While I am happy for you that you have a billion content provider choices, I live in a rural area, too rural for either DSL or Cable.

Our television content runs via satellite, and internet via wireless broadband. Internet via satellite requires ridiculously expensive hardware, a second dish, and is slightly more expensive than the wireless card, which does not have the satellite lag (only important in gaming).

I doubt this particular method of providing content will receive market support, but it will open doors to other new approaches, and I’m sure an open source group will figure out a way to bypass the $300 hardware using a Kindle and PS3.

What makes Amazon interesting is the risks it is prepared to take.

Part of the issue is – people are forgetting the cable wire is the same wire that gets you your Internet. And that does go to the TV. So what’s all the noise in the middle about ( wi-fi/apple tv box)?

Why bother with yet another set of devices when the cable box is already streaming high quality videos.

Would you care if your YouTube video was delivered through your own Internet connection or by your cable company’s as long as you get to see it?

2. Second issue – I don’t think there’s a real need to merge TV and PC. PC is for the individual and videos on PCs are suited in a multitasking type situation, the big screen TV with good sound is for the family where everyone eventually has to agree to watch the same thing. 2-3 min clips from youtube don’t fit the TV scenario. In fact – probably only TV shows, sports and movies do. Cable companies are experimenting with some auto sales and house sales on TV – they won’t work either by the same logic.

And think of this – is it hard for cable companies to offer what Apple TV or Roku is offering? If it isn’t hard and if there’s money to be made – we know what will happen.