Rumor: Hulu To Require Paid TV Subscription Soon

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Rumor: Hulu To Require Paid TV Subscription Soon

image

Watching videos online at Hulu might require a paid TV subscription.

I cut the cord months ago. Cancelling my cable subscription has saved me hundreds of dollars paying for content that I did not watch. Using my Xbox 360, I am able to watch the TV and movies I do want to watch (like Sherlock and old TNG episodes) through Netflix and Hulu, although I do sometimes watch shows via Hulu on my desktop computer. According to anonymous sources close to the negotiations, NBC-Universal - owners of Hulu - are considering checking for a valid subscription to cable or satellite service before allowing anyone to watch "free" video on Hulu.

The push to require this authentication is driven by cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable to make TV subscriptions more attractive - and to wring money from "cord-cutters" like me. What seems odd, is that Hulu reportedly made $420 million in ad revenue last year, and is poised to make more in 2012 as March saw 31 million people watch videos on Hulu.com.

If the authentication goes through, those people would be forced to pay money to watch content with advertising embedded. Those of us who watch Hulu Plus through Xbox 360 pay for the convenience of watching through a device, and the quick minute-long advertising breaks haven't annoyed me too much.

What's unclear, at least to me, is whether paying the $7.99 monthly fee for Hulu Plus would be affected by this switch to authentication. If so, I will be upset. Positively vexed.

Source: NY Post

Permalink

If Hulu accepts money or makes any concessions to the cable companies in exchange for this check, it's several types of illegal.

I'm calling complete BS on this.

Eh, Hulu Plus is several orders of magnitude worse than Netflix. Though I will accept free Hulu being fairly nice to watch current shows.

That's total and utter horseshit. If the cable companies were going to provide such a service themselves I would understand, but forcing that kind of bullshit onto other companies is really sleazy. Cable TV is going the way of the dinosaurs, and cable providers just need to come to terms with the fact their role in the future will be primarily as ISPs.

Be happy you get Hulu, and a decent Netflix. And the ability to use your paypal on iTunes. Since it doesn't affect me, being a dirty Canadian, I will laugh if a subscription charge is put on Hulu.

And just as I was about to consider doing the same as Mr. Tito. It's ridiculously stupid how much influence and push these cable companies have. If they require a valid subscription despite the fact that you're paying $8 a month for the service already, then that would be the single biggest bullshit event since...jeez, I don't know. I mean...I'm just kinda at a loss for words here.

I canceled Hulu Plus after a month. Not enough content, and I STILL have to sit through commercials. Fuck that.

If they do this, they're just giving people one more reason to torrent.

I WANT to pay you money for content, you Big Evil Media Conglomerates, but you just keep giving me less for my dollar and making torrenting more tempting.

That's fine. I got used to no longer having cable, I can get used to no longer watching Hulu.

Greg Tito:
If so, I will be upset. Positively vexed.

you could even say that your Jimmies would be rustled.

OT: Great idea! Make a video streaming service that you already pay for require you to pay for T.V.

Man, nothing but geniuses over at NBC.

And I will sit back and laugh as they hemorrhage money for doing such an idiotic thing.

subtlefuge:
If Hulu accepts money or makes any concessions to the cable companies in exchange for this check, it's several types of illegal.

I'm calling complete BS on this.

KeyMaster45:
That's total and utter horseshit. If the cable companies were going to provide such a service themselves I would understand, but forcing that kind of bullshit onto other companies is really sleazy. Cable TV is going the way of the dinosaurs, and cable providers just need to come to terms with the fact their role in the future will be primarily as ISPs.

Hulu is *OWNED* by the cable and content providers. Cable and content providers are the ones who started the service in the first place.

They proceeded immediately to the "Let's destroy Hulu" phase, but still.

Greg Tito:
If the authentication goes through, those people would be forced to pay money to watch content with advertising embedded.

They'd have another option though, one the cable companies would like even less. It starts with a 'P' and ends with an 'Iracy'.

Since Hulu and Netflix Instant came along I have not downloaded a single TV show (that I recall). Because why bother? I can get most everything I want on those two services. If they make Hulu fully pay-only with ads, well then nuts to them, I won't be getting a "cable sub" again (even if it is on more devices than just a TV), I'll just go back to downloading everything I can't find on Netflix.

I pay for Netflix and don't watch ads.
I watch ads and don't pay for Hulu.
I will no longer pay for TV shows AND watch ads. If cable companies are having problems with their business model, then they need to update their out-of-date business model.

To me it's a choice of getting some of my money though ad revenue, OR getting some of it through a sub fee (without ads), OR getting none at all (i.e. downloading). There are too many other media options out there to be double dipping into my wallet anymore.

If this happens, Hulu will quickly become superfluous my life.

I've only used Hulu lately to watch Misfits anyway. If they do go through with this stupid, stupid decision, I wont grieve much. There are other ways of watching teenagers with super powers.

subtlefuge:
If Hulu accepts money or makes any concessions to the cable companies in exchange for this check, it's several types of illegal.

I'm calling complete BS on this.

No, it's not. That's called capitalism which is made legal by contracts and licenses. If you look at your corporate trees, you will see all the major cable companies either are owned by or have a stake in every major studio. There is no room for anything illegal when they own or are partnered to the service anyway. At least not until it approaches trust status. What us peons know more as a monopoly.

What pisses me off about these kinds of things is people will rage about it, but when it happens, they just pony up the dough and go through with kissing corporate ass.
I quit watching Hulu a long time ago because their service was spotty. At least two viewings were lost because the ad content basically overwrote the rest of the show on my end. And even though each break was just one ad long(though I think they were going to two ads by the time I called it quits), I swear there were more breaks than what you usually have to endure on cable.
Then, regardless whether NBC owned the show or not, there were extreme limitations to select shows on how long they stayed available. A week's duration doesn't work for someone who has more to do than rot brain cells watching tv. At least with cable you can tivo the show to watch when you get the time. Though apparently cable wants to change that, as well.
Even though Netflix has its own limitations to what it can show for tv shows(forced upon them by the license holders), it is still a better service than Hulu. I honestly am at a loss why people would choose to sacrifice so much for something so wasteful. When you really think about it, if you are paying for Hulu Plus and if all of Hulu goes to subscription or requires a cable subscription, you are paying for the privilege to watch commercials with breaks of reality tv or drama shows. That's it.
So let NBC do this. They can do it and they have every reason to do it. Why? Because they know not that many people will shrug it off and move on to something else.
I escaped that penitentiary a long time ago, but most of the rest of the inmates are too institutionalized to do anything about it. I wouldn't mind being surprised, though.

Can I ask why the escapist reports rumors from 'anonymous sources'? I just don't get why 'some guy says . . .' is considered news.

The TV companies just cannot stop screwing up their online distribution methods...

Let the dinosaurs go extinct, I say.

samsonguy920:
snip

It is illegal. You ever wonder why there isn't more than one Hulu-like service, or why most areas only have one major cable provider, or those who have multiple providers only cover certain areas of the city?

Actions of companies do not dictate legality. Just because they have been getting away with illegal practices, doesn't mean that dividing digital territory is any more legal.

Captcha: know your rights

not even kidding

Sits on the computer with Internet

??...

What's TV?

<_<

>_>

So your saying NBC intends to make their consumers jump through...

*puts on sunglasses*

...Hulu hoops?

Slycne:
That's fine. I got used to no longer having cable, I can get used to no longer watching Hulu.

Well you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Its only Fox show that require authentication, without it you have to wait 1 whole week to see the show. Other Networks are plaining similar moves. Hulu plus isn't effected by the move.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/media/fox-to-limit-next-day-streaming-on-hulu.html?_r=1

albino boo:

Slycne:
That's fine. I got used to no longer having cable, I can get used to no longer watching Hulu.

Well you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Its only Fox show that require authentication, without it you have to wait 1 whole week to see the show. Other Networks are plaining similar moves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/media/fox-to-limit-next-day-streaming-on-hulu.html?_r=1

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

The cable companies just don't understand, no one wants cable anymore. They are only forced to have it. Those who refuse to be bullied and controlled by bad business practices are labeled pirates. Well I say, Arr.....

RvLeshrac:

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

albino boo:

RvLeshrac:

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

They aren't selling it at a loss, they're just not selling it at all. Why aren't they charging the same rate for streaming ads that they charge for televised ads?

They're trying to self-impose losses so they can make everything less convenient, so they can then whine about how much money they're losing.

If I throw out one of every Widget I manufacture, I'm not "selling it at a loss," I'm retarded.

albino boo:

Slycne:
That's fine. I got used to no longer having cable, I can get used to no longer watching Hulu.

Well you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Its only Fox show that require authentication, without it you have to wait 1 whole week to see the show. Other Networks are plaining similar moves. Hulu plus isn't effected by the move.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/media/fox-to-limit-next-day-streaming-on-hulu.html?_r=1

Thanks for the PM on this, but the rumor is that Hulu will do this with every piece of content (not limited to Fox) and there won't be a delay mechanic either. You'll either be a paying cable or Hulu customer or you get nothing.

Greg

RvLeshrac:

albino boo:

RvLeshrac:

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

They aren't selling it at a loss, they're just not selling it at all. Why aren't they charging the same rate for streaming ads that they charge for televised ads?

They're trying to self-impose losses so they can make everything less convenient, so they can then whine about how much money they're losing.

If I throw out one of every Widget I manufacture, I'm not "selling it at a loss," I'm retarded.

Small point game of thrones costs 5 million per show, so for 10 episodes a season thats $50 million. Hulu made $420 million or enough to pay for 4 and bit seasons of Game of thrones. Admittedly game of thrones is expensive, so if you half the cost per show thats only enough money to make 80 hours of content per year. As people stop paying for cable networks, they have 2 choices cancel shows like game of thrones and replace them with low budget shows or increase revenue from other sources. Its customer choice if you wont pay for it, guess what they wont make it.

If this is somehow true, then I have only one thing to say to Hulu and the cable companies:

Fuck you.

I don't use words like that every often. When I do, I mean them.

Then again, this is one rumor that I don't think is true. It just doesn't seem very plausible. Maybe that's me living in denial, but I'm sticking with skepticism. Or hope. Yeah, let's call it hope.

RvLeshrac:

albino boo:

RvLeshrac:

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

They aren't selling it at a loss, they're just not selling it at all. Why aren't they charging the same rate for streaming ads that they charge for televised ads?

They're trying to self-impose losses so they can make everything less convenient, so they can then whine about how much money they're losing.

If I throw out one of every Widget I manufacture, I'm not "selling it at a loss," I'm retarded.

I don't think Hulu really works in Britain(?) but aren't the adverts on Hulu much reduced in duration to TV ads? I know services like 4oD only have maybe a minute, minute and a half of adds compared to the 5 minute + add breaks on TV. People on the internet aren't willing to watch so many adverts.

I have to admit I don't see the problem with this. The situation before was 'these are our programs, you have to pay if you want to watch them' and that's just the situation you're reverting too. I don't know if you have free channels in the US but I presume you do so already for years the cable companies have deliberately forgone the 'make it free but use advertising route' so it was strange that they even considered this whole 'make it free' route whilst at the same time charging. You won't watch it then? Cool that's the business model they were working on before the internet.

All my tv watching is on the i-player and you're meant to have a TV license with that, which I'm fine with doing because it supports the BBC and the BBC is awesome :D

Come on, when will these people get that the old formula of forcing people to watch something at a certain time on Television is a dying trend? I'm never going to buy cable, ever. If my shows become only available with a cable subscription, guess I won't be watching TV.

RvLeshrac:

subtlefuge:
If Hulu accepts money or makes any concessions to the cable companies in exchange for this check, it's several types of illegal.

I'm calling complete BS on this.

KeyMaster45:
That's total and utter horseshit. If the cable companies were going to provide such a service themselves I would understand, but forcing that kind of bullshit onto other companies is really sleazy. Cable TV is going the way of the dinosaurs, and cable providers just need to come to terms with the fact their role in the future will be primarily as ISPs.

Hulu is *OWNED* by the cable and content providers. Cable and content providers are the ones who started the service in the first place.

They proceeded immediately to the "Let's destroy Hulu" phase, but still.

You see, that's not entirely at all even remotely close to the the point though. My only cable option in my city is Suddenlink. Back in the city I was in before, it was Time Warner. Although Dish and DirecTv exist, they are practically different services.

Part of this makes sense from a practical standpoint, because once one company has run wires for a neighborhood, it doesn't really make sense for another company to do the same. Here's where the problem comes in: price fixing and territory division. In competition, companies are forced to produce value and lower prices. However, if you are guaranteed a certain area, all you have to do is keep prices low enough to prevent being run out of town by a mob. Since satellite companies typically only have to compete with one cable company per area, they can maintain their price at the exact same as the cable company and catch people who are fed up with their local option.

Since cable companies are notorious for vacationing in the monopoly area of the law and never leaving, this opens up a chance to not only remove their competition, but divide the digital distribution market by territories. The only difference is that the internet is very much not a series of tubes, and therefore cannot be used as a shield from anti-competition and anti-trust lawsuits.

subtlefuge:

RvLeshrac:

subtlefuge:
If Hulu accepts money or makes any concessions to the cable companies in exchange for this check, it's several types of illegal.

I'm calling complete BS on this.

KeyMaster45:
That's total and utter horseshit. If the cable companies were going to provide such a service themselves I would understand, but forcing that kind of bullshit onto other companies is really sleazy. Cable TV is going the way of the dinosaurs, and cable providers just need to come to terms with the fact their role in the future will be primarily as ISPs.

Hulu is *OWNED* by the cable and content providers. Cable and content providers are the ones who started the service in the first place.

They proceeded immediately to the "Let's destroy Hulu" phase, but still.

You see, that's not entirely at all even remotely close to the the point though. My only cable option in my city is Suddenlink. Back in the city I was in before, it was Time Warner. Although Dish and DirecTv exist, they are practically different services.

Part of this makes sense from a practical standpoint, because once one company has run wires for a neighborhood, it doesn't really make sense for another company to do the same. Here's where the problem comes in: price fixing and territory division. In competition, companies are forced to produce value and lower prices. However, if you are guaranteed a certain area, all you have to do is keep prices low enough to prevent being run out of town by a mob. Since satellite companies typically only have to compete with one cable company per area, they can maintain their price at the exact same as the cable company and catch people who are fed up with their local option.

Since cable companies are notorious for vacationing in the monopoly area of the law and never leaving, this opens up a chance to not only remove their competition, but divide the digital distribution market by territories. The only difference is that the internet is very much not a series of tubes, and therefore cannot be used as a shield from anti-competition and anti-trust lawsuits.

If you own the company you're colluding with, that's not collusion. You can't engage in anti-competitive practices with yourself, because you were never competing in the first place.

albino boo:

RvLeshrac:

albino boo:

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

They aren't selling it at a loss, they're just not selling it at all. Why aren't they charging the same rate for streaming ads that they charge for televised ads?

They're trying to self-impose losses so they can make everything less convenient, so they can then whine about how much money they're losing.

If I throw out one of every Widget I manufacture, I'm not "selling it at a loss," I'm retarded.

Small point game of thrones costs 5 million per show, so for 10 episodes a season thats $50 million. Hulu made $420 million or enough to pay for 4 and bit seasons of Game of thrones. Admittedly game of thrones is expensive, so if you half the cost per show thats only enough money to make 80 hours of content per year. As people stop paying for cable networks, they have 2 choices cancel shows like game of thrones and replace them with low budget shows or increase revenue from other sources. Its customer choice if you wont pay for it, guess what they wont make it.

So you're saying that only Hulu exists, there are no longer any other methods for distribution, or revenue streams?

Put you right foot in, take your right foot out, put your right foot in, and take a giant leap backward.

Seriously, this is my exact complaint against HBO Go. I want to give you my money. I do. But you make it impossible.

If Hulu Plus requires a cable service, I'm dropping it faster than you can say, "Illegal but not immoral."

Captcha: know your rights

I don't know if I'd call it a right...

DVS BSTrD:
So your saying NBC intends to make their consumers jump through...

*puts on sunglasses*

...Hulu hoops?

My favorite part of that is how you link to an RIT mirror.

They expect this will get them customers?

people are getting sick of monthly fees for everything, and they'll start deciding this piddly hulu shit isn't worth it.

Besides, XBL customers will already be paying for a service that's going to give them TV-like commercials and now they'll have to pay for more stuff they thought the yearly 60 dollar was suppost to cover. Now 60 bucks just gets you in the door before having to pay for more things on the service and put up with commercials.

I have a counter-offer, hulu
image

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here