Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Riddle me this -- what do you get when you cross the cost savings of a peer-to-peer network with the stability, reliability, and security of a traditional CDN (Content Delivery Network)? The answer, if one Seattle startup has its way, might just be on-demand DVD-quality video at a fraction of the current cost.

Sitting atop Seattle's famed FX McRory's building in the picturesque Pioneer Square, a group of 15 dedicated employees at GridNetworks is attempting to go where many have ventured but few have succeeded; they're attempting to morph the concept of peer-to-peer into a business.

Last week I sat down with GridNetworks CEO, Jeff Payne, and VP of Sales and Marketing, Bo Wandell, to get the lowdown on their new service. Click on to find out what I gleaned from their vision for Grid.

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Whenever the subject of Microsoft's WMV codec comes up, I can't help but break out into my best Jerry McGuire impersonation. "Help me help you," I beg. "Help me help you." Yet, despite my ability to do a spot-on Tom Cruise impression, Microsoft just refuses to answer my pleas.

Perhaps I should back up.

Earlier this week Microsoft rolled out their highly-anticipated Xbox 360 update. The update was chock full of bug fixes and new features. However, to me, one of the most exciting new features was their long-overdue update to the 360's UPnP client. That's right; they finally added the ability to stream video from your computer to the 360. While it's technically always been possible to stream (using the 360's Media Center Extender technology), the new update gives the masses who aren't yet using a Media Center box a quick and easy way to stream video to the television. Or does it?

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

These past few weeks I did the unthinkable -- I traveled through Europe without a laptop. Oh sure, to those Luddite readers among us (all two of you), this might not sound like an impressive feat. However, to me, traveling without a laptop is something akin to a diabetic traveling without insulin, one of those peanut-phobic people traveling without an EpiPen, or Paris Hilton traveling without her Valtrex Tinkerbell. In other words, it's a tall order. You see, when it comes to international travel, a laptop is often a little like an Army drill sergeant during boot camp; it is my mother, my father, my email, my Skype, my IM, my DVD player, my torrent client, my television, etc. Stated succinctly, it's my world. Ditching it wouldn't be easy. Much like an expedition to climb Everest, this endeavor required careful planning.

The first gut-wrenching decision was that all communication would be done via internet cafes and hotel business centers (note to self: change all passwords). It was a tough call, but, hey, it's called a vacation for a reason. Giving up email access to friends and colleagues was one thing. Giving up entertainment was something altogether different and NOT something I was prepared to do. I would need a steady stream of television and movie content, and I would need it to come in a small sturdy package. In short, I would need some sort of portable media player.

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

There is something that I've never really understood when it comes to the digital entertainment debate. That is: where do people get their sense of entitlement with regard to content? Don't get me wrong -- I understand the hatred of DRM. I too have been bitten by incompatible formats and locked-down systems. I understand the digital claustrophobia one feels when in the bear hug warm embrace of DRM. DRM is often a nasty (if necessary) evil, and its existence nearly always degrades the user experience. I understand all that. What I don't get is the sense of entitlement people feel for the content itself. After all, it's not really our content. At the end of the day if that's how content owners choose to sell it, isn't that their right? Isn't ours simply a choice of to buy or not to buy?

Somewhere along the line people started to lose perspective in this whole DRM debate. Somewhere along the line people started to categorize music, movies, and other forms of entertainment as exempt from the normal rules of commerce. Well -- that's not quite true. It's not that people gave blanket exemptions to entertainment "theft." It's that for some odd reason, people determined that they were the ones who should choose what was right and wrong when it came to the buying and selling entertainment content. Instead of the all-too-familiar set of rules for selling goods (i.e. the seller and the buyer mutually agree on the terms of sale; if either of the parties doesn't agree, there is no transfer of goods) consumers felt perfectly justified in writing their own personal rules. Often times, merely because they could.

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Every now and again an advertisement is so perfect that one must draw attention to it. Sometimes it's the humor that sits up and demands to be seen. Sometimes it's the spot-on commentary. Sometimes it's the unique form. And, as is the case with TiVo's latest advert, sometimes it's all three. Even disregarding the delicious irony of TiVo -- a company that made its mark by skipping commercials -- reaching out with advertisements of its own, its newest ad is a doozy.

In a recent Television Week, TiVo placed an ad for its latest creation, a CableCARD compliant TiVo. The ad is brilliant on so many levels. First and foremost -- it's completely unclear to whom it's actually targeted. While the ad (taking the form of an open letter) is addressed to "Cable Friends," one must seriously question both its true audience and how friendly they really are. After all, no one really expects the boys in cable to read this letter and suddenly say, "Wait a minute; that battle we've been fighting to keep those TiVo guys out -- forget it!" It's just not going to happen.

Its target aside, the ad's true genius reveals itself in the dizzying levels of disingenuousness it is able to achieve. There is nary a thought or concept that reads true and sincere. Let's take a look at some of the points, shall we?

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

There is nothing quite like a format war to get keyboards a'clacking... and why not? We, the media, love a format war. Oh sure -- it screws the consumer: two perfectly good technologies rot away on shelves or, even worse, in R&D labs; countless advertising dollars are wasted; years of use are lost forever. Yes, that's all bad, but look on the bright side: format wars give us a chance to get in touch with that little Dvorak inside us all. They allow pundits and fanboys alike to boldly and without reservation declare winners months, years, or even decades ahead of their impeding victory.

Just this week my colleague and an editor at HDbeat, Ben Drawbaugh, did just that. Ben, armed with the questionable logic of "higher prices attract the customer," pronounced Blu-ray to be the winner. The siren-like call to pick a winner is irresistible, I know. I too have been bitten by the declaration bug in the past.

With that said, today we step back and do something different. Today we offer the unrealistic fanciful suggestion that the two forces join together and end this "war."

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Upon learning of Microsoft's rumored iPod competitor, the Zune, iPod fanatics could be heard around the globe: "It's just an iPod rip-off." "Can't the boys in Redmond do anything without copying the mighty Jobs?", loyal Appleists screamed at the top of their lungs. "It's got a scroll-wheel. It's got a screen. It will probably play music too! Will the copying ever stop?"

While all of the above may be true, repeat after me: It's not about the player. Don't get me wrong -- the iPod is a nifty little machine. In classic Apple style, the iPod is sleek and stylish; its clean lines and rolled edges ooze class and quality. Heck, the iPod is nearly lickable. However, while going to market with such a device certainly doesn't hurt your chances, it's not the root of the iPod's success. The secret to Apple's success in the online music market has always been the ease of a) buying music and b) getting music onto the device. It's really that simple. In short, it's all about the ecosystem.

For years the debate has raged on. Microsoft has stood firm; they have boldly and publicly declared, "We give the user choices. We're not about an end-to-end solution. Our PlaysForSure program allows a user to pick the device that best suits his or her needs. Blah Blah Blah." Apple, on the other hand, has chosen a different route. Much like Henry Ford's oft-quoted response to choice in the Model-T, Apple has said, "You can use any device you want as long as it's the iPod." There is no doubt who the winner was in round one. The overwhelming success of the iPod speaks volumes.

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

It's official; the video blogging world is coming into its own. The harbinger to this digital coming of age? Well it might just be the explosion of everybody's favorite rocket, Rocketboom. After all -- a medium can't be truly successful if there aren't the predictable pulls over money and the ever-present "creative control."

Arguably the most successful video blog ever, Rocketboom and its host Amanda Congdon have heretofore been the poster children for video blog victory. Fueled by its seductively simple recipe of one part clever writing, one part quirky-but-likeable-host, and about ten parts really tight sweaters, Rocketboom has from its October 2004 inception grown to a massive daily audience of 250,000.

In December of 2005 Rocketboom took yet another step towards legitimization when it became featured content on TiVo's video download offering.

Rocketboom followed up on this TiVo victory in February by selling its first advertisement block (via eBay) for $40,000 dollars. Over the course of the following months Rocketboom sold other chunks of advertising, and while it hadn't sold enough advertising to firmly label it a long-term success, the future for Rocketboom was definitely looking bright.

Yet, despite the introduction of money (or perhaps because of it) all was not well in Rocketboom land. And while Rocketboom is a product of the Internet, the story is as old as television itself. It's the age old battle between the "talent" and the "management."

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Congratulations!  You've taken the first step; you've decided to buy a new television.  

The problem, as you quickly discovered, is that the world of televisions is a crowded place.  Determining which set is worthy of your hard-earned cash can be a daunting experience. Oh sure, you've done a little research. "Research," of course means that you cornered the first "TV geek" friend you could find and asked him (uh, or her) the ridiculously open-ended question "Which TV should I buy?"  

Your friend, having been suckered by this question before, looked at you with an expression that clearly said, "Would you walk into a random doctor's office and nonchalantly ask 'What surgery should I have?'" and went on to do some skillful hand-waving that ultimately deflected your question. Your friend (no idiot) knows that if he actually answered the question, he'd forever be held responsible for the "quirks" any TV is bound to have.

We here at Engadget feel your pain. We don't feel your pain enough to tell you what to get, but we do feel your pain.  So, to help you out a little, we've compiled a list of "IT" TV's. Below are five of the top "mob-selected" televisions.  In some cases they are the best of the best. In other cases they provide good value.  However, in each case, you won't be alone if you're looking at these sets.  In short, these are five of the top buzz-worthy TVs, and just for fun we've included each set's "IT" girl equivalent.

Every week Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

In last week's The Clicker we suggested adding advertising to YouTube's streams in an effort to help alleviate what could soon become the crushing burden of their success.

In this, the final installment in the YouTube trilogy, we ask the question "What if YouTube were treated like a broadcast network?" That is to say, what would happen if we used some (very) basic and simplified television economics to look at YouTube's success? The results might just explain why VCs are circling high over video startups.

First, there's a disclaimer: wild assumptions will be used. Whenever possible there will be an explanation, but not always. Take these numbers and suggestions with a grain of salt. They're meant to demonstrate the enormous potential of micro-content. They're not intended to be a legitimate roadmap to success. In short, it would be ridiculous to take them too seriously.

Don't think that it's right to compare an upstart web company to media giants like NBC, CBS, and ABC? Perhaps not, but it's fun and who knows – perhaps YouTube will fare better than you think.

Let's start with the same example we used last week, Judson Laipply's "Evolution of Dance." As of this writing the clip has now been watched over 15 million times. For those keeping track at home, 15 million eyeballs (err... 30 million eyeballs) is enough to best all but one of last week's sitcoms -- the sole survivor being the "Will and Grace" series finale which drew a Nielsen-estimated 18.4 million viewers.

Every week Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Recently we talked about the upstart sensation, YouTube. As a social phenomenon and a growing entity, YouTube's rise to glory has been nothing short of meteoric. In just one year YouTube has taken its business from zero to pumping out more than 35 Million streams per day, and it's still growing. That's pretty darn impressive, but, as the immortal Rod Tidwell once said, "Show me the money!"

You see -- there's a fairly developed pattern when it comes to replacing existing media outlets with their internet counterparts. The first step is to see if people will buy what you're selling when the cost is zero. YouTube has clearly been successful in that regard. In fact, their success has even convinced media giant AOL to create their own (nearly) feature-for-feature knock-off (see: http://communityvideo.aol.com/). [Disclaimer: this publication's parent company is owned by AOL.]

However, using venture capital money to subsidize the trafficking of copyrighted material is just the first step. Eventually, the fledgling business will have to hit step two: making money. It's there where the wheat is separated from the chaff. It's there where we find out if a new medium will enjoy long-term success or fizzle away like the pet rock.

Take blogs for instance: While blogs began as simple online personal journals, it didn't take long for enterprising souls to recognize that blogs held much more power than simply sharing your cat's diet with your 12 "readers." Yes, the majority of the blogs out there are still "by the people for the people." Yet, the medium has also spawned quite a few commercial sites (this site included). It's this commercialization that ensures the future of the medium.

But where is YouTube's legitimization? More specifically, where is the path to profitability? Millions of streams per day is quite impressive, but it's also quite expensive. Estimates for YouTube's traffic have been pegged as high as 200TB per day. No, that 'T' was not a typo; that's Terabytes. Bandwidth costs alone most likely approach one million dollars a month. Add on top of that the cost of running a service as massive as YouTube's, and you quickly come to the same conclusion: It's time for YouTube to stop growing and start making money.

Every week Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Riddle me this: what do you get when you combine a nifty little piece of Flash software, some backend mojo, an army of cellphone-toting teens, and one "Lazy Sunday" clip? The answer is, of course, the largest online video streaming service on the planet, YouTube.

While YouTube is preparing to celebrate just its first birthday, the upstart media company is already changing the face of the web. Modern surfers won't surf long without running into the seemingly ubiquitous YouTube player. Whether it's being used by the politicos pointing to Stephen Colbert's all-out Blitzkrieg on the President or, on the lighter side, by budding young directors, actors, and athletes eager to show off their Ninja Skillz, Light Saber Skillz, or Soccer Skillz, YouTube is quickly becoming the micro-content provider to beat. YouTube's traffic (well over 30 million streams per day) bests its nearest competitor, Yahoo, by 100 percent. Other giants such as Google and AOL lag even further behind.

The secret to YouTube's big success? Thinking small. While other players spent the bulk of their time and effort courting the media giants and their large video catalogs. YouTube courted, well, you. More specifically, YouTube made it ridiculously easy to upload and post videos shot on cell phones, camcorders, etc. This led to an explosion of both their viewership and their “catalog.” It's this grassroots support that's led to the company's phenomenal growth.

Every week Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

You could all but see the gears turning in his head as he pondered the statement. "Clearly," he thought to himself, "I've misheard. He can't seriously be saying what I think he's saying."

"Excuse me?" Bill replied assuming that he would hear something different the second time around.

"That's right. Apple wants to build a Media Center PC."

There was a brief pause as Bill closely inspected his colleague. Blue Jeans, check... turtleneck, check... half-soothing / half-arrogant smile, check... This was the real deal; this was Steve Jobs.

"Let me get this straight…" Gates, now a little bit confused, continued, "You want to build a Windows Media Center Edition PC?"

"That's right."

"Apple?"

"Yes. Apple!"

"Let me come at this from a slightly different angle. You're telling me that Apple wants to ship a Media Center PC?"

"That's what I'm telling you."

"You do understand that Media Center is part of the OS?"

"Yes, I understand."

Every week Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

99% of the time I'm just your average mild-mannered tech-writer. However, every now and again, when the conditions are just right, I stroll over to my bookcase, reach to the top shelf and gently pull the third book from the left, "Celine Dion: The Magic Behind the Singing Horse." This simple action puts into motion a Rube-Goldbergian series of events which eventually reveals the secret passageway to my lead-lined den. It is there where I don my tinfoil hat and assume the role of my alter-ego, Dr. Conspiracy Theorist.

Oh sure, the realist in me understands that the motivations of large entities are, in truth, driven by the confluence of inertia and ignorance, and not instead by some deep-seated hatred of my hopes and wishes. However, it's an empowering (and self-aggrandizing) exercise to assume that large corporations, governments, and even dictators are all out to screw me, the little guy.

Today, I contemplate the ongoing Blu-ray / HD DVD war, and as I sit in this windowless bunker with only the sound of my Remington striking the ink onto the page to keep me company, I ask the question that seems to be so often overlooked: "Why isn't there consensus on the red portion of the specs?"

It's clear why neither the BDA (Blu-ray Disc Association) nor the DVD Forum (HD DVD) will raise the white flag, capitulate, and end the blue-laser war. In addition to having already invested years of research and development which they hope will lead to lucrative licensing fees, there are also the intangibles that come from working with the beast you know. Dumping your format and adopting that of your competitor is no small chore and despite the fact that we, the media and the consumers, like to pretend that a blue laser is a blue laser – the two formats are quite different.

Having said that, without the extra "Conspiracy Power" of the tinfoil hat, I found little reason why the two governing bodies couldn't come together and peacefully co-exist on something as well-understood as the red laser. With the hat, on the other hand, it came to me – they're trying to kill independent content.

But let's back up for a second.