Well, the answer depends on your application. I would use RF for feeding things like
lobby monitors or other ancillary systems, where you might decide later to add on another TV set in the next room. I would not use RF for feeding a primary
system if I could avoid it.
But as to the issue of only cabling (without regard to what signal is on the cable), there's no difference between the readily-available RG-6 at Radio Shack or Home Depot for your TV antenna and the bulk cable you'd typically use to make video cable from (which is RG-59). Arguably, RG-6 has a
bit less loss than 59, though the solid center
conductor makes it less flexible in applications where you want that. So there's nothing at all wrong with taking an RG-6 cable with F connectors from the shelf at the Radio Shack, putting adapters on either end (F-RCA or F-BNC), and running
composite video down it. It's the right
impedance and is suited to the task, and it's readily available for quite cheap.
(In fact, I've done it the other way around numerous times, using a length of RG-59 with BNCs on it built for video, and adapters to F on both ends, for antenna cable)
And that's where my question about your question comes in, as to what's on the cable.
RF can be easily distributed with the little splitter blocks. A video signal proper cannot simply be wyed, because the
wye creates an
impedance bump first of all, and secondly it double-terminates the
line if the destination devices are consumer and don't have looping
impedance inputs like broadcast gear has. This double-termination is evidenced in a halving of the brightness of the signal for each
wye. Well, not half, but close. To distribute video proper to multiple destinations, you need a distribution
amplifier.
So tell us more about the application. Not trying to make you feel stupid, just trying to figure out what you're asking.