Digital Media

Vevo, the new music-video site operated by Google (which owns YouTube) and co-owned by three of the four major labels (EMI, Sony, and Universal; Warner Bros. not participating), launched on Tuesday to some fanfare in New York. Big music celebs rubbed elbows with Google and label execs in the kind of self-congratulatory bash that only the entertainment industry can pull off.

This is as far as I got when I tried to play U2's video for "Even Better Than The Real Thing" on Vevo.

Maybe that's too harsh, but I visited the site on Wednesday and I quite honestly can't figure out who or what it's for. It's got music videos, but only from three of the four majors and some independent distributors, which leaves huge swaths of the entertainment landscape blank. As far as I could tell from a search of the site--and the search engine should work, given that Google's behind the site--Vevo is sadly lacking in classic rock and modern indie rock, which are the two genres I listen to most.

There's no Roger Waters or Pink Floyd. No Pixies. No Grizzly Bear. No Led Zeppelin. No Animal Collective. No Beatles. No Eric Clapton. And on and on and on. Go ahead and try your own, you'll get the idea--if you can get the site to work to work at all. (It's been plagued by glitches since launching, and my effort to play U2's "Even Better Than the Real Thing" around 1 p.m. Wednesday met in failure--the video froze around 80 percent loaded.) Apparently, if you can get a video to load, you'll probably have to watch a video advertisement before it starts.

The aforementioned artists are all over the place on YouTube--a site that everybody knows and loves and is largely free from video advertisements. And because Google is behind both sites, videos licensed for Vevo will also appear on YouTube, with Vevo getting the credit (and ad bucks) when a YouTube viewer watches a Vevo video. So why would anybody go to Vevo? Why bother building it, instead of just making it a new channel on YouTube? Who is this for?

The music industry, that's who. It wants to control the online music video experience--Universal Music Group CEO Doug Morris flat out said so. They're tired of mean old Google using its content to sell advertisements. But I honestly can't imagine why Google agreed, unless the labels held it over a barrel, refusing to license their content for YouTube unless Google agreed to help them create a music-industry answer to TV-streaming site Hulu.

Here's the thing. The big winners in the old music industry of yesteryear don't like the Internet. U2 manager Paul McGuinness has said that Internet service providers should bear part of the blame for piracy. Doug Morris earned some scorn two years ago for a Wired interview in which he revealed that his label didn't even try to come up with a digital strategy in the early days, when P2P file-trading networks first started becoming popular.

If you don't like the Internet, you're not going to be able to create an Internet service that people like. More than 15 years into this Interwebs thing, some people still don't understand that if they create an experience that users don't like, it won't get used. It's like they're still living back in 1973 when we only had three TV networks and one or two daily papers and a handful of local radio stations. We now have unlimited choice. Offer me something better than what's out there now, or please, save yourself some money and effort and get out of my way.

Hulu succeeded not only because the TV companies played hardball, refusing to license their content too broadly to other distributors, but also because it launched strong, with a big selection of desirable content. Vevo could certainly turn itself around, but its launch doesn't look very promising. I suspect it'll end up like every other entertainment industry effort that offers no clear benefit to users: on the digital scrapheap.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt celebrated the launch of music-video site Vevo in New York and he doesn't appear worried that his company might be helping create a future YouTube competitor.

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET )

NEW YORK--Eric Schmidt's presence at a swanky music industry gathering was an illustration of how far digital technology has come and the power it has amassed.

A decade ago, the film studios and top record companies dismissed Northern Californians as a bunch of bearded dweebs who liked electronics. Five years ago, with illegal-file sharing spinning out of control, the entertainment industry looked on techies with fear and loathing, invaders to be repelled before they made off with the treasure. It wasn't that long ago that some in Hollywood considered Google a "rogue company."

Pfft. That's all in the past. On Tuesday, at a launch party for music-video site Vevo, the Google CEO was an honored guest. Schmidt was seated front and center in an area reserved for music industry titans and major recording stars. He rubbed elbows with singers Shania Twain and Sheryl Crow. He chatted up record producer and label exec Jimmy Iovine. He sat and visited with Doug Morris, CEO and chairman of Universal Music Group, the largest of the four top recording companies, as well as the chiefs of Sony Music Group and EMI.

And why shouldn't they show him some respect? Not only is he at the helm of the most successful advertising company in the world and operating YouTube, the Web's No. 1 video site, but Schmidt is also helping to get Vevo off the ground. Instead of trying to stand in the way of a music-video site that is in many ways breaking away from YouTube, Google is providing the service with technological expertise and allowing it to continue to market to YouTube's massive following.

What's that? Google booked $21 billion in revenue in 2008. How can a company like that be satisfied to play rhythm guitar in someone else's band?

Bono, Lady Gaga, Schmidt at Vevo bash (photos)

At the Vevo party, Schmidt said Google couldn't be happier with the situation. This is what he's done for over a year now, held out his hand to big newspapers, film studios, TV networks, and book publishers. By taking a backup role in Vevo, Google sends a message that the rogue image is garbage and the company is prepared to go a long way--even give up decision-making power--to help partners grow their businesses. No threat here.

In many entertainment circles, that message may resonate, especially the ones where the digital revolution has laid waste. Some of the celebs at the Vevo launch were only too happy to tell Schmidt and everyone else how badly recorded music has suffered.

"We've come here to mourn the death of an old cash cow that was the music industry," U2's Bono told the audience during his speech.

"Let's hope Vevo can help salvage something that used to be amazing," said singer Mariah Carey.

If you're anti-copyright and this makes you long for the days when Google and YouTube used to wave the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the faces of Viacom, NBC Universal, and others that demanded YouTube remove unauthorized film and TV clips from its site, well, it's time to move on.

For more than a year, YouTube's strategy has been to strike partnerships with the top studios, record companies, and TV networks.

Doug Morris, Universal Music Group CEO and the man who came up with the idea for Vevo, waits to shake Schmidt's hand at the Vevo launch party.

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET )

YouTube has content deals with MGM Studios, Sony Pictures, Lionsgate, CBS (parent company of CNET), and all four of the major recording companies.

What probably drove Google to take a softer stance was competition. There might have been a period a couple of years ago when Google could have easily morphed into a video-on-demand service, offering feature films and TV shows and been all things Web video. But it played hardball and NBC and News Corp. successfully came up with a YouTube alternative: Hulu.

The competition between the companies to obtain premium films and shows has been fierce. After pursuing a deal to get full-length content from Disney, Google saw Disney sign with Hulu. That was a bitter blow. Google isn't used to losing.

At the same time, Netflix has jumped into the fray. The Web's top video-rental service has deals with makers of set-top boxes that enable customers to watch streaming Internet video on their TV sets. Apple has a slice of this market as well.

Meanwhile, Hulu could have tried to woo the music labels away from YouTube. Hulu could try to capitalize on any lingering distrust of Google at the labels. Conspicuously missing from Vevo's launch party was Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman. A feud between Warner and YouTube led to Warner's content being pulled from the video site for nine months before the companies made up. But Warner has so far declined to join Vevo.

In addition, EMI recently penned a music-licensing deal with Hulu. EMI clips will appear on both Hulu and YouTube.

In his speech introducing Vevo, Universal Music's Morris was generous in his praise of Schmidt and Google. But the former songwriter also raised questions about who he was referring to when he said things such as "the best thing about Vevo is that it's our platform" and "no more middlemen" and "we can experiment with anything and everything we want. We don't have to ask anyone's permission anymore."

On August 1, 1981, a cultural and entertainment juggernaut flickered onto TV screens and rocketed out of obscurity with these six words: "Ladies and gentlemen, rock and roll."

With that, the iconic cable network, MTV, was launched and a popular entertainment category--music videos--was born. Now, 28 years later, MTV has largely abandoned the genre and the record industry is preparing for the debut of a possible successor.

On Tuesday, video start-up Vevo is scheduled to launch. Supported by three of the top four largest record companies (sources say EMI has agreed to provide content to the site) and backed by the technological muscle of YouTube, Vevo is a Web site that will feature videos from many of the world's biggest recording stars, including U2, Cold Play, the Black Eyed Peas, Lady Gaga, Avril Lavigne, Bruce Springsteen, and Pearl Jam, according to the site's backers.

The move comes three years after Google's YouTube began proving that the masses still love music videos. Professionally made music clips are by far the most popular fare on the Web's No. 1 video site, accounting for 14 of the 25 most viewed clips ever. The labels involved with Vevo boast a combined total of about 15 billion views on YouTube.

Much of the music industry, including a score of independent labels that have recently signed on to the project, think it's time for music videos to take the next step in their evolution. They want a standalone site packed with high-definition clips from marquee acts.

Don't look for any user-generated content on Vevo, according to Doug Morris, chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group, the man who came up with the idea for the service. He said he wants to offer music fans as well as advertisers a more polished digital stage. That's one of the main reasons the venture was built, to charge advertisers premium rates in exchange for premium content.

Another motivation for building the site was to give the music industry a greater say in what happened to its content.

In an interview with CNET last week, Morris made no bones about the fact that by launching Vevo, the music industry is serving notice: no longer will middlemen or third parties profit from the labels' video content without giving up a fair share.

"What we're really doing is taking back control of everything," said Morris, who operates the largest of the top four recording companies. "This is us taking control of our future...Vevo enables us to provide consumers with about 80 percent of all the music videos in the world. So, this is really like MTV on steroids. We're starting with that kind of audience. But now we're in control of it. We don't have to go through a middleman anymore."

The problem as defined by the music sector started with MTV and extends all the way to YouTube.

When MTV was created, everyone told the labels not to worry about getting paid because the cable channel helped promote artists. "It was good exposure," they were told. The experts said the same thing in 2006 when YouTube started to emerge as one of the Web's favorite music sources. For a long time, the record companies seemed happy to go along, even as MTV built a financial empire from the videos.

But this time around, the music industry can't afford not to be the one who cashes in. The rest of the business is in decline, as CD sales shrink and profit margins on downloads are sliver thin. Record execs have been criticized for not finding new revenue models, so that's what they are trying to do. They believe there's new money to be had from the videos, even as they readily acknowledge that getting to it hasn't always been easy.

Morris remembers seeing a video from a Universal artist posted to Yahoo a couple of years ago and asking one of his employees what the portal paid for it. The exec told Morris the video was considered promotional and Yahoo paid nothing.

Promoting what? The video was five years old and Yahoo was pocketing the ad money without sharing it with the creators, Morris recalled telling the employee.

"I then called up (former Yahoo CEO) Terry Semel," Morris said. "And I said, 'Terry, we want to be paid.' Semel replied 'Absolutely not.' Then, we took our videos down from Yahoo and AOL and their viewership declined, at which point they came back and they paid us. They paid us a percentage of a cent for each view."

Morris isn't implying that Vevo's music clips will no longer be used to promote music or that Vevo plans to charge to watch videos. No, they will still be offered to viewers free of charge.

What is changing is that music videos, which often cost tens of thousands of dollars to produce, won't be treated as loss leaders anymore--not in this economic environment.

Nonetheless, Vevo faces plenty of challenges.

Nobody has proven whether advertisers are willing to pay top dollar for online videos, even professionally made music videos. There's also the question about whether interest in the genre will wane just as did with previous generations of music fans. After all, MTV switched to reality shows for a reason, no?

Rio Caraeff, Vevo's CEO, says the music video is only one of the site's features. The obligatory playlists will be available but music lyrics will also be offered. Visitors will have more access to their favorite performers than ever and Vevo's video quality will be as much as three times as what is typically available online.

All these upgrades were absolutely necessary to draw the kind of top advertising dollar that label honchos seek, according to Caraeff. He said typical ad rates for Web video run somewhere between $3 and $8 for every thousand views. Vevo's mission is to attract rates of $25 to $40.

"Successful was how we felt about YouTube, in terms of the shear popularity of our programming," Caraeff said. "But what we felt was that there could be a better way to drive a business around it. Advertisers had some reticence and some reluctance to fully embrace music videos on YouTube. We felt that there was work to be done to restore the premium luster and really create a better experience for advertisers."

In the short run, look for Vevo to be an online music store where downloads are sold as well as the merchandise created by artists, such as clothes and perfumes. In the long run, a music-video subscription service could be rolled out, one that offers full-length concerts.

"I do believe we will have a subscription service where we will stream live concerts from all over the country to viewers for a monthly fee," Morris said. "This is futuristic. We have not built this yet, but we're working on it."

Executives of online music video service Vevo are close to finalizing an agreement that will bring content to the site from EMI, the smallest of the four top recording companies and the label of Coldplay, Katie Perry, and Norah Jones.

EMI's New York headquarters.

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET)

The deal between Vevo and EMI could be announced at any time, sources familiar with talks told CNET.

"EMI is in discussions with Vevo," EMI spokeswoman Jeanne Meyer acknowledged, though she declined to disclose the current stage of the talks.

Scheduled to launch on Tuesday, Vevo will soon be able to offer music videos and other content from three of the four top labels: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and EMI.

The only major record company not partnering with the venture is Warner Music Group. Sources said talks between Warner and Vevo continue.

Universal Music founded the service earlier this year, aiming to cash in more on the popularity of music videos. At YouTube, which is powering back-end operations for Vevo, Universal's videos have accumulated the most views of any YouTube channel.

Universal has long wanted a standalone site to showcase video content, which includes traditional video but may also include other video content produced by artists.

Of YouTube's 25 all-time most watched videos, 14 are music videos. EMI recently signed a video-licensing deal with Hulu.

Alec Baldwin fans needn't worry that Comcast will soon pull "30 Rock" or other NBC Universal shows off the Web.

The entrance of NBC Universal's office building at 30 Rockefeller Center.

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET Networks)

Comcast managers said Thursday, following the company's announcement it had acquired a controlling stake in NBC Universal, that it will be business as usual at Hulu, the joint venture operated by NBC Universal, News Corp., and Disney.

Ever since rumors of the acquisition began to swirl in September, questions were raised about whether Comcast would try to kill Hulu to discourage cable customers from dropping their subscriptions. Some critics of the deal said Comcast could also limit access of NBC Universal's TV shows and films to other popular distributors, such as Netflix and iTunes. It appears that some of this may happen and some of it may not.

During a conference call, Comcast executives said they anticipate that some content will appear online at Hulu, and other shows will appear on TV Everywhere, the Hulu competitor that Comcast, Time Warner, and other cable companies rolled out last summer.

"Comcast is too deep into their Internet-related investments for me to believe that they are hoping to clamp down on consumer enjoyment of NBC content," said James McQuivey, a digital-entertainment analyst for Forrester Research. "They have spent far too much money buying companies and developing infrastructure to suggest they are going to make it a 'my-way-or-the-highway' distribution scheme. It would be absolutely foolish to buy an expensive property like NBC Universal and then cut the legs off of it."

Hulu's freedom
Okay, so Hulu won't disappear once the acquisition--which still needs government approval--is finalized, but Hulu fans are concerned about how the site will develop. Many had long hoped that the service might one day offer a better selection of full-length feature films and past episodes from hot TV shows. Now, Hulu offers only a smattering of films, and to watch episodes of a TV show from a prior season, a fan must plunk down for a DVD.

Most importantly, Hulu fans want to continue watching without paying subscription fees, which has been discussed publicly by some of Hulu's backers, including Jeff Zucker, NBC Universal CEO.

Free content was the promise that made consumers so giddy about Hulu and YouTube not that long ago. Cable subscribers were thrilled by the possibility that they could watch the best shows and films without having to pay fees. The NBC Universal acquisition is just the latest sign that this dream might be in jeopardy.

Paul Gallant, an analyst at Concept Capital's Washington Research Group told The Washington Post that Comcast could "harm consumer welfare by preventing Internet video from becoming a viable cut-the-chord threat."

"It's a little bit Pollyannish to say 'I can cut cable because everything I want is on the Internet,' because it isn't," McQuivey said.

The big knock on Hulu and other legal video sites is their selection of films and TV shows is still pretty poor. Under Comcast ownership, Hulu will unlikely be unable to change that. More probable is that Comcast will use NBC Universal's content to sweeten its offering to paying subscribers.

"The goal of Comcast is not to make it hard for people to get content," McQuivey said. "The goal of Comcast in the future is to make it really easy to get content and that's what people will pay for.

"In the future, Comcast isn't going to say 'Here's 500 channels delivered to one set-top box,'" he continued. "In the future, they'll say 'Hey, you know that subscription you're paying us every month, that buys you red-carpet access to the best content. No matter what you want to watch we have the license to it. We're going to deliver it to you online, to your game console, to your connected television or Blu-ray player.'"

But what about Netflix and iTunes? Doesn't the Comcast-NBC Universal deal put them in a position of competing with a major supplier?

Is Netflix friend or foe?
Netflix looks less like a DVD-rental business and more like the Web's version of a cable company with each passing day. For more than a year now, Netflix has streamed movies over the Web to anyone who pays the company's subscription fees. CEO Reed Hastings raised the stakes in the competition with cable companies by partnering with set-top box makers and TV manufacturers to create systems that enabled Netflix customers to watch streaming films on their flat screens.

Jumping to the TV set was huge for Netflix. No longer latched to the PC, the company was now threatening cable companies on their home turf. But if content is king, then Netflix was offering only a duke.

Just like Hulu, Netflix offered cable subscribers a cheaper alternative. Just like Hulu, Netflix's library lacks new and hot titles. Without the best content, the cable companies still hold an advantage over Netflix. Since Netflix is now a direct competitor to Comcast and other cable companies, it will be interesting to see what kind of terms the Web's No. 1 rental store gets from the new NBC Universal?

As for Apple, it's highly unlikely that Comcast will tinker with NBC Universal's arrangement for digital download sales at iTunes. The very public quarrel between the companies over pricing in 2008 is behind them.

In that case, Apple gave NBC Universal more flexibility over pricing. Apple CEO Steve Jobs has shown respect for Hollywood's lucrative practice of giving exclusive film access to certain distribution platforms over specified periods, called "windows." Jobs is also purveyor of the Web's most successful video-download store, so the relationship will likely remain unchanged.

But McQuivey sees a potential problem for Apple should the company decide to broaden its video business.

Apple could become an over-the-top pay TV provider," McQuivey speculated. "Apple should say 'You buy an Apple TV from us and pay $28 a month and we'll give you access to this number of downloads and all of this TV-network content for free. They are one of the few companies that could really create this amazing little business model of mixing Internet downloads with Internet streaming with over-the-air HD broadcast...Lets be honest, Apple users have fairly shared tastes and as a result it would be easier for Apple to serve its customer base this way than it is for, say, Comcast. Comcast has to offer the world, where as Apple only has to offer what's cool."

It should be noted that in every scenario McQuivey discussed, he mentioned price. In his vision of the digital future, Internet distribution looks a lot like cable.

According to McQuivey, "All of these Internet delivery solutions are going to face some kind of reckoning over the next couple of years. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Hulu is going to evolve to include some kind of pay model."

It's official. Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, announced Thursday that it is buying a controlling stake in the TV network and movie studio NBC Universal.

The total value of the blockbuster media industry deal, which had been rumored since September, is estimated at around $37 billion. The new joint venture will merge Comcast's cable channels, which are worth about $7.25 billion, with NBC Universal assets that have been valued at around $30 billion, the companies said Thursday.

Comcast also plans to contribute about $6.5 billion in cash. The cable heavyweight will own 51 percent of the venture, and General Electric will own 49 percent. Jeffrey Zucker, who has been president and CEO of NBC Universal, will lead the joint venture.

GE, which owned 80 percent of NBC Universal before the deal, is getting about $8 billion in net cash for its contribution. The joint venture is taking on about $9.1 billion in debt, which reduces the amount of cash that Comcast has to put up for the deal. And it also provides the cash to pay GE.

The deal will make Comcast a major media player with several very profitable cable channels, including USA, CNBC, MSNBC, and Bravo. It will also have control over NBC's broadcast networks and TV stations, its film studio, and its amusement parks.

The New York Times reports that Comcast and GE had been working on the deal since March. Rumors of a pending joint venture surfaced in the press in September. But the final deal was delayed as GE negotiated a buyout with French media company Vivendi, which owned 20 percent of NBC Universal. Earlier this week, GE and Vivendi reached an agreement whereby Vivendi will get $5.8 billion for its 20 percent share. If the deal does not close by September, GE is still responsible for paying Vivendi about $2 billion, or about 38 percent of the agreed price.

Brian Roberts, chief executive of Comcast, said in a statement that NBC Universal is a perfect fit for Comcast, and it "will allow us to become a leader in the development and distribution of multiplatform 'anytime, anywhere' media that American consumers are demanding."

Roberts tried and failed to buy another major media company, Disney, in 2004.

Will cable-bashing undo the deal?
The deal is likely to be scrutinized by government regulators, namely the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission.

Craig Moffett, an equities analyst with Bernstein Research, said in a research note in late October, when rumors of the deal were heating up, that regulators may find plenty of reasons to reject the acquisition.

The biggest problem for the deal could be the fact that GE and Comcast will try to close it during a midterm election year. Politicians taking sides on Net neutrality issues and the national broadband plan may find it easy to bash Comcast. And a marriage between the nation's largest cable and Internet service provider and one of the nation's three broadcast TV stations may ignite old fights over media ownership, a la carte billing, retransmission consent, and cable prices.

"Cable-bashing in an election year is a no-lose bipartisan proposition," Moffett writes in his note. "The headline risk is quite material. Approval of a deal, should one be reached, cannot be assured."

Comcast argues that the deal will be good for consumers by getting some movies on cable TV and on-demand services more quickly, since Comcast will control NBC Universal's movie catalog. Comcast may also be able to put content more quickly on cell phones.

Still, some consumer advocates, such as Free Press, oppose the deal. They say Comcast would have too much power in the entertainment industry.

One issue of concern is that Comcast could use NBC's programming to undermine rival TV services from phone companies, such as AT&T or Verizon Communications, or from cable operator Dish Network. Comcast could charge these competitors more for cable channels, while giving its own cable TV business a better deal. Comcast officials say this is unlikely. And the company has already proven that it offers fair pricing with its existing cable channels, such as E! Entertainment, G4, and the Golf Channel.

The deal may also have an effect on online video services, such as Hulu, which is owned by NBC, News Corp., and Walt Disney Company. That said, Comcast has been experimenting with its own online video service for some premium channels for Comcast customers. The company also already has a Web-based video aggregator called Fancast, which streams full TV shows and movies for all Web users.

Why did it take take Blu-ray two years to catch up to HD DVD?

(Credit: Amazon)

Universal is set to roll out the first Blu-ray/DVD "flipper discs"--a single, dual-sided disc that contains Blu-ray on one side and DVD on the other. The "Bourne" trilogy ("Identity," "Supremacy," "Ultimatum") will be the first movies to get the dual-sided treatment, with all three discs coming out on January 19.

The flipper discs are a good idea, as one of the biggest drawbacks to Blu-ray is that new movies you buy can't be played in DVD players. That loss of flexibility can be a real pain in locations other than your home theater (car, plane, bedroom), where you probably haven't upgraded to Blu-ray yet.

On the other hand, the flipper discs aren't quite as attractive an option as the increasingly popular Blu-ray-DVD combo packages that include separate discs for both formats. Overall, Blu-ray-DVD combo packages offer more value--you do get two discs to take anywhere you like. The only advantage flipper discs might have is if they can drive down the price of the movies.

HD DVD fanboys (somehow they still exist) will also be quick to point out that this is hardly new technology. HD DVD/DVD combo discs were around back in 2007; in that sense, it's unbelievable that it took Blu-ray this long to get onboard with a good idea.

Woo wee, did Hulu's fortunes flip-flop fast.

Jason Kilar, Hulu CEO

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET Networks)

The Web's deepest stockpile of full-length TV shows and feature films is seeing some very public infighting over its future. The disagreements are over how Hulu should generate revenue and even how to sell ads, according to a report in Mediaweek.

Things were going so well. Since Hulu's October 2007 launch, the Web video site founded by NBC Universal and News Corp., has grown its audience, generated big ad revenue, and been bathed in positive press.

Hulu has mounted the only serious challenge to YouTube. The site also enables its TV network backers to offer viewers an alternative to pirate sites. But the indications are Hollywood is dismayed over Hulu's earnings. On the issue of Web revenue, the studios seem to be saying: "Is that all there is?"

The first signs that Hulu may not be the cash cow that everyone involved had hoped for came earlier this year. Instead of ballyhooing the selling out of ad inventory like it had done a year earlier, Hulu's managers hushed up.

Then, NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker and News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch said publicly that Hulu may charge for some content. In an interview with Dow Jones last week, News Corp. COO Chase Carey said it's important that Hulu have "a real subscription aspect," but added some content will always be free.

Want to bet that the content you'll have to buy will be the latest and most popular TV shows and films?

Hulu's management is wrestling with these issues at a time when the public increasingly develops an appetite for high-quality Web video.

The number of U.S. households with broadband access that watched full-length movies and TV shows online doubled in the past year, according to research firm, Parks Associates. According to the firm, 45 million households regularly watch either TV shows or films via the Internet.

Jayant Dasari, a research analyst at Parks, said people like the control that sites like Hulu give them. If they miss a favorite TV show, they can get caught up on Hulu.

"If they're on the road or don't have access to a (Digital Video Recorder) they are more than willing to consider the option of broadband video," Dasari said. "This is a trend that can no longer be ignored."

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET Networks )

Dasari said Web video's growth is being stifled by the lack of content available at Hulu and other sites. For example, there are only a handful of feature films available at Hulu. Crackle.com, Sony Pictures' Web service, only posts a fraction of its vast library of films on the Internet, but there's not another studio even offering that.

So what? What does it mean if the studios hobble Hulu? Consumers have watched TV for over half a century. They can still go back there. Right?

Big Champagne CEO Eric Garland, whose company tracks traffic on peer-to-peer sites--where most illegal file sharing occurs--told me recently that consumers are heading online for video entertainment and he doesn't expect them to return to their traditional viewing habits ever again. Garland's data shows that Hulu is the first legal Web service to snatch market share away from the pirate sites.

He also said that the lords of video, with their rejection of Internet businesses, are behaving much the same way the music industry did when confronted by the digital age. If network and film studio executives are dissatisfied with the returns they see from Hulu and similar sites, they should consider the possibility that this is all the new media landscape will yield, Garland said.

One major obstacle seems to have been settled in Comcast's quest to buy NBC Universal from General Electric--how much to pay for it.

Both companies have reportedly agreed on a price of $30 billion for GE's movie and TV unit, according to sources cited Monday by Reuters and The Wall Street Journal (subscription required for full story).

The agreement on the worth of NBC Universal (NBCU) is a major step toward paving the way to create a new, privately held company that would combine NBC's TV stations and Universal Studios with Comcast's TV and cable stations. NBCU's Web properties include iVillage and the online video site Hulu, in which it is a co-owner along with News Corp. and Walt Disney Co.

Under the terms of the proposed deal, Comcast would own a majority 51 percent slice of the new entity, with GE owning the remaining 49 percent.

Further, the two companies have discussed an option whereby GE would sell off all or most of its ownership of the new company to Comcast over the next seven years, according to sources cited previously. Recent reports say that GE and Comcast have now decided how to price the new entity after the deal goes into effect so that GE faces no problems selling off its remaining stake.

The valuation of NBC Universal was seen as a major challenge in advancing the deal, according to sources. Comcast naturally was intent on maximizing the value of its own networks and minimizing the value of NBCU to limit the amount of up-front cash it would need to invest in the new firm. Latest reports say that Comcast would inject anywhere from $4 billion to $6 billion into the new entity.

However, both companies have reportedly agreed to base Comcast's final cash payment on NBCU's financial performance before any finalized deal closes. If its performance tanks, Comcast could end up paying less.

Other challenges remain, too. French media giant Vivendi owns 20 percent of NBCU. Vivendi has reportedly told GE that it wants to sell its stake but has yet to voice approval on any deal of its own. A valuation of the company's 20 percent ownership is currently being discussed, said the source cited by Reuters.

Of course, even if Vivendi agrees to a deal and all looks good, regulatory approval would be required, especially since Comcast would own a huge chunk of national and local media outlets. The Journal said that people close to the talks believe regulatory approval could take at least eight to 12 months.

Comcast's bid for a majority stake in NBC Universal was first revealed in early October.

Requests for confirmation to GE and Comcast were not immediately returned.