Shared publicly  - 
 
I don't know about the veracity of this report, but note to television studios and networks: like millions of other "cable cutters", I will never, ever have a cable or satellite subscription again. If you want to deliver your shows to me, you need to find a way to do it over a (net-neutrality respecting) Internet connection, otherwise I'll just find something else to watch. Period.
38
5
Tracey Wong's profile photoPatrick Haverkamp's profile photoThu Tu Koelling's profile photoDuke Olson's profile photo
34 comments
 
I'm with you, DeWitt, I don't have a cable or satellite subscription, and this won't make me get one. Watching constant commercials on Hulu+ is bad enough.
 
Thanks for the share. Why is Hulu going for cable and satellite providers? hmm..
 
Maybe filmmakers should start using Kickstarter? Maybe Hulu should get that going?
 
Well that's the end of Hulu for me. I guess they just wanted to turn our brains to mush so we wouldn't be smart enough to see this coming. Mmmm. Mushy mush.
 
I'd drop them like I dropped Netflix. Television is near the bottom of the "things I'm willing to pay for" list.
 
I didn't drop Netflix, I didn't use the DVD option, and $8 a month for a large array of content is cheap despite their bungling of everything last year. I tried and paid for hulu a few times, and just didn't use it. A lot of prime time tv is not worth the effort. Anyways, considering their investors - this short sighted move is typical, business as usual. I certainly will never use them again, I do have a satellite subscription, my efforts to cut the cable were thwarted by my family, and by us using HBO and Showtime a lot.
 
It will just mean another near monopoly for Amazon, since they will stand up to the networks like they did to the record industry.

I stream a few shows from Amazon already because hulu does not have them, but it does mean I become even more selective in what I watch, since not every show is worth $1.99 per episode.
 
I'm waiting to hear from +Hulu Plus on this as I enjoy their service (love me some Rockford Files-era TV) and this might just be a rumor getting out-of-hand, but I would have to drop them as well if they did this. 10+ years cable/satellite free and loving it!
 
They'll abandon the idea as soon as they see their traffic fall through the ground.
 
This trend is deeply frustrating -- not so much for Hulu, which doesn't have much I can't get elsewhere, but because some of the producers of great content (I'm looking at you, HBO) are also sticking with the "we won't sell to you unless you have cable" model. So for example I can get Game of Thrones Season 1 on Amazon, but I'm stuck a year behind waiting for Season 2, just because I don't have cable.

But I don't want cable, and don't even have room for a bloody TV in my house anyway. It's deeply frustrating when these idiots won't take the money I'm trying to give them :-/
 
+John Cassero I subscribed to +Hulu Plus for a few months, but in the end I didn't see the point: I mainly got it so I could watch Hulu on my Roku device, but then most of the current content was not available there. So then I was paying quite a hefty monthly subscription for just the additional older content, most of which is available on netflix anyway. I would resubscribe if they offered all their content on all devices, or dramatically lowered the price or removed the commercials. As it stands, it's just not a very good deal, since I get access to everything I really want to watch on the free version anyway.
 
Here's a dissenting opinion. You can require me to have a cable subscription but once I prove that to you, how about no commercials?
 
I just refuse to pay for commercials--if I pay for a service, I expect not to be subjected to commercial inanity. So no Hulu+ for me--and no Hulu at all if this goes through!
 
The reason HBO and Showtime aren't eager to join the internet party is pretty clear to me: they get $25 or more per customer per month, for which they produce 1 or 2 big budget shows per season. There is no way they are going to make nearly that much if they offer a la carte streaming. If they offered a streaming service for that amount of money would you subscribe to it? I'm happy to wait a year at those prices, especially since I only like about half their of what they produce.
 
+Eric Casteleijn But what about the fact they have Pootie Tang and Beaches on heavy rotation the one weekend when you're stuck inside with nothing to but watch a movie? Isn't that worth $25 a month?
 
Fellow cable cutters - I could handle losing Hulu. But how are you planning on watching the Olympics?

From http://www.nbcolympics.com/liveextra/index.html

If you are currently a cable or satellite TV subscriber, you will have FREE access to all digital Olympic coverage including:
Live streaming events
Full replays of events
 
I'm OK with paying for cable, just not every channel or show. I wish there was some way for content producers to make their money without the giant middlemen sucking down value.

I'd be willing to pay the same $100+ if I could just watch everything like Netflix and never have to worry about the cable box and other crap.

I support big budget shows like game of thrones and the walking dead, but I'm not interested in paying for sports and reality TV.
 
+Alan Fothergill I probably won't watch the Olympics. I'd pay a fee for the option to stream just it...but to reiterate all of the above: I will not get cable. Ever. Period.

I guess if NBC doesn't want my money they don't have to take it.
 
+Eric Casteleijn I'm definitely going to live with being a year behind as well. But according to Dish's site, HBO is $16/mo, while Showtime is $13. That's still more than I'd care to pay for the one show I want, but not by much -- if they run 4 episodes, and I had to pay $2-3 for each, that's $8-$12 from me, just for one show. They wouldn't get that all year, of course, but as it stands they're getting squat, so it would be a net win.

I can only presume that at some point there will be enough cable cutters that they'll be forced to change this model. I imagine they're getting some pushback (and maybe a kickback?) from the likes of Dish and Comcast, though, because at present you have to buy an otherwise-useless cable subscription just to get the right to pay again for HBO. But still, someday this will change.
 
+Alan Fothergill +Joby Elliott : I agree it's sad that I will probably have to skip the Olympics this year. The Olympic committee should really require video licensees to make it broadly available, not just to cable subscribers. Maybe next year...
 
Those seeking Olympic coverage could proxy into Canada and use the CTV feeds. Pretty sure they aren't requiring a cable subscription.
 
+Joel Webber Usually the subscription fee is really low when signing up (I think $5 each for the first half year when I had them) and then rises very steeply at the end of the trial period, but I have no idea what current prices are like. It may be different per cable/satellite provider as well, depending on what deals they have in place. I'm not saying it can't be worth it, but it may not appeal to enough people to make them do it. (Also considering that the internet offering would likely not include their movie and "adult" entertainment offerings.)

And yes, I'm also convinced this will change, but probably not as quickly as we'd like.
 
+Shawn Drape Or try FTA satellite feeds from Canada. Many of them aren't encrypted at all. Just grab a dish and find a transponder.
 
Cartoon Network has already done this. In order to watch any of the Adult Swim shows online or their daytime programming, you have to log into your cable provider. It is very annoying.
 
And ESPN3, and many other web content providers.
 
I guess they're all hell-bent on becoming even less relevant to me and people like me.
 
On a related note, how often do you think tech companies "leak" "rumors" about things they just want to gauge public opinion on? Hulu could have easily leaked this rumor themselves, and now, seeing the huge uproar against it can always just say "nope, wasn't true. We never even considered doing that."

If they did that it would be a smart way to both draw attention and feel out the public's opinions in one fell swoop.
 
I dropped down to basic cable with just the local channels, and I don't miss it a bit. Now I watch Hulu or Netflix, but I'm not about to get cable again just to watch some show on Hulu. After the big Netflix raise rates/split company failure - I'm surprised anyone would try this.
 
I think the real experiment would be if HBO Go stopped requiring a cable subscription to HBO itself. I would be really curious to see what would happen if they offered upwards of $15/month Go-only subscriptions. I mean they already charge $16/month on DirecTV and I bet they take a cut of that. Imagine if HBO took all of it? How is this not a no-brainer to them?
 
+Brett Cannon I feel the same way, but I'm guessing they have a rat's nest of outstanding contracts with cable providers requiring exclusive arrangements (likely geographically segmented, or something like that). I'm guessing the Comcasts of the world would be quite unhappy if they were no longer the only way to get new HBO dramas, especially in markets where they're effectively monopoly cable providers.
 
+Brett Cannon My guess is that they would fear backlash from the cable and satellite companies. They are reliant on the promotion of their channel through the catalog of offered channels. If they were to get cut off from that, their market would greatly diminish.

Personally, I think they have enough brand power that consumers would complain if they lost HBO on their cable offerings, but I'm not in a position to be advising anyone on the matter.
 
+Paul Eubanks, nope--I actually grew up in a home without a television of any kind, and by the time I was able to decide whether to get cable or satellite, the internet was starting to heat up with various video services, so I never bothered. (And possibly that kind of childhood made me more annoyed by commercials as an adult?)

In any case, I just consider ads plus paying to be a case of the company double-dipping: I'm paying to watch, and ad companies are paying them to have me watch. If the companies behind Hulu had started Netflix, no doubt ads would be a considerable part of the Netflix model--because the Hulu companies don't seem to want to give up their double-dipping, so they're desperately trying to keep the getting-paid-twice system. Despite Netflix's issues in the past year, I'm very grateful that they haven't started incorporating ads--'cause then I'd have to start illegally downloading all my videos and that would make me feel bad :(
Add a comment...