Why no internet magazine? Must be because the revenue just doesn't add up. You can get a measure of advertising, but convincing people to pay for the thing - in an area where they have long grazed for free - is not easy. Also, you production costs - writing, photography and all that - cannot easily be reduced (this may be a writer and sometime photographer's conceit, but you do tend to get what you pay for - with the odd, noble exception, of course).
I would suggest that dedicated video magazines would be even less likely to appear on the net. Yes, yes, yes - the technology moves on, but look at the effect - or lack of it - on the quality of output: years ago, the average cine enthusiast could drive you mental with four-minute films full of crash zooms, crap edits and snatched little scenes that flash by at dizzying speed. Give the same bod a DV cam and what do you get? crash zooms, crap edits etc - but scenes that go on for hours (different flavour of boredom, but boredom nevertheless).
Really, you cannot avoid using a professional film-making crew (or at least a film crew capable of professional results). It takes time to produce a product worth watching - far longer than it takes to interview or photograph some worthy man or machine for a print piece - and (please feel free to join the chorus) time costs money - especially professional time.
Sorry if this all sounds terribly doom-laden: I'm not trying to trample on people's dreams - just trying to 'keep it real'...