You will not see any video or live streaming of testimony from the John Edwards trial because it is in federal court, and federal courts don't allow cameras in for criminal cases. In some districts, video of civil cases can be recorded on video, but for the most part, no TV cameras are allowed in federal courts.
State courts have let cameras in for a number of years, without causing problems for the most part - Judge Ito in the O.J. case notwithstanding.
I think that cameras should be allowed in federal court. I also think the U.S. Supreme Court should allow oral arguments to be televised, although I think that it is more important to televise federal trials than the Supreme Court because a lot of what goes there is just 30 seconds of lawyers' making arguments interrupted by 3 minutes of justices' questions and posturing, and then 30 more seconds of arguments, and then 3 more minutes of justices shooting the breeze again. Them justices do like to hear the sound of their voices.
I think it is good for citizens to be able to watch real trials on TV, because they are typically unlike the fictional Perry Mason/Matlock/Law & Order versions that we have grown up watching. Real trials often involve hours of fairly mundane testimony and the introduction of exhibits from police and experts establishing the basic facts of the prosecution's case. It can get dull. Typically no dramatic confessions from the witness stand.
I would say, however, that Rielle Hunter's testimony would be pretty interesting to watch on TV.
In Ohio, one TV station dealt with the ban on cameras in federal courts by using puppets to recreate testimony. I am not making this up.
