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?

[GlennAllen]

I canceled my "cable TV" service quite some time ago... paying for channels that also have commercials? yeah, right (are advertisers still so stupid as to think their ads attract business? 99% of them are ignored by viewers--they might as well be throwing their money in the toilet, which, given the state of "TV" now, they pretty much are). If what you're saying is accurate--that NBC-Universal & News Corp are "behind this", then not only will I be ignoring Hulu from now on, but shows from NBC,USA, Sci-Fi and every other NBC-U & News Corp source. Nothing offered by butt-heads is worth my time. If they want me to watch their content, then they can start paying me. :D

[jevinart]

the trickle of media blunders is turning into a torrent (literally).

sony and it's fat cat studio bed-buddies have invested billions into blu-ray -- an overpriced and much-too-late technology that is tanking in a global economic recession (plus, how many youths do u know that are rushing out to fill their rooms with blu-ray disks?). cable companies (comcast in the forefront) are accused of restricting bandwidth to alternative entertainment access. movie studios are re-hashing stale ideas and re-packaging them as innovation. subscription television services are quickly falling behind in satisfying consumer demand and offering the flexibility that their customers want and seek. there's panic to keep "more of the same" as the status quo, and to re-fill their bank-rolls while trying to convince the public that their services are our only option.

lately, my television has remained dark more often during times when i used to be a dedicated and regular watcher. i flip thru my directv guide over and over during the evenings, trying to find something that interests me. in frustration, i turn off the box and spend more and more time online.

the future of entertainment media is via the computer. period. innovation is the key to media survival. those who spoil this for the world are doomed to a future of resentment. i have adopted a sentiment of scorn and disgust with the entertainment conglomerates who are trying to force me into settling for less than i know is available and fits my definition of quality programming.

they have no one to blame but themselves for their short-sightedness and refusal to funnel the consumer dollars they receive into alternative venues and innovation. just like the banking industry and wall street, there is a culture of greed and non-compliance with consumer wishes and demands. now that they are suffering, they are turning around and biting their customers, raiding our wallets with higher prices and pursuing "violators" in their self-perceived manifest destiny of controlling entertainment access.

it's very sad, really. in tough economic times, it seems that companies used to laziness and and tunnel-vision are now trying to sabotage innovation which threatens to topple them from the towers they've created for themselves, the foundations of which are cracking and crumbling beneath the weight of their fat flesh cushions.

if my rommate wasn't so entrenched in his tv-watching habit, i'd disconnect my subscription television service in a heartbeat. my own viewership of television airwaves has excluded network tv (nbc, fox, cbs, abc, bs, byob, fu, etc.) for about 10 years now. won't touch the crap. overall, my television viewing has dropped about 75%, while my web viewing has increased exponentially.

there's nothing this industry can do to change my mind or try to convince me i'm a misguided and defective individual for trying to choose an alternative source from the bland mush they're attempting to spoon-feed me. the future is online. it's going to take the public's will and own innovation to throw these greasy holes out of power, and to support the type of viewing we truly want.

withhold your dollars from their advertisers. write their advertising clients and request that they invest in ur favorite streaming site instead -- tell them u'll buy their product if u see them pursuing investment in the technology that is meaningful to u. put ur viewing into the venues u want. support the sites u love with your time and attention.

screw tv. it's antiquated technology chewing it's hind legs off in hunger and panic......

[BtmnHatesRbn]

ISPs are using download limits, and Hulu is a bit quirky to use and get decent full-screen video. Also, computers as content-provision for TV is a terrible solution, as I use to do that until Netflix was on the Xbox 360 as an option. But still, sometimes, when I get home, I just want to kick back, press a button on my remote, and watch whatever. With a computer or a game system or like-device there, I have to exercise some brain activity and choose something that may or may not load, depending how many people are on the line that my ISP uses. Forget it. TV is the idiot box, meant for vegging out with.

[sylhyntm]

Now you know why DSL (where available) blows Cable out of the water - I always get what I paid for speedwise - while many I know on cable, simply do not. If you know how to use your browser (you are using Firefox, aren't you?) intelligently - it shouldn't require any real brain work to 'veg out'.

[streamOG]

Hulu is hurting for cash. The former CEO of NBC Digital [Kliavkoff] predicted it would fail within a year of his departure and it will.

The reason they are pulling back their inventory is their advertisers are not seeing enough traffic on their ads so Hulu is trying to decrease the outlets for the content in return.

The reality is that free models don't generate enough cash to survive. Don't throw your TV away yet because even after all these years.... there's no free lunch... not even on the Internet.

[bnlewis]

Dropped Comcast TV service 4 months ago and couldn't be happier. Why pay for the same content twice! Can watch OTA in beautiful 1080i. Stream Netflix through Xbox while waiting for my next Bluray movie to arrive by mail; Youtube through a PS3. Not to mention gaming. Download shows to my iphone, can watch them on the go or on my 50" plasma tv. Still pay Comcast $65/ month for internet, but the instant I can get access somewhere else, I gone. Where is the app that lets my iphone be a router? Maybe with the G4 network.

[Eludium-Q36]

FYI, Cox Commun. in the Wash DC area just notified us that rates are going up eff April 15th. I have digital cable and the Preferred broadband service (~6M dwn/~3M up) and my bill goes up $8/mon to $130/mon (incl taxes/fees). Their reason for the increase ? Cost of content! So, yes, like everyone else posting here I'm looking to exit stage right and yank the $75/mon digital cable portion of this bill. It's just no longer worth that level of commitment.

[gerrrg]

The big cable operators are mistaken if they think they can create a monopoly of content for their subscribers. They will merely push this content broadly across p2p torrents across the world, depriving them of a bunch of user-generated ad revenue.

Instead, they need to come to some sort of revenue sharing agreement with advertisers and content providers, so that content is ad-supported and everyone gets a piece of the revenue while keeping access open and therefore the number of user-generated ad revenue high.

[sylhyntm]

I just love the way those idiots in corporate offices fail to realize that they are not impervious to the economy. Your revenue is down - or poor you - heck, even Girls Scout cookie sales are down. Add to that the fact that even before the big dump in the economy there were many people whose incomes were stagnating or falling and many found themselves working two or more jobs. If you're working two or more jobs - you have less time for watching TV. If you're kids are more occupied with social networking sites and gaming, they are watching less TV too. Sure, some have the tube on in the background, but if you ask them what they are watching, they often have to stare at the screen for a moment before they can tell you - they aren't paying attention.

I work from home - I can just as easily listen to CNN on the net via the system behind me (while working on the system in front of me) , most 'entertainment' TV is pathetic, though a few shows are OK. I'm 50, the shows I most care about are on PBS (NOVA, Moyers, etc.) and Comedy Central - Daily Show/Colbert and all of these are viewable quite nicely over the Net.

After the DTV transition is complete, they will lose even more viewers either because the OTA is sufficient or broadcast will lose a few million because there are many who simply will not receive a signal no matter what they do either due to distance or obstruction and many will not fork the jack to get a satellite (rural) are be able to afford the cable.

Increasingly, if you asked people - especially younger types - which service is more important - the Net wins.

[aintnorainbowdorothy]

Why give a hoot about the content providers. Anyone can stream anything to their computer and send it to their TV, But with six computers, I need wireless and therefore need my cable, although it would be easier and cheaper to run the content through power lines. I don't give a hoot about Hulu, Netflix or any site of that nature as I can run a torrent and get the same content. And for those of you knocking seniors and their opposition to change, I'm 61 and change is no big deal. I've been using computers for 41 years, can code and program in nearly any languge, and all that crap. I have cable simply because there are shows on Discovery in all its iterations, Science channel, History, etc. Only reason to have it. Do I mind what I pay? of course, but then if I want what I want when I want it, prime time, and wireless, thenI pay. I really do not care, period, for anything other than getting what I want when I want it..

[m913]

Everyone who is looking at the distribution schemes and making fun of broadcast TV and cable while they download and skip commercials: just look ahead a bit. Who is going to provide all this content you want for free? Who will pay the studios, actors, writers, etc.etc.? Just because you want it without the cost does not mean they will make it for free.

[worldmodelcoach]

The power WILL shift! And it will NOT take place in 5-10 years. Technology grows exponentially, not linearly. (If that's a word) It appears that big dumb companies like Cox, Time Warner, and these other giant "Gatekeepers" have the mentality of crimes lords in thinking they have a right to stiff-arm and "muscle" the end-customer who pays the bills. You know, the people who actually create the revenue for your self-involved little shop of customer service horrors.


Super-talented artists and producers of content should be paid for their work. Hell, I don't want to work for free! If content came directly from artists, that would be my path, paying the artists directly. However, it's not. These bumbling bohemuths and even internet providers tend to think what they say is the final word. Well, we know from the naivite of the music industry and the MP3 revolution, that is not the truth. And within two years flat, movies will follow the same path. Why go to a movie when I can digitally download it the same week (or even the same day) it's released. Sad, huh?

Movie services already exist where you can download movies like on the popular site BitTorrent.com and watch anything that you want for as low as $5.99 per month. TV shows, cable shows, blockbuster movies, the whole burrito!

Just a bit of advice to these mindless, "dummy" corporations: ROLL WITH IT OR GET ROLLED OVER!

[nickolasb81]

The DTV revolution is upon us, so is web streaming, it is becoming a mainstream way for people to get the video and information they desire when they want for free or very low cost. This time next year the American people will see what England has been enjoying for several years free digital tv with channels that are far superior to cable tv and free as well as Data casting, I bet we will see someone develop a service that uses the DTV airwaves for more services for free or low cost that will end cable tv. the only things that will keep people on sattelite will be people who are to far away to get DTV broadcasts.

I enjoy using sites like hulu and thewb.com I do think that tv.com will become a major competitor to hulu with CBS, Showtime, CNet, The CW and Paramount TV content all in one spot so why should we continue going through cable systems that charge huge amounts of money to watch something for free or little cost now?

People are cutting back on things as the economy is in craptastic shape people want to feel like life is ok but not able to pay 50 to 150 bucks a month when they need food or internet access to still look for jobs. like me.

[rtuinenburg]

I would be more than happy to keep paying for Cable, if they offered a box that would give me video on demand for every show they normally air and the ability to watch stuff live of course. This would make it easy for me and my family and keep me from looking elsewhere. Cable companies go find some new technology that runs on your system and keep people happy so they don't jump ship. Its that simple.