Hulu: not free for long

[Nayan]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/tv_in_real_dime_ph0GiKk7rC9agDUEkHae2I

 

[3boymthr]

If I'm interpreting it correctly, it's not that HULU won't be free but rather if you want to watch shows on HULU from channels such as HBO or ESPN that you can only get by paying for cable or satellite, then you're going to have to have a cable or satellite account number to watch that type of content, but content that you'd be able to grab for free over the airways - aka broadcast TV (just the big ones CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, PBS), would still be free. Of course, that content is now a drop in the bucket compared to what most people watch.

In some ways it's kind of stinky but these channels are in business to make money.

 

[mistysue]

3boymthr- did you read the article? Hulu mainly streams major network TV. I can't watch HBO or anything like that as it is. (with the exception being some comedy central, which is free from their website as well) The article says they are going to make people authenticate their cable TV account... which is not even the same as Hulu Plus- which lets you buy the service month by month.

I wish the article gave more details, because it's a little vague.

 

[Nayan]

It's kind of like how my internet/cable provider requires you to have ESPN on your account and use the account number in order to watch ESPN3 online. Hulu is going to require you to have a cable account in order for you to watch it. Fox is also moving in that direction according to the article. What it means, in simple terms, is if you cut the cord you will no longer be able to watch Hulu or Fox. You will have to have cable in order to do so.

 

[NotUrsula]

I think you can expect that all of the various non-cable streaming services will begin to charge in the near future, and I would say that you can expect the price point to be somewhere in the vicinity of what NetFlix charges if you don't want premium channel programs, and probably another $15-20/month or so if you do want them.

The reason is that the content providers (the networks themselves, and also the studios that are creating the shows) want a larger piece of the royalties pie, and since they hold the rights, they are going to get it. The rise in NetFlix' prices was no fluke; they had to pay up to stay in business.

You didn't REALLY think that the cable and satellite companies were going to let everyone dump them for a free way to get their content, did you? They got jumped for a while and lost money, but now they are catching up.

The other issue is bandwidth: NetFlix currently accounts for 32.7% of ALL peak downstream internet traffic in North America. Someone has to provide all of that bandwidth, and most of the time that someone is AT&T, or Verizon or your cable company. Naturally, when traffic grows, they want more money to keep the "highway" maintained.

 

[JB2K]

Someone has to provide all of that bandwidth, and most of the time that someone is AT&T, or Verizon or your cable company. Naturally, when traffic grows, they want more money to keep the "highway" maintained.

And remember, in many markets around the U.S., both AT&T and Verizon are THE cable company, too...

 

[Ava]

It's kind of like how my internet/cable provider requires you to have ESPN on your account and use the account number in order to watch ESPN3 online. Hulu is going to require you to have a cable account in order for you to watch it. Fox is also moving in that direction according to the article. What it means, in simple terms, is if you cut the cord you will no longer be able to watch Hulu or Fox. You will have to have cable in order to do so.

Do you mean that Fox in general is going to become a cable-only channel and no longer a free over-the-air network? Or just that they will require you to have a cable or satellite subscription to watch their content online? (I wouldn't be surprised by the latter; they already moved to a model for online streaming that allows DISH network customers to stream shows the day after they air, whereas non-subscribers have to wait 8 days.)

I don't mind having to wait a week to watch a new episode, since I'm usually behind anyway, but there's no way I'll pay to watch free network TV online. I don't care enough about TV to pay for it, which is why I cancelled cable TV years ago. I pay $50/month for my cable internet, that's enough.

 

[NotUrsula]

Do you mean that Fox in general is going to become a cable-only channel and no longer a free over-the-air network? Or just that they will require you to have a cable or satellite subscription to watch their content online? (I wouldn't be surprised by the latter; they already moved to a model for online streaming that allows DISH network customers to stream shows the day after they air, whereas non-subscribers have to wait 8 days.)

I don't mind having to wait a week to watch a new episode, since I'm usually behind anyway, but there's no way I'll pay to watch free network TV online. I don't care enough about TV to pay for it, which is why I cancelled cable TV years ago. I pay $50/month for my cable internet, that's enough.

I think it is more likely that the broadcast networks want you to stream from their own websites if you are going to, and that they want to be able to more tightly control what is available for streaming at no charge. This approach also lets them make sure that you see the original program sponsors' advertising, which is important to the sponsors.