Do you have a citation for that? Looping films have been around for a long time.
Yes, physical films may wear out, but it seems like it would be easier to produce and distribute copies than to produce physical devices in many places.
You do realize that recording video content was inherently created /after/ the ability to transmit it in the first place, so even if looping has been around for a long time, the ability to transmit video has been around longer. And, as the other reference mentioned, much longer. The point of these systems was to be an alternate to a failure, so it failing wouldn't be acceptable - and rewinding or even replacing with a second tape would be a failure of a system that has to constantly present an image to the viewer.
No, he's right. "You do realize" always makes you sound like a jerk. You know very well that the person doesn't realize whatever it is, and you're rubbing their nose in it. If you intend to sound like a jerk, it's a fine go-to, but if not it should be avoided.
That predates any video transmission I'm aware of by a significant margin.
Looks like the preferred technology for station logos and test patterns since the 50s was the monoscope, a specialized device to generate a single image. The Indian Head logo, used in the 1970s, was one example.
Victim of nerd-sniping - some early TV camera/broadcast systems in the 1930s, especially in Europe, first recorded to film, which was then immediately scanned for broadcast. This could be used outdoors where there was not enough light for the TV scanning directly. "Intermediate film systems" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_film_system
Anyway, broadcasting from previously recorded film or other images has been around since the beginnings of TV broadcasts, even though recording the transmitted signal took until the 1940s (kinescopes - a film camera recording a TV screen).
Yes, physical films may wear out, but it seems like it would be easier to produce and distribute copies than to produce physical devices in many places.