Maybe it’s just me, or maybe it’s just the past few weeks, but this New Media landscape is starting to look like “Arrested Development.” It seems like everybody wants a piece of the other guy’s action, and nobody’s happy unless they’re finding a way to get the upper hand.

I had no sooner gotten over David Streitfeld’s piece in the New York Times last week about how nobody—not Google, Facebook, Apple or Amazon—will be satisfied unless they own all of me—and believe me, there’s a lot of me to own—when I saw the news about how Google and a bunch of other online-ad companies were secretly tracking the behavior of Safari users.

I had a couple of reactions: First, while I’ve always been pretty impressed with myself, I had no idea that Google, Facebook, Apple or Amazon thought that highly of me. How much do you think I could draw on eBay? And second, is Rupert Murdoch Google’s new ethics advisor?

Let’s focus on the Times piece (the FTC is perfectly capable of investigating the tracking incidents). I know we’re all trying to run businesses, but shouldn’t the trend be toward a more open environment, rather than an arms race between makers of proprietary hardware? In the long run, doesn’t a mutually incompatible approach force the rest of the media ecosystem— content developers, advertisers and consumers—to pick sides?

With few exceptions, consumers don’t care who owns content, or where it comes from. They want the broadest possible selection of television content and applications. What they don’t want when they buy a device is to have to wade through a sea of fine print, such as limitations on which services are offered and no assurance that the device will continue to support those services in the future.

Ultimately, the solutions that will resonate with the consumers we’re serving are the ones that will deliver any content from any source to any device, whether it’s a first-generation cable set-top box or an iPad. Better still if that solution can offer a consistent, rich quality of experience across every device, and be future-proofed to support first- and next-gen devices in the years to come.

In the end, we need to remember that what’s good for the consumer—is good for the ecosystem.

Let me just say this: The Super Bowl isn’t just a “big screen” experience; it’s a BIG SCREEN experience. “Biggest Game, Smallest Screen” just doesn’t seem like a grabber for Best Buy ads.

So when I saw a promo for the NBC Sports website during the game on Sunday, I had mixed emotions. Sure, it seemed to be a cool idea to have stats and video and social networks at my fingertips, but jeez, do I really have to go get my iPad? It’s not like I could just say “Here, Weego” and have it brought to me.

Besides, I bought a screen that’s the size of Montana (this Montana, not this one) just so I could drink in the whole experience of big-time events like the Super Bowl. I want everything about my Super Bowl to be larger than life: The game, the excitement, and—well, maybe not this guy.

The NFL hasn’t asked me my opinion, but here it is: If you don’t have access to the Super Bowl anywhere else, than great, stream it online. But as far as all the cool interactive and social features, let’s find a way to bring it all to the big screen.

I would love to bring up on-demand replays, multiple camera angles, real-time stats, and twitter feeds on my TV, where they can be shared with everyone else at my Super Bowl party. And while you’re at it, throw in the option to remove all the graphic clutter on the screen if I’m in the mood to be fully immersed in the game. Don’t stop there, make the game even more thrilling by enabling me and my friends to use our smart-phones to vote on play-calling and replay challenges.

So come on, NFL. You’ve got a great idea for engaging fans with all these great extras. Just think of how much better it would be if we could all enjoy it on the TV.