Slashdot Mirror


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."

35 of 648 comments (clear)

  1. In that case... by ajpuciat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    USENET it is.

    1. Re:In that case... by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hilariously my favorite usenet provider only wants a few dollars more a month than Hulu Plus was.

      Guess who's getting my cash, now!?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:In that case... by TehDuffman · · Score: 5, Informative

      USENET it is.

      Usenet
      Sabnzbd
      SickBeard
      CouchPotato
      XBMC - Or other HTPC

      If you can get these 5 things working together (it isn't hard trust me) you never need cable again (unless you're a sports fan which I am). Completely automated, maxes out your internet connection and can be completely SSL. All for around $10-15 a month.

  2. Bye bye Hulu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I didn't really need you before, I sure don't need you now.

    Hello, Bittorrent!

    1. Re:Bye Bye Hulu! by halfEvilTech · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well I was tossing between hulu and netflix after I cut the cord. But they just made my decision all the easier.

    2. Re:Bye Bye Hulu! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hulu free has been sucking for months now. Can't deliver even a half decent video stream at any resolution. Meanwhile, Netflix watch it now, on the exact same hardware/network/etc., looks and sounds great. Can't say I'm inspired to pony up for a Hulu subscription when they change their service terms faster than the subscription period runs out.

      Last cable service I had was in 1993... can't say I've missed it. If Hulu cuts me off, there's plenty of TV to watch on Netflix.

  3. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Of course by ezweave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    2. Re:Of course by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Of course by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      Amen to that.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Of course by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    5. Re:Of course by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No mod points to give (and I wish it went above five at times like this).

      Two months ago, I gave Comcast the ol' heave-ho in favor of a far, far cheaper ($100 less per month cheaper) satellite+DSL subscription package. I get more channels, a far more reliable connection (speed? whatever... my 6Mbps DSL line gets me downloads way faster than Comcast's forged-RST and oversubscribed-DOCSIS 'product' could ever hope to give.)

      Let's just say that I'd rather masturbate to a nudie pic of Rosie O'Donnell with a fistful of broken glass soaked in gasoline, than to even think of giving money to those fucktards... ever.

      If Hulu demands that I get a cable sub, Hulu simply won't be visited by any computer here.

      Besides, speaking of which, how exactly does Hulu intend to compete with the cableco's own online/streaming features? It's like buddying up to a ravenous tiger in the hopes that you'll be eaten last or something.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:Of course by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    7. Re:Of course by Tr3vin · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    8. Re:Of course by LandDolphin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    9. Re:Of course by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      masturbate to a nudie pic of Rosie O'Donnell with a fistful of broken glass soaked in gasoline

      According to some rule I heard about there is a website for that...

  4. no. by cornface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This doesn't make cable subscriptions more attractive.

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

    1. Re:no. by BobNET · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Rare non-xkcd, yet relevant comic: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

  5. Two words by tmosley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck that.

  6. Good luck with that. by SniperJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good luck with that. by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hulu was never independent. Look up who their FOUNDERS are.

      Hulu is a joint venture of NBCUniversal (Comcast/General Electric),[5] Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp) and Disney-ABC Television Group (The Walt Disney Company),[6] with funding by Providence Equity Partners, the owner of Newport Television, which made a US$100 million equity investment and received a 10% stake.[7]

      - wiki

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
  7. Huh? by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      People use Hulu because I don't have cable.

      I don't know about anyone else... but I use Hulu and I had no idea whether or not you had cable.

  8. Re:But... WHY? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Break 'em up please by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  10. Forget BitTorrent by sarysa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Netflix's stock is about to recover from that huge screwup back in September...

    --
    Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
  11. Where's the evidence? by Shaterri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Where's the evidence? by davidshewitt · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I looked on Hulu's Wikipedia page, and it said:

      Starting August 15, 2011, viewers of content from Fox and related networks will have to authenticate whether they subscribe to a paid cable or satellite service wherever Fox streams episodes, including Hulu, to be able to watch them the morning after the first airing. Non-subscribers will see those episodes delayed a week before they are viewable.

      The wikipedia article cites the following NY Times article. The source is more credible, and there's a big difference between "Hulu to Require Viewers To Have a Cable Subscription" and "Fox to Limit Next-Day Streaming on Hulu to Paying Cable Customers."

  12. They get it...and yet, they don't by ISurfTooMuch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't think for a moment that these guys don't understand why people are using Hulu. This action today shows that they understand quite well. The cable companies are scared shitless that people will cancel and use Hulu instead, and that's why they're doing this.

    And yet, they don't get it. They seem to think that this scheme is going to stop people from dropping cable. In fact, all it's going to do is flush Hulu down the toilet. People will still drop cable, but they'll find alternatives to Hulu, both legal and illegal.

    You really have to hand it to the entertainment industry. These guys aren't afraid to walk up to their customers, spit in their faces, piss all over them, and then hand them a bill for the privilege. And I'd be willing to bet that the ONLY reason they don't hire Guido, Vinny, and Rocco to handle collections is because the lawyers told them that doing do is a liability issue.

    If I worked at Hulu, I'd be updating my resume about now.

  13. Corporate suicide by gstrickler · · Score: 5, Funny

    If corporations are people, then this is a suicide note from Hulu. I recommend mandatory confinement to a mental ward of a hospital for 72 hours of observation. Since Hulu, as a corporation is actually a gestalt entity of the board of directors and officers, they must all be placed in the same mental ward so that the gestalt entity can be observed.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  14. Re:But... WHY? by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  15. Re:But... WHY? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  16. Line fees by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Line fees by ukemike · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not in a box.
      Not with a fox.
      Not in a house.
      Not with a mouse.
      I would not watch it
      here or there.
      I would not watch it anywhere.
      I would not watch cable TV.
      I do not like it, no-sir-ee.

      --
      -- QED
  17. TFA is probably wrong by ffflala · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a rumor spread by "sources", as the NY Post helpfully explains. It looks like it's only a speculative rumor; it's certainly nothing official. I just got off the phone w/ Hulu customer service about this --if it were true, I would have immediately canceled my Hulu Plus subscription.

    While the customer support guy was not permitted to respond directly to claims in new stories, he said they hadn't heard of such a change, he'd be shocked if they did so, and would feel the same way about it that I did. It doesn't make much sense, as this would precisely eliminate the reason I bother to pay for Hulu Plus -- because I don't have, and will not buy, cable service. A move like this would do nothing to enhance Hulu's revenue, and would almost certainly eliminate a large part of their subscribers.

    If you're a Hulu Plus subscriber and you're actually concerned about it, call them yourself; 1-877-719-2773. No hold time, no phone tree; it goes directly to a human in customer service.