This, and other schemes involving massive amounts of stored programming, are a great idea, which is why the entertainment industry hates them. To understand why, remember that the owners of many broadcast and cable channels do not produce most of their own programming. Much of it is produced by production companies that then license it to the programmers, who insert commercials and air it. Yes, they hate schemes like DVRs because they allow commercial skipping, but they hate them for a much bigger reason. If a workable on-demand delivery system for massive amounts of programming can be created, there is much less need for traditional channels. Once a program is digitized, it can be moved around like any other file. All you need is a transport mechanism, and any high-speed data network will do just fine. At that point, program creators can distribute shows themselves, bypassing the need to deal with the programmers. About the only thing a traditional channel might be good at is broadcasting live content. Actually, this could be done via a live data stream, so, even then, traditional channels will no longer be needed in most cases.
I predict that the first person to assemble such a delivery system is going to make insane amounts of money.
SeandhiSeeing From a New LevelPremium
reply to Gardener
said by Gardener:It is similar to what Hulu (hulu.com) and Comedy Central are doing. They are putting their shows online for everyone to watch. For advertising, at least in the case of Hulu, they put in 4 30-second commercials. I can watch what I want, when I want, and I don't have to buy a DVR. These types of services are definitely a step in the right direction.
How about posting every episode of every show to a global storage and distribution network? Users could select what they want to watch. A box could request and show the desired program. It should work.
You're an enlightened cat, and I dig that.