Hulu may force viewers to prove they are pay TV subscribers
Summary: A new plan would require users of the streaming video service to start authenticating that they are pay TV customers before they can watch programming.
The "alien plot" that is Hulu (according to its whimsical commercials) may be taking a more nefarious turn, if a new report in the New York Post is to be believed. That's because Fox, Comcast (which owns NBC), and Disney (which owns ABC) apparently want users of the streaming video service to start authenticating that they are pay TV customers before they can watch programming.
The reasoning behind what would be a seismic shift in Hulu's strategy is obvious: The broadcasters make a lot more money from traditional TV viewership than people watching episodes online, where ads are fewer and cost less. Requiring a cable or satellite subscription would make sure people aren't using Hulu in order to "cut the cord" from pay TV.
While the Post says it could takes years for Hulu to be able to implement the authorization plan, the effects of the strategic pivot have already started to be felt, as Hulu partner Providence Equity Partners cashed out of its stake after the new model was hatched. And though ad revenues are climbing for Hulu, they could collapse if the number of users is sliced by the authorization plan.
Ultimately, that might be fine with the remaining partners, along with other pay TV providers, which would rather have you use their new and forthcoming streaming options (as part of your monthly subscription) than receive lower advertising fees from Hulu.
Would requiring authorization strangle Hulu? Would you still use the service (or even be able to use the service) if it required authorization? Let us know your thoughts in the Comments section below.
[Via Gizmodo]
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Goodbye Hulu...
The Death of Hulu
See ya!
It depends
1. Better availability of shows. If they want to force you to have service already to use Hulu then they need to have the vast majority of shows on Hulu Plus and available within hours of air time, or coincide with broadcast airing.
2. A Hulu "Premium" that doesn't require cable service. I'd pay $30/month, maybe $40, if I could have it on 3-4 devices at the same time with all the services listed in point 1. If they worked out a deal with CBS/NBC/Fox where they would also stream football games and they upped the quality on this service to 1080p I would switch from Cable in a heartbeat.
Will this happen? Probably not. The networks won't cut reasonable deals for services like this because of the cable companies.
This is a really bad idea, so, obviously, the networks love it
Obviously, I'd cancel Hulu if they required "authentication." I don't have cable because I don't want to pay $90 a much for a bunch of channels I don't watch. I use my Windows 7 machine as a DVR, and most of what I stream from Hulu, I could just as easily record over the air.
My question is, how long before the networks try to kill free broadcast television?
question
My question is, how long before the networks try to kill free broadcast television?
</q>
just take a look at the various rules being implemented by the FCC.
.2 second ditch
they already killed broadcast television
Um...what are you talking about...
When commercials were introduced
Sounds like death to me
Have to kind of agree.
And yes, you heard that right: I do have antennae hooked up to my 2 TV sets (although the converter for the 13" doesn't work). And that's the problem I have with this: Hulu doesn't just show cable TV shows, it also shows broadcast network shows. It would be one thing if they were only going to restrict the cable-only shows, like Psych, Eureka, or Warehouse 13; it's another thing entirely for them to restrict shows like Castle, The Finder, or Bones... all of which are already available [b]for free[/b] from the network.
The other major problem? It's one thing for a premium network to say you have to "prove" that you're a cable subscriber to use the online site (i.e. HBOGo), because the cable/satellite company does collect a specific fee from a subscriber in order to have access to that particular network. It's even broken down on your bill, so you (the consumer) can see exactly how much you're paying for access to The Borgias, or Game of Thrones, or any of the other premium networks' special TV series. But USA, SyFy, TNT, TBS, Bravo? You [b]don't[/b] have a set monthly charge for that particular network. You don't even have anything on your bill that says, "$X from your monthly plan goes towards access to all NBC Universal-affiliated channels, while $Y is for access to the FOX network channels, etc.". And even if they did, it's what, not even $1/month? When I had DirecTV, we paid (IIRC) about $50/month: no premium channels, none of the "Plus" plans, no DVR service, just basic service on a single TV. With the number of channels we had access to (not counting the local broadcast affiliates), that worked out to somewhere between 30 and 50 [b]cents[/b] per month per channel. Except even that's too much, because I would bet around 50% of the cost was for the DirecTV portion of it: their satellites, their infrastructure, paying for their employees' wages/benefits/401k, etc. Which drops the price down to about 15-25 [b]cents[/b] per channel per month.
Yet, for that amount of revenue, they would want me to pay $50 or so per month for, essentially, 2 to maybe 5 channels? That was the reason we cut it in the first place: of the 100+ channels we had access to, we would regularly watch maybe [b]10[/b] of those on a regular basis (i.e. at least twice/week), with maybe another 10 or so that we used maybe once or twice a month; and even then, this was before we had Netflix, so we sometimes had to struggle to find something we really wanted to watch, even on those channels. Now, I love Eureka, Warehouse 13, & Psych...but I don't think they're worth $50/month to get the 2 channels they're on.
So if they do decide to go this route, [b]and[/b] they decide that even a Hulu Plus subscription won't give you access, then I will say goodbye to Hulu, & simply wait until after each season to catch up with it on Netflix, or maybe get a DVD recorder for the TV set to catch the programs that run too late on ABC & Fox.
Well...
Suicide
If you have to subscribe to pay TV in order to watch Hulu, you'd be better off just getting a DVR with your TV subscription. A much better plan would be to offer free Hulu Plus accounts to people with active pay TV subscriptions. I would think that would allow them to increase the user base dramatically, thus increasing the rates for ads.
greed
So...
I'm telling - in 10-20 years there won't be any disney or fox or comcast around. Evolution you know...
Lawyers
Lawyers are exempt from evolution. They will be left behind to enforce archival Int.Prop. until it expires, even if the owners have passed.
So...
LOL, good luck with that one!
I suspect Hulu is contemplating this as a way of scecuring content from rights holders, but ultimately it will be the death of Hulu. Why pay extra for Hulu when cable comapnies already offer on-demand services?
Hulu on the Netflix Road
I no longer subscribe to "movie" packages on cable either. Slim pickings and once you've watched the 2-3 movies you want to watch each month it's like a movie desert.
What we need is to end the cable monopoly and we'll see "online" entertainment expand exponetially and costs go down, down, down. And broadband access would be cheaper and faster. More ala carte and you could afford several services for the same price we pay today.
Yep! Choice is what people want
And so, we get stuff like this from Hulu. Like one of the above posters said, with so much invested in their old technology, the networks have no choice but to try and force people on to it. And eventually their model will fail, and we'll get something better.