It's the future, no doubt. Thing of it is, you need a "channel" and that becomes your job. So it's not so much about making videos as it is about running a TV station... with no budget, very little money, and an alarming share of the profits going to the FCC.
Yeah, I suppose so. When I hear that an institution has a stranglehold on something, I'm always curious about ideas people who have experience in dealing with those institutions might have or what kinds of things people might be doing that I'm aware of, that's all.
The problem isn't one of strangleholds, unfortunately. The problem is that what used to be a highly-profitable specialist industry has become a commodity amateur industry. It used to be that dabbling in broadcast media involved jumping through the hoops necessary to make it onto public access TV - and then, it likely stopped there. Now, anybody can put anything on Youtube and maybe 20 million people watch Bed Intruder. I had an agent tell me yesterday that Amazon adds 250,000 self-published e-books a month. A couple of them will find real success but for the majority of authors they'd have more success with scratch tickets. Youtube, meanwhile, adds 100 hours of footage per minute. Every thousand views is worth about a dollar in revenue for content creators. You don't throw Elie Kazan into that mix and expect him to make money. there was a vetting process to broadcast media that the Internet will never have... although the specialist video channels (Crunchy Roll, Chiller, etc) might get there if people are willing to pay for them. I've had two short films on Chiller. I've yet to see a dime.