In a post last week, BoomTown wrote that Cisco would introduce a consumer telepresence product.

It did today in San Francisco at a press event. It is called, inexplicably, “Umi” telepresence.

I’ll be honest, it sounds like the kind of sushi I typically refuse to eat, because I am not as adventurous as I like to pretend I am.

Actually, it seems to be a variation on you-me.

Get it? You and me and telepresence. As in “Star Trek” for non-geeks.

According to Wikipedia, here are some other definitions for the word:

“Umi may refer to: Umi, ‘sea’ in Japanese language; UMI, Universal Mobile Interface; Umi, Fukuoka, a town in Japan; Umi-a-Liloa, the king of the island of Hawaii; Umi Ryuzaki, a character in the fictional manga series ‘Magic Knight Rayearth’ by CLAMP.”

“Connect with a touch of the button,” is the motto for the giant Silicon Valley networking company for Umi.

And, frankly, I wish I could have telepresenced from my bed at home with it.

You can, using Umi with your existing high-definition television and high-speed broadband. It’s in three parts: A camera, a remote control and, ugh, yet another set-top box to pile on the rest on the shelf in your home living room, as you can see below.

Cisco said the device is scheduled to be available to consumers on November 14 in Best Buy (BBY) Magnolia Home Theater stores, as well as at bestbuy.com and umi.cisco.com “for the suggested retail price of $599 with a monthly fee of $24.99 for unlimited ?mi calls, video messaging and video storage.”

At the short and sweet event, Cisco execs touted their entry into the crowded consumer video-conferencing arena.

“It’s all about tasting the chocolate,” said Cisco exec Gina Clark about her box of Umi, which will work with Google Voice Chat–but not Skype and Apple (AAPL) iChat yet.

It also has the seal of approval from Oprah Winfrey, who will doubtlessly use it in some Oprah manner on her talk show.

Clark mentions tasting the chocolate several more times to knock the point home that if you try it, you’ll like it.

I can’t believe I ate the whole Umi!

Now, Cisco–which really is obsessed with the chocolate metaphor today–is making me have a chomp in a demo.

And, while I am no reviewer, it is pretty sweet, and looks great, well beyond what is available via Internet video chat.

Until the inevitable shaky video appears, here is the full press release from Cisco (CSCO):

Cisco umi Press Release

No, you may not, and that’s what I said on Leo Laporte’s terrific “This Week in Tech” online show last Sunday about why Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced his recent $100 million donation to schools in Newark, New Jersey, on the same day as the splashy Hollywood movie–”The Social Network”–eviscerating him premiered.

Because the powerful television talk show host wanted him on that week, since she was focusing on education reform! And what Oprah Winfrey wants, Oprah Winfrey gets–which is pretty much my motto for life.

Bad timing? Good timing? Whatev–kids in need get a piece of the Silicon Valley wunderkind’s pile of moolah, so I am good with it no matter when Zuckerberg announced it.

Also joining Laporte as guests on the program were tech super-couple Veronica Belmont of Tekzilla and gdgt’s Ryan Block. The show is a lively one.

Topics included were: TechCrunch’s Angelgate (I really have to ignore this faux-controversy now), the alleged Facebook smartphone, China spying on Gmail, making room for new set-top boxes, Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt’s Bing FUD, Zynga’s Farmville panic, brodown throwdown and, of course, the Facebook Movie.

Here’s the full video:

Solution: Logitech, one of Google’s partners, will help scare the rest of us, too.

That inscrutable/creepy ad is for Revue, a set-top box that will come bundled with Google’s (GOOG) platform this fall (thanks to Engadget for flagging). And if you watch the other videos in Logitech’s campaign, you’ll see that the company is trying to argue that Revue will make your TV feel less “lonely.”

So that makes a bit of sense, I guess. And I’m writing about it, so I guess it works. I just don’t know of many consumer electronic success stories that use the terror/befuddlement approach. But maybe this one will be different!

Built on more than 100 patents or patents-pending, OnLive plans to deliver games either to the browser via plug-ins or to the TV through a micro set-top box.

Liveblog

Cloud game service OnLive take the stage to demo its pre-release game-delivery system.

10:16 am: Walt joins Kara onstage to talk about the power of cloud computing and to introduce OnLive.

10:17 am: Steve Perlman, CEO and founder of OnLive, comes on and says in two weeks, users will be able to log on and start cloud gaming.

Perlman says gaming is the first offering from OnLive, and that this is the hardest thing to do in the cloud.

Walt reminds the audience that Perlman worked on QuickTime at the young Apple Computer (AAPL) and the early Microsoft (MSFT), among others.

10:19 am: Perlman shows the Web interface for playing and watching games.

He shows that the games play on the computer, even though the full games would not run on the hardware he’s using if it were local.

10:20 am: Perlman says that as long as you are within 1,000 miles of OnLive’s data center, there is no perceptible latency thanks to new, proprietary compression technology.

10:21 am: Perlman shows how OnLive can create and serve huge volumes of 3-D video “brag clips” just as fast as the games.

The whole interface is a movable wall of individual videos.

10:23 am: Now Perlman brings out his “micro-console” to demo on a TV.

He says it’s very inexpensive and that depending on the business model OnLive adopts, he could even offer it for free to users who sign up for the service. According to Perlman, “The electronics inside cost less than the case and connectors.”

10:25 am: Perlman restarts the little black box, which is the size of a large deck of cards.

The interface on the TV micro-console is the same as the Web version.

Walt asks how many users can be online. Perlman says it is scalable to millions of users.

10:27 am: Walt asks what the price is.

Perlman says it will be less than $15 a month, but also hints that access to individual games will add additional costs.

10:28 am: Now Perlman starts an “unauthorized” demo of OnLive on the iPad. No Flash here.

He says the interface OnLive designed is also great for the iPad.

He sends a message to his “friend” who is playing another game, then begins playing a game called Borderlands on the iPad itself.

10:31 am: Perlman says that the game he’s playing wouldn’t play on any hardware in the room (only very high-end gaming consoles and computers).

10:32 am: Now Perlman opens the version for the iPhone–this one doesn’t work quite right, but Perlman says it’s prototype software and should work because to the iPhone, it’s just streaming media.

Walt asks for examples of what else he can deliver besides games.

Perlman answers by saying that the data center OnLive will be using may be the largest supercomputer in the world when it turns on in two weeks.

He says delivering video would be easy. He says OnLive’s microbox can run software that is too complex to run on any computer currently using Microsoft software.

Now he plays a Harry Potter movie on the iPad: No lag in play.

Now Perlman shows something new: A photo-realistic face generated with the same technology that was used to alter Brad Pitt’s face in “Benjamin Button.”

10:37 am: Perlman could keep going, but Walt and Kara bring the demo to a close.

D8 is on a short coffee break–back in a few with Tim Armstrong of AOL (AOL)

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as possible. It is not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

In April, a federal appeals court found that the FCC had overstepped its bounds when it censured Comcast (CMCSA) for violating its net neutrality principles and in so doing, called into question the agency’s authority to regulate the Internet. In May, 282 members of Congress, from both political parties, petitioned him to suspend the FCC’s plans to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, a move that would, once and for all, put broadband under the agency’s purview and clarify its jurisdiction.

And so today, Genachowski heads an agency whose legal authority is in question, as is its ability to implement a much needed National Broadband Plan. And his ambitious policy agenda is, for all intents and purposes, on hold.

What will he do now to regain momentum and fix the country’s ailing broadband policies?

1:19 pm: You’re a different sort of FCC chairman, aren’t you, Walt asks. You have somewhat of a tech background.

Genachowski: I do. I spent the last 10 years in the tech space. I’m probably the only FCC chairman who worked for the same company as Jeffrey Katzenberg.

1:21 pm: The conversation quickly moves on to an issue top of mind today: broadband and how lousy it is in the United States. Genachowski talks for a moment about broadband, saying the U.S. is grievously behind. He cites a survey that ranked the U.S. 40th out of 40 when it came to rate of change of capacity. “That means we are moving more slowly than any other country in that survey.”

1:23 pm: Walt jumps in to note that U.S. broadband customers are being screwed on performance AND cost. “They have slower broadband than lots of other people and they pay more for it,” he says. “You’re the head of the FCC: Why won’t you fix this?”

Genachowski: Because I thought you might invite me, I spent the last year working on a broadband plan. But there’s no silver bullet. There are things we can do to drive more innovation. Unleashing mobile is the most important thing we can do. There’s no doubt in my mind that mobile broadband will drive innovation. We have an enormous chance with 4G.

1:25 pm: Genachowski–The FCC plan that I inherited provided for new spectrum coming on the market that’s about a threefold increase over now. Until you see the new demand being driven by devices like the iPhone and the iPad. It’s 40 times. And we need to address that.

Walt jumps in, noting that spectrum is finite. Is there enough spectrum available to solve the problem?

Genachowski: There’s enough available if we have the right policies in place. We’ve got to work on policies that themselves create better efficiency, policies for trading spectrum, for example.

1:28 pm: Genachowski recalls that a few years ago there was a band of spectrum that no one knew what to do with. Finally, someone said, ‘why don’t we just put this spectrum out unlicensed and see what people do with it?’ And the first thing that people came up with were garage openers…and later someone discovered that it could be used for Wi-Fi. Obviously, an important innovation, but also part of the congestion problem. So what we’re trying to do is identify things like that,” he says. We’re also looking into spectrum-related efficiency.

1:30 pm: Walt–Are you going to take spectrum away from TV broadcasters?

Genachowski says he has offered them the opportunity to put their spectrum up for auction. We think this creates a mechanism for freeing up spectrum that’s currently tied up, he says.

1:31 pm: Walt asks about Genachowski’s broadband plan. Does the FCC have the power to bring it to fruition?

Genachowski: First thing to understand about the plan is that we were asked to develop a plan that would apply to the FCC and other parts of the government as well. It includes recommendations for the FCC, for Congress, etc. So focusing on the things we recommended for ourselves, there’s no dispute that we have authority. With respect to others, there’s a court ruling that’s created problems for us. So what’s important is that we move forward on the broadband policies and strategies.

We run something at the FCC called the Universal Service Fund. It promotes universal phone service and it does a good job of that. One of the recommendations of our plan is that this fund be used to support broadband instead of legacy phone service. This court decision is preventing us from doing that.

1:34 pm: Genachowski–No one really cares what section of the statute we point to except for the lobbyists and lawyers. It would be unfortunate if that process slowed us down as a country on improving our broadband infrastructure.

1:36 pm: Genachowski–We need to have enough of a broadband infrastructure in the United States that companies want to do business here.

1:37 pm: Walt wonders if it’s even possible to get some sort of policy implemented that would improve broadband for consumers.

Genachowski says it is, but concedes that “some elements of the system are broken” and prevent the country from moving as quickly as it could on its infrastructure initiatives. “We’re kidding ourselves if we think that the infrastructure will come simply because we want it to come….We need dramatic investment and we need an environment that encourages innovation.”

1:39 pm: Walt recalls a question from yesterday’s session with Steve Jobs about AT&T’s capacity problem. Noting the dramatic increase in demand for data on AT&T’s network, he asks if Genachowski can fix it so that people who complain about not being able to make calls on AT&T (T) will be able to make calls.

Genachowski: I think on an issue like this where AT&T hears from its consumers every day about how bad it is, I don’t worry so much. I worry more about issues where consumers are disempowered. Things like the number of consumers who don’t know what their broadband speeds are, for example. Ultimately, we want to give consumers the information they need to be better consumers. … What we’re looking at is digital labels that will show consumers what their actual broadband speeds are as opposed to the speeds they’re told they’re getting. I think we’re in an era when information technology creates opportunities to empower the consumer to make the market work more efficiently.

1:44 pm: Walt talks a bit about the state of the set-top box. The boxes that the cable companies give you are awful, he says. But there’s a law meant to promote options. Why aren’t you enforcing it?

Genachowski says he is, noting that consumers can buy CableCards.

Walt: Why don’t you make companies make better CableCards and better cable boxes?

Genachowski concedes that the CableCard strategy hasn’t quite worked out the way the FCC had hoped. The agency is now looking to see if there’s a sort of universal gateway that will solve the set-top box issue and allow innovation in the living room, he says. But the pay folks are concerned about how this will preserve the integrity of the pay stream. We’re at the point technologically where we can explore devices that preserve that pay stream while improving the broadband experience, he says, and we’ve set a goal of 2012 for developing a device like this.

Q & A

Q: Why is the FCC putting the 4G spectrum next to the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth bands?

A: I don’t think that will happen. At the FCC we have terrific engineers who understand these interference issues.

Q: What do you think about rewriting the Telecommunications Act of 1996?

A: I think it’s true that the act gives us the authority that we need. But I also think that by virtue of its structure, it’s not quite ideal. I’m doing everything I can with the following goal: We need solutions, speed, etc., because we’re not just competing with ourselves, we’re competing with the rest of the world.

Q: Does Obama have an iPad?

A: I don’t know whether he has an iPad yet, but I’m sure that will be taken care of.

Q: Your thoughts on malware and security?

A: The dangers are very serious. The systems that should be in place aren’t in place yet. I’m very concerned about the substance of this and whether in Washington we can do what needs to be done to ensure the security of our networks.

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as possible. It is not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

Steve Burke is about to take on a very big job: Combining GE’s (GE) NBC Universal with Comcast’s programming assets to create a television colossus. Good thing he has spent a lifetime in TV preparing for it.

But even without those responsibilities, Burke has plenty on his plate. As COO of the country’s biggest cable company, he helps steer Comcast (CMCSA) through tricky waters: Net neutrality, feisty file-sharers, sleeping tech guys, etc.

In certain circles–perhaps one you’re in sitting right now–the central question Burke and Comcast have to answer is: How are you going to survive the attempts of Google/Apple/everyone on the Web to turn you into an irrelevant dumb-pipe provider?

But the flip side of this question is just as valid: How can anyone really dislodge the company that controls the pipe that makes TV?

Liveblog

Kara starts off with the basics: Why do you want to buy NBC?

Burke: We’ve always believed that content and distribution go better together. We’ve had distribution, we’ve been trying to get content for a while. Tried to get Disney (DIS), came close to buying Universal when Vivendi owned the whole thing.

8:16 am: Kara–but lots of companies have tried marrying content and distribution. That doesn’t always work.

8:16 am: Burke–It has for News Corp. (NWS). But in our case, we already have the ability to put up 70,000 hours of content for video on demand. But we don’t have all the content we’d like. We don’t have day-and-date movies. We’d like all prime-time programming on VOD, etc. The thing that slows that down is the natural negotiations that you have to go through when you don’t own the content.

8:18 am: Kara–You’re also worried about becoming a dumb pipe, without control, right?

8:18 am: Burke: I like to think of it as opportunities. Look at DreamWorks (DWA)–they are worried about declining DVD sales, and they’d like to be able to do electronic sell-through. We’re in a position to help craft that evolution.

8:19 am: Kara–Are you sure consumers really want to watch this stuff on TVs, as opposed to iPads, etc?

8:20 am: Burke–We’re all for choice, anytime, anywhere. We believe consumers want that, too, and “it’s frustratingly slow” to get that to happen. “But I think that’s the world we’re all crashing into,” and “you can’t stop it anyway.”

8:21 am: What’s going with Hulu, which you’re going to own a piece of?

8:21 am: Burke–Whether it’s Hulu or Fancast, which we own all of, “people want their shows on the Internet. And they’re going to get their shows on the Internet.” Not sure if it’s going to be ad-supported or a paid model. “I know–I’ve read”–that Hulu is going to try a paid model.

8:22 am: We also support the TV-everywhere concept (spearheaded by Time Warner–get what you want on the Web, as long as you pay for a cable subscription).

8:23 am: Kara–you’re going to be running NBC, right?

8:23 am: When the deal closes, Jeff Zucker will run the entity. But he’ll report to me.

8:24 am: By the way, content and distribution don’t naturally work together. You have to make them work together. You have to do things that sometimes aren’t immediately advantageous for both sides.

8:24 am: Kara–Let’s talk about your individual businesses, as well as Steve Jobs’s expressed lack of interest in getting into TV. So cable is most important to you, right?

8:25 am: Burke–Cable provides the majority of NBCU’s cash flow. They’re the best part of the media landscape right now. Majority of cash at most entertainment companies comes from cable right now, and even more so at NBCU. But we also think there’s upside with Universal studio and NBC broadcast.

8:26 am: Okay, but give me an honest assessment of broadcast. What did you think of the Conan deal? Did they call you?

8:27 am: Burke–as the deal closes, it’s not our company. We can’t manage anything. To a degree, we’re watching things in the same way you are. There’s clearly a separation that exists. Because of regulators [natch].

8:27 am: Anyway, broadcast TV has been challenged for some time. But right now it looks to be on the upswing. Ads are coming back. retrans consent, where broadcasters will get money from cable operators, is coming. But broadly, if you look at TV, including cable, the overall television business is making as much money as ever.

8:29 am: Kara–do you still need broadcast networks anymore, anyway?

8:29 am: Burke–for big events, you can’t get a bigger audience. And that’s very attractive. We’re not naive. We know the business is “very challenged.” But in the next few years, there can be a real upside. We can invest in the business. If you’re in the network TV business, you have to spend the money to be competitive: on pilots, on encouraging creative people to work, etc. Note that NBC spent a lot more on pilots for this fall than they did a year ago. “If you’re in it, you have to be in it to invest and win. You can’t cut your way to success in broadcast TV.” [Which was Zucker's strategy last year. So what does that mean?]

8:31 am: Burke moves on to the Universal movie studio. It can move the existing library to different platforms, help it migrate from DVD to electronic sell-through, etc.

8:32 am: Will Burke have to do a lot of cost-cutting? When we bought AT&T (T), we did. But in this case, it’s not about costs. There’s very little overlap. It’s more of a case of trying to put everything together.

8:33 am: Kara: So will you sell anything off after the deal goes through?

Burke: No. We want the cable systems, but the other stuff has value, too. And all of the parts can work together.

8:34 am: Kara–How do you look at competitors like Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG). What do you think of Google TV?

8:34 am: Our real competitors are the satellite companies and telcos. Right now. The real challenge is delivering all that data. You need infrastructure–pipe–for that. That’s how you deliver tonnage. And it’s going to be that way for a long time. The Web can deliver video, but not the same tonnage, in the same way. There are a lot of companies that want to get to the TV set. And I think all of them can be complementary. But people who subscribe to us want ESPN, CNBC, etc.

8:36 am: Kara–But why do need bundles and tiers, anyway?

8:36 am: Burke: The programmers we work with want full distribution. And you pay $50, $60, and you get 200 channels. And the ecosystem works very well for the programmers, and it works well for us.

8:36 am: Kara–and for customers?

8:37 am: Burke–TV in the U.S. is better than anywhere in the world. It’s natural to say you only want to pay for two channels. And we could technically do that, and we could offer a less expensive bundle. But I think the business model has evolved to be what it is right now, and it’s been successful for both sides of the equation.

8:37 am: But again, people are picking and choosing what they want on the Web. And some of them seem to be turning off cable as well. Aren’t you worried about that?

8:38 am: Burke: We worry all the time. But the fact of the matter is, it’s counterintuitive. I have five kids. And they all consume media different ways. But quarter after quarter, year after year, cable subs go up. It has never gone down. There’s no evidence that people are giving up their cable. If people want ESPN or CNBC, they’re going to subscribe. In the future, you’ll have more stuff on more devices. But at the end of the day, it’s in the programmers’ interest to get affiliate fees for their stuff.

8:40 am: Kara–But don’t you think people want a la carte?

8:40 am: Burke–I’d like to buy the first section of the Wall Street Journal, and not the rest of the paper [followed by Kara fumbling with some math].

8:40 am: In any case, you’ve got much more choice now than you had 10 years ago. It’ll be the same thing in the next 10 years.

8:41 am: Kara–which devices are important to you beyond TV?

8:41 am: Burke–The iPad, of course. We just showed off that new iPad app/TV controller that will replace the crummy search and navigation that exists on the set-top box now.

8:43 am: Kara–Is 3-D coming to the home?

8:43 am: Burke–Yep. This won’t be like HD sets, where they started off very expensive and came down relatively slowly. We’ll get a point pretty quickly where if you’re buying a nice TV set, it will have 3-D. Now there are a lot of places where 3-D doesn’t enhance the experience. And they need to figure it out. For instance, you don’t 3-D when you have overhead shots at at a football game. So we need to figure out what percent of stuff you watch will have 3-D. But it’s coming.

8:44 am: Kara–Jobs talked about collapsing windows, but windows don’t really seem to ever collapse.

8:45 am: Burke–Right. They are narrowing, but only slightly. You want to have windows, but make sure they have a purpose. For instance, I think the best place to have a movie for the general public is the movie theater. I think that’s going to be the same for a long time.

8:46 am: Kara–But what if you don’t want to go the theater?

8:46 am: Burke–I don’t know. I think there’s a real benefit to having it in theaters opening weekend. But 90 days out, I’m not sure. It probably doesn’t have to be windowed for 90 days; you should be able to get it on VOD, etc.

8:47 am: Kara–One more time: What’s the most important device, either real or overhyped?

8:47 am: Burke–The iPad. I bring it everywhere I go. It’s so elegant. And so early in its life cycle. But I’m looking forward to other tablets, too. The big picture is that all this stuff will enhance the value of great content. That’s the bet we made with NBC, that it can get to more people, over more devices, and get more valuable that way. People are always worried about technology draining value from media, but each new wave of technology has been additive.

Q&A:

Q: Do you think your pipe business will become separate from rest of your business and become commoditized?

Burke: For starters, we’re already separating programming from video (which includes TV, high-speed, etc.

Q: What about the theory that big mergers, like the ones you’re doing, are products of hubris more than business savvy?

Burke: I know that theory. We’ve done a lot of deals. “Every single time we’ve done a deal, Wall Street has said, ‘Why are you doing that?’” But we have a view that content and distribution work together if properly managed. And that a company that gets bigger can do cool things with technology, if you do it right. “But we’re totally aware that there are a lot of people saying–’Why don’t you stay where you are?’ We think we’re getting a fairly priced deal for NBCU.”

Q: Do you think there will be a market for set-top boxes that consumers buy on their own, with features they want?

Burke: Complicated question. Each MSO is a conglomeration of different technologies. We’d love it if people bought their own set-top boxes. We’d save a ton of money. But the different technologies involved make that difficult.

Q: What’s your mobile strategy?

Burke: We’ve invested in Clearwire. We’re rolling out WiMax. We’re big believers in Wi-Fi. The iPad makes you want Wi-Fi meshing in cities, and we’re working on that. But the traditional cellphone business, as a fourth product to complement TV, landline and Web, doesn’t make sense for us.

Q: You guys have been good about chasing after malware, botnets, etc. What can you do to get others to emulate you?

Burke: The Internet business is crucial for us. It’s a growth driver. So we have to provide really reliable, really fast Internet service. And we believe in open internet. But you have to deal with congestion and protect copyrights and prevent malware and spam, and we invest a lot in that. It’s a very tricky balancing act, to make sure that the highway is really fast, but also controlled.

Q: I run Hillcrest, and Hulu blocked my service. Will you do something different when you own NBC?

Burke: “It’s not time for me to answer that question.”

Kara: “Really?”

Burke: “Really.”

Q: Your customers hate you. What are doing about that?

Burke: We’re working on customer service, spending a lot of money on it. If you don’t take care of your customers, they’re going to go somewhere else. The physical networks are getting more sophisticated. But we want to improve them.

Q: Apologies, missed the question here.

Burke is explaining that TV software platform is “balkanized” compared with the Web, where it’s much easier to get stuff to work together.

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as possible. It is not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

There was this from Google Senior Product Manager Rishi Chandra: “We’re going to have the same impact on the TV experience that the smartphone had on the phone experience.”

And then this from Google CEO Eric Schmidt: “TV has not been reinvented in any significant way since color television was brought in in the mid-1960s.”

With Google TV, Google clearly believes it is ushering in the rebirth of television. But, to Schmidt’s point, sure, TV hasn’t been reinvented in 50 years, but not for lack of trying.

The evolutionary path of the device is littered with failed Internet-TV initiatives. As the Time Magazine cover from Apr. 12, 1993 suggests, this is not a new idea. Nor has it been a successful one, at least not in implementations to date.

Steve Perlman’s WebTV, one the earliest products to bring the Internet to television, failed to gain significant market traction and didn’t do much better after it was acquired by Microsoft (MSFT) and turned it into MSNTV.

AOL TV, America Online’s (AOL) effort to extend its dominance from the PC to the television with a Web-TV hybrid, was scuttled in 2003, three years after it launched.

Brought to market with the help of some impressive hardware partners, like Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Microsoft’s Media Center Extenders never really caught on.

Launched more recently, Yahoo’s (YHOO) Connected TV initiative hasn’t garnered much notice. Then there’s Kodak’s (EK) Theater HD Player, which doesn’t seem to be doing that well either.

So what makes Google (GOOG) think it’s going to succeed where so many have failed? Particularly with a platform that, frankly, looks a lot like TiVo (TIVO) with a Web browser?

Aside from arrogance, that is?

Well, there’s an impressive list of partners. Certainly, adoption of Google TV stands to benefit quite a bit from Sony (SNE), Logitech (LOGI) and Dish Network (DISH) baking it into television sets, Blu-ray players and set-top boxes. And sources tell me other electronics manufacturers will soon join them. Content partnerships with Netflix (NFLX) and Amazon (AMZN) will also help.

But the partnerships that matter most with an effort like this–cable company partnerships–are entirely absent. The simple fact is that cable companies like Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner (TWX) not only distribute the majority of the set-top boxes in the U.S, they also have a strong hold over content providers. Unless Google can convince them that their current business model is in need of something like Google TV, pushing the platform into the mainstream is likely to prove quite difficult.

[Image Credit: Time Magazine]

Intel (INTC) CEO Paul Otellini said that last week, hinting at the announcement Google (GOOG) made just moments ago: A new software platform for set-top boxes and televisions that promises to marry broadcast TV with the Internet. Its name: Google TV. Its tagline: “TV meets Web. Web Meets TV.”

Announced at this morning’s Google I/O event, Google TV’s purpose is, in the words of Senior Product Manager Rishi Chandra, “to bring the entire Web to the television set…to take the best of what TV offers these days and the best of what the Web offers and combine them.”

Anyone remember WebTV?

With Google TV, the aim is to rethink the navigation of TV and make it more like the Web. “The Web has a very simple and elegant model for finding information: A search box,” Chandra said. “We want to give you that same experience with television.”

To do that, Google (GOOG) has extended the breadth of its search to TV programming. The platform’s “quick search box” returns results from the Web, as well as TV listings. These include programs available for purchase on sites like Amazon (AMZN) and Netflix (NFLX)–both partners in this effort, apparently.

Says Chandra: “To a user it doesn’t really matter where I get my favorite content, whether it be live TV, DVR or the Web. We just want easy access….Google TV makes the Web a natural extension of the TV itself….It’s just as easy to go to any site on the Web as it is to go to any channel on your television.”

And to Web-based advertising as well, of course. Remember there are some four billion TV users worldwide.

“Many times I see and interesting ad, but I can’t do anything with it,” says Chandra. “But advertisers have Web sites and with picture-in-picture functionality, I can now click on an ad and see them….Now every ad on TV has the potential to become interactive.”

And presumably, there’s potential here for Google to make a small profit from each of them.

So how will all of this work? Google TV’s software is built on Android 2.1 and uses Google Chrome as its browser. Because of this, Android smartphones can be used as remotes and Android applications can actually be used on televisions running the platform–something some observers have been encouraging Apple to do with AppleTV for years. Google’s Android Marketplace will be accessible via Google TV.

On the hardware side, there will be Google TV set-top boxes, TV sets, and Blu-ray players. Sony (SNE) is developing a full line of integrated TVs and a Blu-Ray player as well. Logitech (LOGI) is producing a set-top box. And Intel (INTC) is providing Atom chips for all of them. We should begin seeing Google TV devices at Best Buy (BBY) this fall.

“We’re coming to market soon and we’re coming in a big way,” says Chandra.”…Our goal is to have the same impact on the TV experience that the smartphone had on the phone experience.”

Here’s Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, for instance, showing off a forthcoming iPad app that allows you to program and control your TV remotely.

Looks cool. And while I think there’s actually a limited-use case for programming your TV while you’re out of your house, the ability to search for shows on the app should be better than the crappy experience you get from your remote and set-top box.

So you’ll likely get more use out of this thing when you’re actually sitting on your couch in front of your TV.

Note that the app won’t allow you to actually watch shows on your iPad, but Roberts says that’s coming, too. Comcast (CMCSA) officials say the company has plans to allow cable subscribers to pull down whatever’s available via the company’s Fancast video portal to the Apple (AAPL) gadget.

Haven’t heard yet about timing and other details (3G versus Wi-Fi-only, etc.), and there will probably be some roadblocks. It’s unlikely, for instance, that you’ll get the Hulu feed that Fancast has, since Hulu plans to charge for access on the iPad. But people seem very happy with the ABC iPad app, so if Comcast can deliver something similar, it should expect some pats on the back.

Meanwhile, Time Warner (TWX) used the cable industry’s annual convention to announce that it has expanded its “TV Everywhere” program–people who pay for TV get access to the same shows on the Web–to include subscribers to Verizon’s (VZ) Fios TV service.

That makes sense inasmuch as Time Warner’s HBO picked Verizon as the first carrier partner for its HBO Go service a few months back.

The thread here is consistent: Cable providers and cable programmers want the world to know they’re happy to give you all the Web you want–as long subscribers keep paying their monthly bills and getting a bundle of TV channels in return.

If we ever get to the world where you can start buying individual channels–doesn’t matter if they’re on TV or the Web–then all bets are off and TV economics get radically reshuffled. But we’re not getting there anytime soon, and I’m not convinced we ever will.

The search giant is leading a $23 million series D round in Invidi Technologies, a New York City company that works on “addressable” TV ads. Addressable ads are supposed to target specific viewers, using data from set-top boxes, in the same way that Internet ads sniff out specific Web surfers.

You can see why Google (GOOG) would be interested in this stuff, particularly as it tries to integrate its Android platform with TVs. Shishir Mehrotra, who runs product management for all of Google’s video businesses, will join Invidi’s board.

Addressable ads are a holy grail for the TV business, but they may still be several years away. Invidi, founded in 2000, has completed two market trials to date.

People familiar with the transaction tell me Google has invested between $10 million and $15 million in company in this round, which brings Invidi’s total capital raised above the $85 million mark. Other investors include WPP’s GroupM, Motorola (MOT), Menlo Ventures, InterWest Partners and EnerTech Capital.

Business Insider, which first reported the investment, says the transaction is connected to Google’s ad pact with the Dish satellite network. But I’m told Dish doesn’t factor into the deal.