[Rumor] Hulu May Require a Cable or Satellite Subscription Soon

[me just sayin]

it was chromecast

I have never seen a commercial there. We must be using different programs.

 

[me just sayin]

Major pops. It was not popcorn. It was crackle. sorry bout that

 

[kodiak799]

I'm guessing this entire thing is quite a bit more complicated than the proverbial "evil cable companies".

But CONTENT is king. Cable doesn't own most of the content it broadcasts, but pays the providers. ESPN I think was one of the bigger ones, and has frequently been a very contentious negotiation....believe they get somewhere between $2-$4 PER subscriber.

So then what happens with cord cutters, where HULU comes into the negotiation, is less subscribers means less revenue from the cable company, but also less revenue FOR THE CONTENT PROVIDER!!! So, ok, I'm seeing people shift from cable (where I get $2 per subscriber) to HULU (where I get $0.25 per subscriber, or whatever).

The only model being propped-up here is the Content providers. They're just looking at the bottom line, and to maximize profits they're looking at licensing deals (in whatever form) with cable AND a variety of digital delivery, such as HULU and on-demand services. This smells more like the end of an industry subsidy to an emerging technology than propping-up a dying technology.

 

[me just sayin]

I'm guessing this entire thing is quite a bit more complicated than the proverbial "evil cable companies".

But CONTENT is king. Cable doesn't own most of the content it broadcasts, but pays the providers. ESPN I think was one of the bigger ones, and has frequently been a very contentious negotiation....believe they get somewhere between $2-$4 PER subscriber.

So then what happens with cord cutters, where HULU comes into the negotiation, is less subscribers means less revenue from the cable company, but also less revenue FOR THE CONTENT PROVIDER!!! So, ok, I'm seeing people shift from cable (where I get $2 per subscriber) to HULU (where I get $0.25 per subscriber, or whatever).

The only model being propped-up here is the Content providers. They're just looking at the bottom line, and to maximize profits they're looking at licensing deals (in whatever form) with cable AND a variety of digital delivery, such as HULU and on-demand services. This smells more like the end of an industry subsidy to an emerging technology than propping-up a dying technology.

one thing you are forgetting, the major cable companies are buying networks so they have both the content and access. take a look at what comcash owns

List of assets owned by Comcast - Wikipedia

as far as what you say about espn, you are a bit low on what they charge per subscriber. it is over 7 bucks and expected to go over 8 in 2018. the source is

How Much Cable Subscribers Pay Per Channel

 

[kodiak799]

one thing you are forgetting, the major cable companies are buying networks so they have both the content and access. take a look at what comcash owns

I was actually going to mention that. Much bigger deal then any of the NN boogeyman....less competition is rarely good for the consumer. And they COULD block these mergers if they wanted to...but for whatever reason, they aren't (goes for both the Trump DOJ/FTC as well as Obama's).

And everyone is familiar with the bundled package. Hard, under any law, to determine what's unfair or anti-competitive when you have 10 different things going on with 1 price.

 

[PereDroid]

Popcorn time casts any movie or show to a smart device in your house free of charge and can be installed on any android, Apple or windows platform.
I understand having free Netflix or Amazon prime. But Hulu? Why?

Because I don't steal?
And who has free Netflix?


Sent from my Moto Z2 using Tapatalk

 

[me just sayin]

Because I don't steal?
And who has free Netflix?


Sent from my Moto Z2 using Tapatalk

don't t-mobile provide free Netflix?