Mark,

 I'm currently watching Lost on my computer's flat-screen monitor, downloaded off of ABC.com. Does that count?

Okay, so we're not quite there yet. I think to you point, what you are looking for is some sort of Zeitgeist moment of the Internet TV era, something that captures it better than zany YouTube.com UGC footage. Say, a new Jazz Singer. No, it's not Funnyordie.com, either, is it?

It will come when all of the whacky elements of the new Internet Age combine (new advertising format, new short-form video format, new delivery format, new financing mechanism) and conspire to create something we actually can't stop watching.

I think right now the big missing piece is financing. Financing for Hollywood films is notoriously dysfunctional. But what if online we could fund content properly, the way that the Internet is designed: By aggregating tiny pieces of money from all over the world. What if we could create the microfinance of film, and the users could create exactly the kind of content they want by voting with their wallets, one penny at a time. You would be buying the ticket before the movie was created.

Think eBay, for ordering up films.

Hi Mark,

 Having been on a couple panels of your particular topic you would suspect that I might be able to answer your questions concisely, sadly I can't.  Maybe no one can at this point.  To ad to your points of the genesis of tv, cable television had struggled with quality content in the beginning as well.  Cable was not ad supported and that was it's hook.  What cable did have going for it was that customers were willingly ready to pay not to see ads and that money went right back into programming, which ultimately put most early cable networks in debt.  But the cable distributors knew that they needed to help the networks flourish if their own businesses were to survive, the internet is a different animal. 

Capturing a viewer on the internet is a much taller order than offering a few dozen channels like cable in the early days.  Building a major brand online is very difficult and this is partly the reason why the major networks and cable channels have had more sucess than others.  People gravitate towards brands they trust or have had good experiences with.  Funding quality content for online does not guarantee sucess but it seems that today brand association or adjacentcy does afford a programmer to hedge their bets.  In addition, the internet does allow a, pardon the cliche, "second life" for shows that did not garner the audience they were expected to.  In return the internet can incubate ideas that could potentially be picked up by a tv network, which has already begun to happen.

Sorry for rambling here but in order to have measured success in content online I think you either have to have unique content that people seek out, UGC or other, OR you need to grow the audience from multiple directions using all forms of video media to make an impact.  There are flashes in the pan, think the asian roomates singing N'Sync, but that's all they will ever be.  To bring on the "Next Golden Age" big media companies will have see the money trail to online that will eventually make up for the billions in revenue they generate from the traditional media outlets.

It took cable 35 years to eclipse the Gross Ratings Points generated by the big 4 networks, but it happend when no one thought it could.  The golden age is coming but it may take longer than we like.

Mark & Monte,

Maybe it's not at all like traditional media. It's not "I Love Lucy," But "I Love Lucy, and I Can Text Message With Her." I think there will also be entirely new business models that will come out of the world.

The "new digital media" thingn  is likely going to be something totally different than episodic TV. It will be some sort of Black Swan event, a "Google of Interactive TV,' that makes us realize this.

The more I think about this, the more that Hollywood has been trying to put the "Digital Hollywood" thing into their own paradigm: Producer smokes cigar in big room, oders writers and actors around, huge content gets produced, people get rich.

It's not going to work like that on the Internet.

For example: Look at Fox Interactive, arguably the most successful "digitial media" outfit that has blended mainstream media with the Internet. For them, it's about texting, communication, interactivity. It's not just about "watching a show online."

Also, look at what's happening in the gaming world. A huge explosion of interest there, based on interactivity and mutliplayer games. Lots 'o revenues being generated.

I think by limited ourselves to the old paradigm we hamper our vision of what can happen next. We like the "I Love Lucy" paradigm because it's comfortable. But lets face it, this new digital media world is going to be a lot more uncomfortable.