Comments on: Is Hulu rethinking its distribution strategy?

Video site has stirred speculation about why it has pulled content from TV.com and Boxee. Are the site's backers being pressured by cable companies?

[jomolungma]

My wife and I have been considering dumping cable for a television combo of OTA/NetFlix/Hulu. We watch very little actual TV and the cost far outstrips the utility. Oh, and we weren't planning on using Boxee to make it happen. As the technology for doing this becomes easier and easier to manage (and let's face it, streaming NetFlix through your Xbox 360 can't really get much easier) I think cable companies are going to see a mass exodus of consumers. Rather than cling to their old models and force networks to shut out valid alternative viewing technologies, why don't they innovate and figure out new revenue streams that take advantage of tech? This seems like a real mess just waiting to happen.

[blusky08]

LIkewise.
Cable subscription rates are not commensurate with value.

BUT, downloads are not turning out to be the answer either. For example, it's often more expensive to download a season of your favorite series than to simply buy the DVDs.

[johnrakestraw]

My wife and I have done just that. No cable and dishnetwork . We bought a 20 inch monitor, TV card for the computer and put it all where the TV was. Now we stream, play DVD's and get digital TV through the air. We have 8 children and they don't seem to miss the cable. We have more time for each other and all the things we kept putting off. My family and I love TV, we just found a better way to enjoy it!

[MadLyb]

The cable companies are clueless.

They continue to raise their rates and deliver less value with each day. They can use RIAA/MPAA strongarm tactics with the content providers, but ultimately the consumer will drive the direction and while I am not a fan of watching TV shows on anything but my TV, the solutions are getting better and more cost effective.

[pallarry]

love cable tv personally, but management at twc make be "STUCK ON STUPID", apparently some ivory tower suits always decides what the consumer wants, without ever asking or checking with there own personal pr or direct sales people. in these times increased compitition, and media etc. urging consumers to watch every penny, they must feel if we are losing our customer base, the ones left will have to foot the bill for corporate profits. never mind being more competive in the market place and comeing up with new inovations, making there product more desireable. IS THIS LIKE GOVERNMENT RAISING TAXES BECAUSE THE LEADERS HAVE NOT OPERATED WITH THERE BUDGET>

[mwsmith824]

Personally, I'm going to enjoy watching the war. The content providers didn't want things to go "over the top"? Really, at this point, it was mostly techs running things like Boxee. These are the same people who are savvy enough to know where to go to "acquire" content should they want it. People can download an hour long show in 15 minutes. Usually before it even airs on the west coast. They can watch it without those ads, and without any of those providers receiving a penny of revenue for it. It's not a fight the content providers can win. They should have learned from music industry, they didn't, now unless they reverse course they'll suffer the same fate.

Someone find me some popcorn and Milk Duds, this is going to be a fun blood bath!

[toosday]

Excellent post, Greg! I was wondering the same thing.

Ahh.... cable companies: They complain about shrinking revenues and worry about subscribers "cutting the cord" yet they continue to 1.) Raise subscription rates and 2.) Remove channels in order to try and force subscribers to higher-tier packages.

It's going to be interesting to see how powerful the cable companies are in 5-10 years. Just what iTunes Store did for music, companies like Hulu, Boxee and others are likely to do with television. In the long run, convenience always wins.

[ubnyan]

It is possible TV could disappear in a near future. Most people are now using faster Internet connections capable of streaming real-time video and most everything can be found online these days. Why pay for something we can watch for free online, at any time, and as many times as we want? Most people pay $50+/m or over $600/yr for something they only enjoy a couple hours a week each month. Cable TV in my opinion is just a luxury.

[mike234x]

But where are you gonna get Internet access? Only through the cable companies or the phone companies, and both are completely overpriced in the US. In Europe, I can get 16Mbps DSL for $30/month, 30Mbps cable for $35/month, and 6Mbps unlimited 3.5G for $25/month over cell phone networks (at home, tethered, and on the phone for one price). As long as the US cable companies control a significant part of Internet access and the phone companies have similar monopolistic aspirations, they are going to find ways of limiting this.

That's also why they oppose net neutrality so much. They want to be able to keep Hulu, Netflix, and iTunes from competing with them by limiting rates on them.

[macewan_]

I would really like to know which content providers pushed for this so that they can be boycotted. Through blogging, Facebook discussions and Twittering. The correct path to take in these situation is to please the customers - that would be us - the folks watching the content.

You see what's really happening is your continued path of self destruction. The fact of the matter is I watch the crap you put out because of ease not desire. We the consumers of your content want ease of use not tons of B.S. The truth of the matters is it would take less than 20 minutes to torrent the lame crap you're passing off as entertainment. We allow ourselves to stomach the commercials that fill more and more of todays shows. Because it was easier.

Are you trying to drive tech. savvy folks and future potential customers away in droves? Is the end game bankruptcy for the industry in hopes of a bailout? Is it some sort of industry wide spontaneous retardation causing your bad decisions? Do you secretly hate the TV business? Seriously, what's your damage?!

Side down with Hulu and Boxee hammer out an advertising arrangement. Time for me to head off and begin blogging through the mixture of our 180+ domains. I just have to get off my chest how badly Fringe was as a show. I mean seriously - it suckath in my opinion.

;-)

* actually the show kicks ass *

You know - this doesn't affect me. I hardly watch TV anyways. My HD TV is just the really sweet thing connected to my Xbox360. Lets face it, TV is moving to the internet and consumers will force the hand of hollywood one way or another. I could hit the internet right now and get 720p versions of nearly every show that aired on cable last night if I knew where to look. Compare that with the terrible quality of Hulu video, it makes sense that they would prefer to not have people watching their shows. The music, movie, and tv industries are a big sad joke. They are old, senile, and dieing and yet we have to watch them drool on themselves until someone can replace them.

[blusky08]

Hollywood will eventually be the winner in this. Consumers will lose. If physical media disappears, they'll probably charge nearly the SAME price for downloads, and you'll have to pay for it everytime you want to watch!

[daedbird]

Personally, I think it has more to do with NBC and Fox wanting to control how their content is channeled, not about the cable companies. Hulu is becoming really big - people know it and use it. They want to monetize it so the lost of live network viewers is made. Giving it away to Boxee just won't work - they will make more lucrative deals, or come out with their own box......As for TV.COm, well CBS has their own viewing site and Hulu wants to drive people to their site, not another's

[sleddinghippo]

I'm not sure Hulu is the problem. When people have less money to spend and the prices of Cable are going up, people have to really consider if it's still worth it. But digital broadcast TV could just as likely be the reason people don't care about cable anymore. I like broadcast TV better than sites like Hulu. Broadcast is better than ever due to the digital transition, once you get converted right. There's no snow in the picture and reception is perfect now. I can't seem to get low numbered channels, but all the channels above 13 are great. I expect only really heavy TV viewers would need more than what broadcast offers. I certainly don't watch enough TV to need more channels. I do have cable internet, but that's because the local phone company wants a 2 year contract for DSL and I didn't want to sign it. Before I moved, I was happy with my old DSL provider, but I can't justify the risk in signing a contract for something when I don't know if it will meet my needs or not. If I'm not happy, I need to be free to cancel it. I assume the quality is bad, or why else would I need to sign an agreement not to cancel the service? I don't care about bandwidth as long as I can use it to play games like World of Warcraft, and my old DSL worked great for games. I have little interest in video through the internet, but I never had Cable TV service before either. But if the price gap keeps growing between Cable Internet and DSL, I'll probably abandon cable and sigh the lousy DSL contract. It's all about getting the product you're most comfortable with for the price you're willing to pay, but I would be a little surprised if Hulu is the product people prefer. It's probably more about people having less money to spend and the price of Cable going up.

[pentest]

Digital broadcasting is not magically immune to environmental effects on the quality of the reception. It is still radio waves traveling through the atmosphere. Electrical storms can still cause static, part of the transmission can get corrupted, "lost", etc.

[karpenterskids]

For the record...online video IS the future. :)



Great post, btw.

[stigmattaman]

Video on Demand is the future. Whether it's through the cable box or through a computer screen (I know cable VOD comes online ... ). I've already grown tired of DVR.

[ChuckFortWorth]

I turned our cable off after I was sick and couldn?t sleep. Late at night most of what was on was Paid Commercials. Told the representative that once they offered ala-cart channel selection I might be back, but I wasnt paing them to show me commercials. It was two weeks before my wife realized I had turned the cable off.

[gregorytga]

I understand the perspective the execs but honestly, as a tech savvy user, I've been downloading TV shows since the dark ages using Scour. These days with many torrent sites offering abilities to track your favorite shows and alert you when new episodes are posted, plus with 720p downloads with the AC3 intact (surround sound) and ability to watch whenever you want, they're already losing.

Hulu actually was the legal means that actually made it more convenient to watch The Daily Show as opposed to pirating. The advertisements were tolerable as it was completely on demand, although realistically it only takes about 3 minutes to download 175 megs (size of a 24 minute program) off a particular site I'm fond of for an episode of the Daily Show.

With ever increasing internet speeds and FiOS set to unleash broadband at much higher speeds, like it or not they need to start embracing legal alternatives. The problem is competing with piracy. Its easier for me to watch most of my favorite shows by pirating, and there's a bit of a moral quagmire if I were to download it illegally or watch it on a DVR with the commercials edited out.

And here I thought the TV execs might be smarter than the music industry...

[chrisx1]

Cable companies will make you pay one way or the other.
For instance, Comcast High-Speed Internet services costs about $50-$60 per month with a restrictive download/upload cap or else you can sign up for Business Internet service for about $100 per month so you can stream and download as much online video as you want.
However, for $100 per month you could have just signed up for a nice a nd easy to use cable package with HD DVR and video on demand. Either way, they are getting the money.

[maelove82]

I actually did give up cable. I only pay internet and I use Hulu, NBC.com,ABC.com, CW.com and other stations websites to catch up on TV shows I've missed. This I can watch when I want to watch and not be glued to the TV waiting!

[gefitz]

I can almost hear the telcos licking their chops...soon the content-poor cable companies, so very 1990 in their ways, will turn into nothing but ISP's with some content that the elderly subscribe to because they don't like change. ISP's with much more expensive infrastructure than phonelines/fiber....ISP's that charge double for the same class of service....bye bye cable companies!

[mpitogo]

For an insane $180 I gave up cable too. And that wasn't even with one premium channel. Their phone sucked, no online access to VM and other features. TV shifted to an HD DVR and Boxee watching mostly youtube, hulu and Netflix. The TV were all recorded and watched later, thank god for the 30sec DVR skip, 5 buttons later back to the show. Phone went to Vonage and internet stayed with the reasonable 15mbps at 45/mo. I don't miss cable tv and phone and certainly don't miss the bill.

[ewalsh69]

I live in Queens, NYC, and I have three kids. I have Time Warner for Internet and DirectTV for TV.
After reading this article I really stopped to think about my families TV watching ways.
1. My Children: are all under 4 y/o and I have a Tivo, Laptop (for Netflix Streaming & Hulu.com), Sony Travel DVD Player and Apple TV. They really only want to watch a few must shows. And even then they don't demand them, they just know they are there like Mickey Club House. Otherwise my kids watch Sitting Duck, Wallace and Grommet, Woody Woodpecker on Hulu, Kids DVD's shows and movies via Netflix Streaming. The ones not streamed I get from Netflix Mail or buy Used via Amazon, kids don't mind watching season 3 of Scooby Doo 4x a day 7 days a week so Buying a used DVD is worthwhile.
If I where to cut DirectTV there would be NO hit to my kids viewing needs.

2. Wife: She really only watched Desperate Housewives, But thats on free TV. The only other must see for her is on Sci-Fi, Battle Star Galactica, They have the epiesodes on Sci-Fi channel and its ending in a few weeks so no big deal. Other than that, she is happy with Netflix for movies and the occasional TV Series like Dexter.

3. Me: I have very few must need shows. BSG (again ending so no biggie.), Star Wars Clone Wars on Sci-Fi, I can wait for the DVD season to come out on Netflix, Evening news, again free OTA, Heck I download the NBC Evening news as a video Podcast to my iPod and watch it on the bus & subway going to work in the morning. I have NO other shows on cable I MUST see. OTA is ok with me. The remainder of my shows are actually Video Podcasts which I watch on my AppleTV (DL.TV, Tekzilla, Geek Brief etc.)

I am REALLY serious about cutting Sat/Cable from my life. Its close to $70 a month when you add all the B.S. NYC/NYS taxes and "fees" (why do I pay an MTA "fee" on my cable bill?!?!)
Tivo makes it so simple, but I think I may build out a PC, drop two TV Cards in and throw in Video Card with HDMI & a Blu-Ray drive and plug into internet. That will do just about ALL my needs. I just need a good SIMPLE remote like the peanut shaped Tivo remote (which BTW is a brilliant design.) for my wife. Forget a Logitech remote, to expensive and will confuse my wife with its LCD screen on it. Not to mention my kids get there hands on it it better hold up as a play hammer. FYI, the Tivo remote has on many occasions, still ticking (or is that clicking)!

Going to have a talk to my wife, it maybe later for Cable/Sat!

[ziondatamatics]

for more details
www.divinesaints.com

[ziondatamatics]

for more details
www.divinesaints.com