But linear distribution is actually the cheaper mechanism than heavily burdened Internet with large buildout costs and the need to develop a large caching infrastructure, etc. broadcast is cheaper. So, you example actually works against you position when viewed from cost. And for your ota comment in another post. In the digital age, fewer people get clean reception than ever. Urban areas have huge multipath problems and signals are not going as far with enough stability as did with analog. Analog, you got ghosts and fuzziness until the picture was so bad you couldn't see it. Digital rejects at a higher level and you get nothing. With analog, I got far more channels (not counting subs) from a greater distance with an indoor antenna than I can with digital. And I live close between to major cities.