of what they want to watch. If a movie or TV show is highly popular, it's more expensive. If it's not popular, it's cheap. Simple.

LOL I've never heard anyone comment that there are not enough ads on a platform, but if you check out Fancast you will see an amazing library of totally free full-length shows, second to none (not only Fox and NBC programs, but Viacom content like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, South Park and some great old CBS/Paramount classics like Lou Grant, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Bob Newhart, Star Trek, etc. etc)all with very limited ads.

http://www.fancast.com/full_episodes

*sigh* I'm with Denise, I absolutely despise ads and therefore watch almost no network programming, only stuff that is not available on DVD.

Remember when cable tv first came out? It was awesome, no ads on the non-network stations. First came plugs for their own shows, then eventually full-on advertising like every network channel. Turner Classic Movies (TCM) seems to be the last holdout that only has ads for their own programming, and NEVER interupts a movie with ads - only between films. I guess they can afford to do it since there are no new films...

Viewers must start, interact and complete a full-screen ad to "earn" the next show segment. What, too much to ask? Oh for crying in a bucket consumers, you don't pay for anything! I'm so tired of everybody trying to make it easier on the viewer. Eyeballs on ads don't pay bills! Interaction does. Pay with your attention, that's all us advertisers want.

The way to get WebTV, the newspaper industry and social networks to earn duckets is a fundamental shift is how ads are presented. Block off content then require subscription - OR - free access AFTER an interactive ad.

Salon, you should remember this. It was called the Site Pass that you launched six years ago. Want to finish the Salon story? Subscribe - OR - watch ad to earn a pass. I got it. My time has value. The ad was in my CONTROL, throttle and brake. I had a CHOICE to pay and avoid the ads. Smart. Why you guys dumped it and went to an home page interstitial that I can skip is beyond me.

Value-exchange advertising opens a dialog with each viewer. They can choose paths in the ads to make things relevant and actually buy the product.

Advertisers as PROVIDERS not interrupters.

The Critical Advertiser

First of all, you all are hilarious. I usually wince when reading comments, but I have laughed out loud several times.

To fancastfan: I hate you. I love you. I hate you. I --

To mray: I apologize; you will lose a day on ReGenesis, I promise. (And if you're in San Francisco, you don't want to go outside anyhow. Total crap weather, in the summer anyway.)

And to Dave Satan: the YouTube comment is interesting. One of the links in the post (sorry, I can't remember which one) has somebody talking about how nobody wants to advertise on the user generated content sites -- too dicey, no control over what kind of crappy video you get plastered next to, etc. So that's even less attractive ... and doesn't bode well for GoogTube.