I'm about done with TV. When I was a kid, we had 3 networks plus PBS for Sesame Street. Now, our satellite service offers hundreds of channels, but it's not enough. Or, to look at it another way, it's too much. When you have 100 channels but only a half-dozen shows worth watching, I feel like I'm getting ripped off, especially when I'm paying a monthly fee to watch those shows, most of which I could get over the air.

On top of that, I can watch most of what I want, thanks to sites like Hulu.com, online. All I need is a way to mirror my computer screen to a TV, and I'm almost set, minus the Discovery Channel, which charges way too much to get recent episodes of Mythbusters, and a web collection of family-friendly cartoons.

More and more mainstream media is being offered via the Internet, whether on the web or via stores like iTunes or the XBox 360, and even though the networks now offer most of their content online, it hasn't taken off very well, and on the Internet, independent media (YouTube, podcasts, etc.) has done about as well as Internet media. This leaves mainstream media a bit nervous as their number of competitors increases from 4 networks to hundreds of cable networks to millions of independent content creators.

So what does mainstream media need to do to still come out on top? As a producer of independent media, maybe I should keep this to myself, because I'm helping my biggest competitor, but if their highly-paid marketers thought about it for a minute and could convince the Board of Directors, based on plenty of statistics, that this is a good idea, they don't need me to tell them.

The answer? Go to any video sharing site: YouTube, Revver, you name it. On every video page, you'll find a method to embed that video onto another site or include a link in an email. These sites got huge because they allow others in the most effective way possible to show others what's so cool about their site. But you'll note that you can't embed the latest episode of Hannah Montana in your fan site. Why? Because mainstream media desperately wants to hold onto their media lest someone use it without their ability to count eyeballs and make money on ads. But of course, YouTube knows exactly how many people watch their videos, regardless where it plays, because it's being pulled from their server. Should they insert ads into their content, as they've begun to do in some videos, and as Revver has done from the beginning, they can tell their advertisers exactly how many people have seen their ads and can charge accordingly. People will advertise their content and draw eyes to their content for them for free.

Of course, there's a trade-off. By allowing embedding, the producers can't control where, when, or how their content is viewed, but that's already the case. I can record my TV shows on a DVR, import them into my computer, rip out the ads, copy them onto my iPod, and watch them in bed. The media companies can, at best, estimate the number of eyes watching, and as a former Nielsen "family," I can tell you that you can say, "I'm watching this show" even when I'm not, so it's painfully inaccurate. But someone else can make money from their content by putting ads on the page where the video is embedded. So? The producers still make money, more than they would otherwise.

Think how great this would be not only for the media companies, but for families. Parents could literally build a site for their kids, full of shows they allow their kids to watch. They could control not only what programs, but what individual episodes the kids could watch.

Will mainstream media figure this out? I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath. They have a lousy track record when it comes to giving people what they want, but if they want to survive in the new media world, they need to see what new media, their competition, provides for the consumer: giving the consumers what they want, when they want it, and how they want to consume it.