If you're talking about one show at a time, sure, if you have enough bandwidth from your ISP.
What happens when there is more than one viewer?
DirecTV already has a delivery system in place, why reinvent the wheel?
U-Who has a delivery system, but it isn't there yet and it is their game.
"Snatching" a show of the net every once and a while, doesn't really show "from a technological standpoint" it's really possible to feed enough to enough people.
First of all, I'm not suggesting that "internet streaming" is a solution. The internet is not - yet - able to provide consistent high-bandwidth. However, a device can effectively shield the user experience from that issue using current technology. On Demand already does this; it's just (software) limited in what
it will download.
Sat delivery system is extremely complicated and expensive. Requires dedicated dish at each subscriber location and all that installer cost. Not possible without bundling programming - getting a certain amount of $ on average per subscriber. Cable has same issue.
The internet is different. It's already in homes for other reasons. Using it for video entertainment delivery only requires additional investment in capacity - investment that is already going on. It's also source-neutral; that is, the delivery mechanism is completely decoupled from the source material and supplier. This allows true competition and pay-for-what-you-get.
Consider what has happened to music. Entire old distribution system was crushed. People used sneakernet to retrieve 600MB chunks of music (CD) from a brick-and-mortar store. Now you click with no thought of bandwidth or storage capacity. Plus you can now pay only
for exactly what you want - and that price is very reasonable. You own what you purchased, within copyright restrictions, forever - play as many times as you want.
BTW, how successful are the satellite music services? Er, I mean service. Not so much. "Broadcast" is dying.
"TV" will go this way.
Just because we don't currently have a product out there that does exactly what is needed - and matches the characteristics of the internet - doesn't mean it isn't technologically possible.
I talked about this a little in my post
The technology standpoint I referred to is that D* DVRs already has "On Demand". Select the program you want and it downloads to local storage. Watch at any time after a sufficient amount of the program is downloaded. It's not a technology limitation that you have to manually tell it specifically what program to download.
Consider a Series list that pulls new episodes over the internet as they become available. Configurable for when and how much bandwidth it tries to use (for example, 90% bandwidth from midnight to 6am and then 10% rest of the time). (This will go away as the internet evolves.)
Configurable for how many episodes to cache. Watch and delete one episode and the next available one is queued for retrieval at a later time (when next in line and bandwidth config allows). It doesn't need to grab it immediately because you've already got some number of unwatched episodes already downloaded. There should be 1 box in each household for this - like HMC - with RVU clients.
Nice side benefit: if your box dies the content was remembered in the cloud. The replacement box just re-caches.
If live program is absolutely needed - just "stream" it.
The installation/maintenance is done entirely by the user. (Or Geek Squad or similar.) No more difficult than plugging in a router.
For locations where internet service is not sufficient use satellite to deliver internet bandwidth. Imagine the bandwidth available if all D* sats used spot-beam for internet. Internet protocols also have routing features
that could be used to deliver episodes with high consumption via a single nation-wide stream (like broadcast of new episodes).
What is stopping this at the moment is that a lot of programming is owned by distribution companies. They keep their distribution monopoly by limiting the availability of the content.