Hulu Planning Live Cable TV Service With Partners Including Disney and Fox

[macduke]

I'd actually prefer a smaller package of the well-known networks as we don't watch TV a ton. I'd also prefer the $30/mo range, but could do $40/mo if there are no commercials. Knowing Hulu, however, there will be commercials. And the amount of commercials will double, then triple, then quadruple over several years until you've basically got yourself basic cable over IP, which is not what I want. Also, why mess with a digital DVR at all? Why can't I just stream, on-demand, any show I want from the included networks, after it is first available? Or is that what it will essentially be? When snowed in I want to be able to binge on all seasons of some show that came out seven years ago if I want to. Or watch the latest episode immediately as they are released. Why is this concept so difficult for companies to understand? And I want to be able to watch it from any of my devices.

 

[tjrMR1971]

It appears that HULU and the other content providers have found a way to get "cord cutters" to pay just as much for content as they did with cable or satellite. Way to go.

 

[Elbon]

Apple TV app + reliable Cloud DVR and i'm in.

When everything is available on demand (which I think is the ultimate vision for this kind of service), you won't need a DVR anymore...
[doublepost=1462203124][/doublepost]Does Hulu still include ads? That was always the main detractor for me (no ads on Netflix, or HBO Now).

 

[J Michael T]

This will not bring me back. After being a customer for so long, their apps are no longer usable on my living room devices. Their reps say this is a known issue with Optimum cable... But they haven't bothered fixing it and it is almost a month. Now they forced this Watchlist which is garbage. I cancelled my service and have moved on to PSVue. Sure it is pricier, but it works and it is live television with DVR (essentially everything listed above that Hulu is looking to do)

I share the same opinion of the "Watchlist". It has ruined the HULU experience for me.

 

[Takeo]

This would be a weird step backwards. Why would anyone care about getting live TV programs? The only things that need to be live are news and sports. Everything else should be on-demand.

 

[dragje]

Apple TV is almost a flop. Apple didn't succeed in the VS with bringing up a bunch of channels but in Europe it will be even more of an issue for Apple to succeed. $30 to $40 dollars for a whole package while in Europe you pay $20,- for a bunch of channels and 95% of these channels are pointless and not worth watching to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I don't even blame Apple for this. It's a jungle out there in cable-land, where multiple agreements on various content has been made, bound with contracts and obligations. It's simply almost impossible to break it all down to single packages, just one channel where you can pay for and double for two channel, or even better, a system where the client only pays for the serie or movie or program itself instead of buying a whole bunch of channels in order to get acces to that one single channel.

I've bought the new ATV generation and I love the way it can handle Plex, but the idea from Apple was that it would come up with lots of channels. So far Apple doesn't deliver and as said before, I can't even blame Apple for it...

I truly hope that the amount of more people willing to abandon the traditional cable television contract is an movement something that will continue to grow in numbers. At some point providers of content will see that it would be better to offer their content on a world wide bases using a diversity of platforms, it doesn't need to be ATV only....

It will (!) happen some day, but nut until cable makes more profits still then moving out to the internet entirely.

 

[KdParker]

Once again, as long as cable companies also control your broadband Internet access, this is a non-starter. With Comcast now moving to a metered model and also making Internet access more expensive if you don't also take their cable package, Hulu's proposal would be more costly in the end.

So in the end.

-Streaming stations will be bundled and cost the same as cable
-There will be the added cost for internet access
-And the users will at the mercy of which ever 'streaming' site you sign up with.

How is this better?

 

[bpeeps]

I still don't understand why people want live tv (other than sports?). Just give me everything, on demand, streaming, at all times. I don't need a cloud DVR, that's just something else to manage. I am tired of "thinking" about TV. Let me add shows I like to a watchlist accessible on all devices with badges when a new show is available. Seems simple to me? What Hulu is doing now is almost there.

Sometimes I just want to throw up a channel without having to decide what I want to actively watch. Background noise while I browse MacRumors on my iPad.

 

[ghostface147]

All this cord cutting and unbundling doesn't really seem to be saving a lot of money.

 

[KdParker]

The whole point of doing IPTV is to unbundle the channels to pay for what you want. For something that costs $40-50 a month, I don't see how IPTV is better than regular cable.

You don't see that because it is actually worse since you have the added cost of the internet service for your home.

 

[Howyalikdemapls]

This could be the best option yet. First "unconnected" plan I've seen that would entice me.



Don't knock it till you've tried it. I use DTV's version with the iOS app and its great when traveling and even waiting around.

You're right. I haven't used it and I don't know how it will work. Perhaps they're using the term "cloud-based DVR" very loosely to entice people that are familiar with having a local DVR and are afraid of losing the ability to watch their shows when they feel like it. But HULU already has the shows recorded on their "cloud" and it doesn't make sense to have me tell them to re-record them to allow me to watch them later. They should just always allow me to watch them later without me having to tell them what I might potentially want to re-watch in the future. I'm not sure exactly how this cloud based DVR is going to work, but if it's literally working like a local DVR where it takes up hard drive space with a recording of a time period that is only available for me to access later, than this truly is ridiculous. They don't need to make new copies of these files for each individual person, and they definitely don't need to make recording of time slots that potentially cut off the beginning or ends of shows. Just give us on-demand access to all the files that were streamed "live".

 

[ButteryScrollin]

When everything is available on demand (which I think is the ultimate vision for this kind of service), you won't need a DVR anymore...

Will need the DVR for sports. Plus skipping through Ads.

 

[Dydegu]

Awesome!

 

[Elbon]

Apple TV is almost a flop. ... the idea from Apple was that it would come up with lots of channels.

I actually bought the new ATV as much for games and other apps as for video content. Unfortunately, from this perspective, it is even more of a flop! At least there are plenty of video channels to choose from (even on the older ATV). The game selection, however, is abysmal.
[doublepost=1462204005][/doublepost]

Will need the DVR for sports. Plus skipping through Ads.

Yeah, sports represent an interesting challenge. However, there's no way that Hulu (or any other ad-based streaming service) is going to let you skip through ads.

 

[d21mike]

Will need the DVR for sports. Plus skipping through Ads.

That was my first thought. But the new MLB App (with up to 2 games on same screen) has the option to Start from the Beginning or Start Live. Then you can FF/REW in the game. So, if done right not sure why all VOD could not be near live. I actually have the same issue with News. I like watching some of the daily News Show and also the weekend Sunday morning new shows. I DVR them now but no reason they could not be the same.

 

[ike1707]

It sounds like apple may have cheated itself out of an opportunity.. I personally feel like Apple would have delivered a leaner product, which is what I was hoping for. I guess Hulu is better at negotiation? That or they agreed to stuff more pork into the deal.

 

[Norcal.]

Shame they're not including any news channels.

 

[nt5672]

I have over-the-air for live tv, don't need to pay for it.

What i do need is to be able to subscribe to the few channels and content I want to watch. Don't need no stinking bundles.

 

[^*...*^]

Cut the cord about two year ago. Watch only over-the-air and record programs with Channel Master DVR+
www.channelmaster.com Now I have more programs to watch than I have time to do so.
The only program I'm missing is Tennis from ESPN. If companies would offer "a la carte" instead of their bundle programs I would get back to cable or streaming. Something like $5/channel with a minimum of 7 channels. You choose! Not bundled! No problem!
And I would watch their commercials if they were intelligent. entertaining, non repetitive.
Remember the baby in the crib looking at his portfolio in the iPad? And then he pulled out his smart phone when mom took away the iPad. Now that was a funny comercial, sometimes I watched it twice.
My brother in South America pays about $60/month and has just about everything. Including news from Germany, France, Italy. And he lives in a very small town. Watches Tennis live, not delayed to his local time.
Drawback: he might have to watch The Australian Open at 2am.

 

[ButteryScrollin]

That was my first thought. But the new MLB App (with up to 2 games on same screen) has the option to Start from the Beginning or Start Live. Then you can FF/REW in the game. So, if done right not sure why all VOD could not be near live. I actually have the same issue with News. I like watching some of the daily News Show and also the weekend Sunday morning new shows. I DVR them now but no reason they could not be the same.

MLB app has local blackouts though, no?

 

[antipex]

Why doesn't anyone mention that Hulu is owned by Disney-ABC, Fox, and NBCUniversal/Comcast?

 

[Geronimo]

Once again, as long as cable companies also control your broadband Internet access, this is a non-starter. With Comcast now moving to a metered model and also making Internet access more expensive if you don't also take their cable package, Hulu's proposal would be more costly in the end.

Nah. Comcast is raising their data caps next month to 1TB. This will put pressure on other major ISPs (especially if they compete in the same market, like AT&T Uverse and Verizon FiOS) to do the same.

You could stream Hulu 24/7 at their current max bitrate and never hit 1TB in the course of a month.

 

[mantan]

I still don't understand why people want live tv (other than sports?). Just give me everything, on demand, streaming, at all times. I don't need a cloud DVR, that's just something else to manage. I am tired of "thinking" about TV. Let me add shows I like to a watchlist accessible on all devices with badges when a new show is available. Seems simple to me? What Hulu is doing now is almost there.

and let me guess....you want it all commercial free at no-cost (or significantly less than what it costs to produce)...oh and just the channels/shows that you like.

 

[jetjaguar]

All this cord cutting and unbundling doesn't really seem to be saving a lot of money.

totally agree .. i would rather hulu actually have entire seasons of the shows on their service instead of the last 5 or something for current shows

 

[macsrcool1234]

Hulu is already so full of ads its not better than a STB.