>>Actually, the distribution model was very efficient - it delivered everywhere, didn't it?
>
>
>But it delivered in one direction.
>
>And it only delivered 4 to 200 channels streamed on a schedule, instead of billions of websites with content waiting for you.
>
>The interactivity and pure scope of the new model is what sets it apart.

We're talking about different media, not different delivery channels for the same content. Read your McLuhan, he was a smart guy (I actually read once that "he woke up every morning happy with the knowledge that he'll be able to admire himself all day in the mirror for being so smart").

So, TV with central delivery:
- one way
- few channels
- scheduled

Follows that (now in hindsight it does) it created a sort of a virtual community, because all those who something saw it at the same time, and later were able to relate the experience to each other. Having watched the same content at the same time created sort of a bond among the people (shallow, artificial, superficial, for the wrong reasons, but still a bond). There's still some of that during big events (superbowl, disasters) but generally the multitude of channels has segmented the population. TV set has also become cheap enough that it's not a central spot for family life anymore - there are multiple TV sets, so not even the family is watching the same things at the same time. And it's still one-way. Not even flipping the channel means anything, nobody knows.

With delivery via web:
- full duplex
- multitude of places (can't call them channels - a place like YouTube has thousands of pages)
- interactive
- on demand

With TV the question was "what's on tonight". With the web, it's "where's my cool stuff". Word-of-mouth replaces the schedule. You don't need to know when does something run and on what channel, you only need the URL, and you don't really need to remember it, only to remember where you got it - or go straight there before you forget ;).

Watching video content on the Web is, IMO and probably, different from any other format. It's not TV - you don't have to hit the right time, it will wait for you. You don't have to wait for commercials to visit the fridge or porcelain - you can pause it. You can do an instant replay ... well, with any half decent player - if yours can't be navigated, it's stool, just switch. Which brings us to the next difference: the device you use to watch doesn't have the software hardwired into it. TV set worked the same the day you bought it as it did the day it finally died. The buttons were the same and there wasn't much you could do they sucked. With video on the web, you aren't limited to one device - you can maybe download and watch on your other players (dvd, cell, PSP, maybe others). If you don't like the player, you can replace it. Some places may use their own players (equivalent to "and when you flip to this channel, you get a different TV set").

Another major difference: on the web, whatever sucks, can be circumvented by diligent work of the irritated masses. Ads which you have to wait out, will be sent out to wait, or their content better be good enough for you to endure. Or else - here goes the interactive part. We'll be gone before you could say "", your counters aren't progressing anymore.

And this is the major difference - this is no Nielsen sample, this is real counting. No matter how much they try to cheat. You truly can't fool all the people all the time, because they'll be gone as soon as they get to think that something stinks.

All this talk about differences was supposed to show that these are different media carrying a different message ("The Medium is the Massage" - McLuhan), hence they can't possibly do the same thing. Their effects are different. So daily newspaper can't be that fresh on the weather report, but TV can't be that good on classified ads - how do you circle them?