There's a lot of chatter right now about the Internet on your telly. There's also a lot of questions that don't yet have answers. The biggest question is fundamental: do people actually want to be able to access the web from their televisions? The answer here is "maybe" and I'll explain the reasons later.

But there's another question that (some) people seem to be confused about: "If people want Internet access on their tellys, do they want widgets & walled gardens, or do they want full Internet access?" The answer to this one is is easy: full access. End of story.

Everyone hates walled gardens. They don't work - ask AOL, or any of the mobile network providers. Why do companies still persist in this folly? We've seen this played out at least 3 times so far in the life of the Internet, and the error always comes from the same, flawed thinking. Walls exist to keep people and stuff inside or to keep people and stuff out. Neither of these concepts really chimes with the meaning of the Internet - which exists and has power simply because is open to all people and all content. You'd think most people would have gotten this by now, but I guess companies persist in this because their monetization strategies depend on enforced artificial scarcity. Such strategies are doomed.

I'll write more on this over the coming weeks. In the meantime, here's an article in the NYT that'll get you started on some of this.