Hulu Troubles Signal Networks Contempt for Internet TV

[admin]

For a growing number of TV viewers, online services like Hulu are the preferred way to catch your favorite show. But the bad blood growing between Hulu CEO Jason Kilar and the studios that hired him may hint at the troubles the television networks are having getting online. Hulu and the rest of the online content industry might be guilty of being too successful.

Discuss "Hulu Troubles Signal Networks Contempt for Internet TV" here. Read the article.

 

[smurphy522]

As Kilar (Killer?) stated in so many words his parent companies are cannibalizing their streaming service by limiting the content and causing inner restriction for its growth and success. That's just "Classic".....literally.

 

[Wayde Robson]

Kilar is definitely my latest man-crush. He certainly is Killer! You gotta' respect anyone willing come out and tell it like it is rather than simply sing the company line.

The next year or so will be very interesting to observe not just Hulu but the state of Network TV on the Internet.

My impression is that they don't like it... but saying no to a revenue stream (like Netflix or Hulu itself) is too difficult for the bottom line.

Internet TV will only grow and Cable/Satellite 'package' network paradigm will only shrink. I look forward to the day when I can only buy the programming I want to see and nothing else.

Channel surfing is dead.

 

[m_vanmeter]

I look forward to the day when my local TV broadcaster with his 1,000' tower is transmitting a wi-max or LTE digital stream of hundreds of programming choices, not just one network signal with a couple of crappy sub-channels.

 

[highfigh]

IMO, as soon as the networks realize that people will watch the programs one way, or another, they may see the light. Same goes for cable, satellite and U-Verse. I looked at my new, expanded, bloated satellite bill last night and I'm now (briefly) paying $61/mo as my base rate without any pay channels. Looks like we'll be having a "Come to Jesus" conversation today, because this is the same reason I switched from Time Warner to DirecTV. I have a Panasonic BD player that streams Netflix, VuDu, YouTube and Pandora, so I really don't need much of what satellite or cable offers.

 

[Wayde Robson]

I have a Panasonic BD player that streams Netflix, VuDu, YouTube and Pandora, so I really don't need much of what satellite or cable offers.

That's great, more and more people are in that very boat nowadays. I'm thinking of dropping cable myself but I like to watch live sports, I havent' found a reliable way to get that on the Internet.

 

[highfigh]

That's great, more and more people are in that very boat nowadays. I'm thinking of dropping cable myself but I like to watch live sports, I havent' found a reliable way to get that on the Internet.

I think that day will come, eventually. All we need is for the networks to start streaming the events. Granted, if they eliminate the commercials, it will make TV commercials a lot more expensive, so I wouldn't expect streamed content to be free of them, although they could always have banner ads.

However, that CTJ conversation I posted about- since $97/month without pay channels is ridiculous and I mentioned the fact that all of the other TV providers have specials for new customers, explained that I can stream a lot of programming that I like more than what's on satellite (the music channels are only OK now that they don't use XM and I usually stream Pandora if I'm not listening to my own collection) and I get tired of HBO, et al repeating shows that most people can record using the DVR and all of the shopping network/I need a hug channels. I also repeated that "It's just TV- it's not a life-altering event".

They knocked it down to $73/mo before tax/fees and I get to keep HDNET and some other channels. It doesn't have to cost this much, it just does because they can get away with it until people call or cancel.

While I was on the phone with them, I did make it known that, during last week's blizzard that dumped 16" of snow with 50+MPH winds, I never lost my signal. One of the reasons I dumped Time Warner is that the signal went out far more than I find acceptable. I had two trouble calls yesterday because the banner showed up on cable channels and while the number would go up and down with the ch+/- buttons, the screen was just dark. No picture at all. Should the cable box need to be rebooted this often? I don't think so.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

In the end - it's all tumbles down to simple concept - a la carte - Customer want it, Content providers don't. Going against consumer wants never was smart business practice.

We all got the flavor of a la carte with Hulu on Boxee (unfortunately short lived), Netlfix and other online content. I don't think anyone wants to go back to regular cable heavy flavored Hulu. Thats one dead born chick

 

[highfigh]

In the end - it's all tumbles down to simple concept - a la carte - Customer want it, Content providers don't. Going against consumer wants never was smart business practice.

We all got the flavor of a la carte with Hulu on Boxee (unfortunately short lived), Netlfix and other online content. I don't think anyone wants to go back to regular cable heavy flavored Hulu. Thats one dead born chick

As much as I'd like to see it happen, I can definitely see why they wouldn't want to go to a la carte- take out the locals, NetFlix, Hulu, VuDu, Cinema Now, Pandora to replace the music channels and what's left? Possibly some sports channels that I suspect will be available online in the near future. My plan comes with 185 channels and I might use 50 of them.

 

[cwall99]

If the quality of the streamed content were any good, I'd be a lot more vocal advocate for its wider use, but...

And when I'm talking about quality of the streamed content, I'm not talking the relative artistic merits of watching American Idol streamed, I'm talking about things that can be assessed objectively like audio and video bandwidth, the amount of pixellation, etc...

I spent a lot of money on my television and AVR and speakers. But when you watch streamed content over your cable hook-up, you're not even close to being in the same league as DVD, let alone Blu Ray.

Most evenings, I can usually connect to the internet at around 21 or 22 Mbps (as measured by www.speakeasy.net/speedtest ), and when I stream NetFlix, it's just not what I signed up for when I opted to buy a 50-inch plasma display with amazing black levels and an incredible picture. Heck, if you're gonna watch streamed content, you might as well bring back your old 480i tube TV. And let's not even get started on things like stereo only or dropped frames.

I suppose crap like streamed content is useful if all you're watching it on is your smart phone, but for high-quality A/V experience, it's lame.

 

[westcott]

Hulu and Roku both seem to be stumbling in the dark. Hulu Plus was a joke. A fraction of the programming was available via Roku/TV.

Roku launches USB support but lacks even the most common of movie files support.

Yet both want your money with the promise of better things to come.

I had high hopes but content is where it is at and NetFlix is the clear winner, even if you are not happy with the quality.