Hulu To Require Viewers To Have Cable Subscriptions

The NY Post reports that Hulu, the video streaming service with over 30 million users, has plans to force those users to prove they have a subscription to cable or satellite TV if they want to keep watching. Quoting: "The move toward authentication is fueled by cable companies and networks looking to protect and profit from their content. The effort comes as entertainment companies continue to face drastic shifts in home viewing habits. Overall spending on home entertainment edged up 2.5 percent to $4.45 billion in the first quarter as a surge in digital streaming — which rose more than fivefold to $549 million — offset a continuing collapse in video rentals, according to Digital Entertainment Group. ... Hulu racked up some $420 million in ad revenue last year and is expected to do well in this year’s ad negotiations. But the move toward authentication, which could take years to complete, will make cable companies happy because it could slow cord-cutting by making cable subscribing more attractive."

Comments

In that case...

[ajpuciat]

USENET it is.

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the options available, the one we hate the most and absolutely will not do under any circumstances is give the consumers what they actually want and will happily pay for.

Re:Of course

[ezweave]

I know. I'd even be okay with buying episodes of shows as they air, not to coincide with some poorly done DVD release (hello, HBO) if they exist at all. In lieu of sane options, piracy is all that's left.

The cabal of advertisers, cable companies, and television networks are all so worried about losing viewers that they've decided to strap their sinking ships together. Because that's a grand idea. It worked very well for the music industry. Who wants to rock out to my Nickelback CDs? After that we can watch a movie on my DIVX (not DivX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX) player!

Re:Of course

[lgw]

Or Netflix streaming, which while it has spotty coverage it will still have higher than 0% of recent shows.

Nothing will ever get me to subscribe to cable again guys. Sell me your content in some sane way on the internet and I'll pay, but never a cable subscription.

Re:Of course

[iamhassi]

I know. I'd even be okay with buying episodes of shows as they air, not to coincide with some poorly done DVD release (hello, HBO) if they exist at all. In lieu of sane options, piracy is all that's left.

The cabal of advertisers, cable companies, and television networks are all so worried about losing viewers that they've decided to strap their sinking ships together. Because that's a grand idea. It worked very well for the music industry.

it's.... it's almost like.... they don't *want* our money, like they see the new technology and say... no, we refuse to be compatible with your phone and laptop and tablet and etc, will you please just give us money and we won't give you what you want? How does that make any sense at all?

Me: Excuse me waiter! I'll have a steak
Waiter: very good sir, steaming pile of crap coming up!
Me: Um, no, I said I would like a steak
Waiter: that's fine sir, but all we serve is steaming piles of crap. No one wants it, but that's what we give them and you'll pay us for it!
Me: Uh..... I think I'll go somewhere else.... there's a nice new torrent restaurant across the street that gives me what I want and costs a lot less
Waiter: No! That's.... not right! You can't do that! We'll.... we'll.... we will sue you!
Me: Really? Everyone? You're going to sue everyone that doesn't buy steaming piles of crap from you? Good luck with that!

Re:Of course

[cpu6502]

I wonder if NBC/comcast is trying to kill hulu on purpose. Really. This idea is about as brainless as my "Fantasy & Science" magazine saying, "If you want our discounted $11.88 e-book version, you also must subscribe to the print version for $35.99. Sorry." It's almost genius in its malevolence.

(1) NBC/comcast doesn't want people dropping CATV.

(2) NBC/comcast doesn't want people streaming over the net, as it overloads their networks (they claim).

(3) NBC/comcast wants people to watch THEIR streaming video service, not other video services.

Therefore it makes logical sense they would want Hulu to cease to exist through making policies that would scare-off customers. If ever there were grounds for a Sherman Antitrust Lawsuit, these are it. But of course it will never happen as long as Comcast/Hollywood's best friend Obama and his copyright czar is in the white house. (I doubt Romney would bother either.)

Re:Of course

[Tr3vin]

You could always not watch the shows. I like how going without entertainment from a broken industry is never an option.

Re:Of course

[LandDolphin]

I like the concept. But $2 per show is too much imo. I don't want to end up paying $48 for a 24 episode season without even a DVD to show for my purchase.

no.

[cornface]

This doesn't make cable subscriptions more attractive.

All it does is make hulu less attractive than it already is.

Two words

[tmosley]

Fuck that.

Good luck with that.

[SniperJoe]

Good luck with that Hulu. What's next, is CNN.com going to force me to prove I have cable before reading their site? Hulu, people gladly watch your content with ads and you buckled to the cable providers, torpedoing your independence.

Huh?

[MobyDisk]

People use Hulu because I don't have cable. Isn't that the point?

The move toward authentication is fueled by cable companies and networks looking to protect and profit from their content.

It seems that allowing cable companies to purchase content providers wasn't a good idea after all. Oh wait, that's what everyone except the FCC said already.

Re:But... WHY?

[MightyMartian]

To read an online magazine, you must also have a snail mail subscription?

There's nothing about this that makes any sense. It's stupid, ultimately self-destructive and only proves that the big media companies don't get it, and likely never will.

Break 'em up please

[T Murphy]

We are really starting to reap the rewards of allowing content and distribution to merge together.

Where's the evidence?

[Shaterri]

Everyone else on the net seems to point to the article in the NY Post (not exactly known for its careful fact-checking) and the Post article talks about Hulu 'taking its first steps' without a single mention of what those steps are. No other news stories I can find in the last several days talk about any changes occurring to Hulu's model (other than more original programming) or the Hulu user experience. So what the hell is the Post talking about, exactly? What evidence is there — beyond some editorial negative-wishcasting — that anything like this is going on?

Re:But... WHY?

[lgw]

's stupid, ultimately self-destructive and only proves that the big media companies don't get it, and likely never will.

It will be an interesting case study of whether capitalism still works in America. If capitalism works, we'll be saying "the former big media companies didn't get it, and that's why we have this new set of big media companies". If capitalism fails, there will be bail-outs. I'm not sure which way I would bet these days.

Re:But... WHY?

[MightyMartian]

I would consider the current copyright laws and the ones that they keep drafting and trying to push through every which way amount to a bailout. Rather than forcing the big media companies to compete, legislators are trying to build a wall around them.

Line fees

[tepples]

Nothing will ever get me to subscribe to cable again guys.

Not even if a DOCSIS ISP were to bundle a free TV subscription with all home Internet plans? The "line fees" that DOCSIS and DSL ISPs charge for not bundling the ISP's other services are close to this.