Hulu's Live TV Service Will Reportedly Cost $39.99/Month, With $20 Cloud DVR Add-On

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Honestly I think you're probably a different type of user than any form of cord cutting or skinny bundles are ever going to target. I'm super tech oriented, have been my whole life, but I don't care one iota about 5.1 sound or DVR and about 90% of the channels that are on cable/sat these days.

So do you think you are representative of the increasingly mainstream- apparently happy to forgo higher quality sound (and picture?) and DVR functionality, not getting a favorite show or channel, etc for what: a modestly lower monthly fee and/or so you can feel like you've stuck it to the cable or satt company?

It's a legitimate concern for these companies as there is a whole generation that isn't cord cutters... they are "cord nevers".

I'm believing you are confusing what "cord nevers" mean. It's generally not people who have never had cable or satt, it's people who haven't PAID for it (yet). When we were all about the age of the generation now called millenials, almost all of us were "cord nevers" too. When I was their age, I was also a cell phone never, a car never, a home never, etc.

In my own experience, these "younger users" (millennials) have basically worshipped cable or satt television with DVRs for most of their lives. I'd even go so far to wonder if there has ever been a generation before that has been so enamored with video entertainment, thrust into their hands from the earliest age and a mainstay distraction for their entire lives.

The thing is this though: Mommy & Daddy PAID for it for them. Mommy & Daddy also paid for the home they live(d) in, which doesn't mean they will forever be "home nevers" and M&D might have bought them their first car, which doesn't mean they are unlikely to ever buy a car. Those mobile devices that are apparently behind this "never" idea might have been purchased by M&D too. Etc. Food. Clothing. School supplies. And on and on, none of which make them "food nevers", "clothing nevers", etc either.

I have one of these millennials myself. When home from college, there is practically a beeline (and then) monopoly on watching favorite shows accumulated on a DVR on the big screen in surround sound. They may make due when away at college because they are still "TV nevers", "home nevers", "good job nevers", etc but as soon as there is access, the tiny screen in their hand with no DVR and no surround sound is laid down for the bigger one deluxe. Technically, they are a "cord never" since M&D pays for it.

I suspect there is plenty in the millennial crowd that are only "cord never yets" instead of "cord never in the future." As soon as they are no longer "home nevers" & "good job nevers" where they have some spare money to buy such things, I suspect they'll want their own better TV viewing & listening experiences, as good as what they had at home (paid for by M&D). I don't believe when these teens & younger twenty-somethings are thirty- & forty-somethings, they'll still be satisfied with the many tradeoffs of "good enough" knowing that M&D has a much better setup over at their place.

Younger users are increasingly not even getting home internet and using mobile devices and those plans to consume content. A lot of that stuff is now getting zero rated thus avoiding any cap issues.

Are they paying for that mobile data plan or is that option free to them courtesy of M&D's family plan? If the former, the cost of "unlimited* data" and actually living in a (separate) home will eventually make it a cheaper option for them to quit the "never"... or their home job will press them to get a wired connection... or the home alarm system will do it, etc. Many have not yet reached the point where they need that pipe or are not yet fully paying for things that make them weigh the value of a wired vs. wireless pipe, making them "not yets" instead of really "forever nevers."

Most extremely: every baby born today is pretty much a nearly "everything never" but as they age, that will certainly change. Or until 2007, we were all "iPhone nevers" and look how that has evolved.

TV in its present form is in serious danger just based upon the usage patterns of the upcoming generations of customers (not going to be customers possibly)

To this, I'll simply say maybe. I have a hard time believing that the masses will be so quick to settle for lower quality picture & sound, having to jump through hoops to jump from app to app and/or box to box to watch things, no DVR or gimped DVRs and so on... all to "save(?)" $10 or $30/month... especially as the wired broadband providers increasingly implement and/or tighten bandwidth tiers to maintain their revenue flows even if the extinction of their cable TV business comes to pass.

Basically, in the end, I fully expect all of the players to still make at least what they make now. If cable is completely killed off, I expect Comcast, etc to make up for cableTV subscription dollars in broadband fees (raised as necessary to replace the lost revenues). If wireless broadband really can kill off wired broadband, I expect Comcast, etc to get (or buy) into the wireless industry and still take just as much- if not more- than they do now from us consumers. I foresee no scenario where we really get everything we want for a fraction what we traditionally pay and the new stuff we'll want to watch in the future keeps getting piloted too. Cut out the commercial revenues and the concept gets even weaker. Put a new middleman in (like Apple) and the concept gets even weaker. But we keep spinning it like we think it will come to pass anyway.

I'll wish for it right with everyone else. But I also wish I could get the next iPhone, iPad & Macs from Apple for 80% or 90% less than they traditionally cost too. I suspect the chances of that are about the same.

 

[Juicy Box]

And don't forget, the major ISPs (AT&T & Comcast) will charge you more money if you go over their data caps.

I am not sure about AT&T, but Comcast recently increased their cap from 300MB, which was not enforced in most areas, to 1TB, which I think is enforced.

At 1TB cap, most people should be fine with streaming. My stream happy family has never hit the 1TB mark ever. the most was just over 900MB in a month. My families average is about 600MB.

I suspect when 4K streaming becomes the norm, this may change.

Yep I was safe from that for years with Comcast. A couple months ago they enforced 1tb month cap. My appletv is running 180 gigs a week between iTunes movies, Hulu, and Netflix. (Data info right from my router reports I grab weekly.)

They have unlimited plan for a fee.

At 180 a week, you should be fine with the 1TB cap. That is about what my family streams monthly.

Luckily I have FiOS which doesn't have a cap cause I'd be screwed.

Verizon FiOS actually does have a data cap, but they do not advertise it, as 99.99% of their customers won't even come close to the cap.

This is mostly for people that are using servers, or running a business using their non-business FiOS service.

I read a story about FiOS's caps, as they were threatening the disconnection of violators that were continuously exceeding their undisclosed amount. One of them was going over 50TB a month for many months. Verizon said that the were issuing warnings to customers that were using the data equivalent of watching 450 hours of movies a day.

The good thing is that they give you a warning to either upgrade to a business class internet plan, or to lower the data usage, so it isn't like they just disconnect you.

Either way, their data cap is much better than Comcast's.

 

[mthomas184]

Verizon FiOS actually does have a data cap, but they do not advertise it, as 99.99% of their customers won't even come close to the cap.

This is mostly for people that are using servers, or running a business using their non-business FiOS service.

I read a story about FiOS's caps, as they were threatening the disconnection of violators that were continuously exceeding their undisclosed amount. One of them was going over 50TB a month for many months. Verizon said that the were issuing warnings to customers that were using the data equivalent of watching 450 hours of movies a day.

The good thing is that they give you a warning to either upgrade to a business class internet plan, or to lower the data usage, so it isn't like they just disconnect you.

Either way, their data cap is much better than Comcast's.

I was actually unaware of that and i looked everywhere lol But thats good to know!

 

[cerote]

At 180 a week, you should be fine with the 1TB cap. That is about what my family streams monthly.

This is for just my living room appletv. I work from home and run same stuff in office. 2 ps4s that I am mainly buying games digitally.

I average 1.4tb a month.

 

[maflynn]

Seems kind of pricey, I don't see myself cutting the cable and going to hula, not really saving much money

 

[Juicy Box]

This is for just my living room appletv. I work from home and run same stuff in office. 2 ps4s that I am mainly buying games digitally.

I average 1.4tb a month.

I guess that new data cap wouldn't be good for you then. I think for the majority of people it is though, even if they are heavy streamers.

The issue I have with the 1TB limit is that 4K streaming is not too far off. It took Comcast over 15 years to increase the 300 GB data cap to 1TB, I wonder how long it will be before it increases again? Another two decades?

I think 1TB is a little low.

Luckily for me, I have a choice between Comcast and FiOS, and I regularly switch between the two to get the best deal. But, I know many people only have Comcast as a choice for ISP, and in a few years, they will be forced to pay for going over the cap or have to monitor their data usage carefully.

I feel bad for them, as it shouldn't be that way.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm believing you are confusing what "cord nevers" mean. It's generally not people who have never had cable or satt, it's people who haven't PAID for it (yet).

Cord never is: "people who have never subscribed to a traditional pay-TV service.."

Irrespective of payments, there is a growing audience there that is becoming attuned to getting entertainment elsewhere (something beyond traditional cable/sat). If you go awhile without being acclimated to cable/sat subscriptions (or never do in the first place), you look at it completely differently as the very unnecessary and mediocre entertainment option that it is.

That in no way means younger demographics don't/won't pay for tv/movie style entertainment. It's just highly unlikely to be the bundled "meh-fest" that traditional cable/sat packages have turned into.

The thing is this though: Mommy & Daddy PAID for it for them. Mommy & Daddy also paid for the home they live(d) in, which doesn't mean they will forever be "home nevers" and M&D might have bought them their first car, which doesn't mean they are unlikely to ever buy a car.

Nobody said young people won't have any entertainment.
It's just already starting to come in from formats and options that are not necessarily cable/sat subscriptions at all.

Homes & Cars are totally different discussions than optional entertainment choices.

I have one of these millennials myself. When home from college, there is practically a beeline (and then) monopoly on watching favorite shows accumulated on a DVR

DVR is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist if you can watch your favorite shows on demand through apps.


Let's just agree to disagree..totally fine.
Have a good day

 

[Michael Scrip]

In regards to data caps...

I can see how some people use more than 1,000GB in a month over their broadband home internet. That's understandable.

So why don't the Comcasts and Time Warners offer bigger packages for those people? And charge more money?

The cell phone carriers have figured this out. 2GB plans, 4GB plans, 6GB plans, etc. And the bigger plans cost more money.

It's weird that the home internet companies charge the same for someone who uses 100GB as someone who uses 1,000GB

Who's getting the better deal there?

I guess they would prefer to charge you crazy overage fees. But they could offer a 2,000GB plan and make more money every month from those high-usage customers.
[doublepost=1492198391][/doublepost]

All the people saying that this is as much as Cable are forgetting the cost of equipment rentals. The two cable providers in my area charger almost $20 per HD DVR box a month. If you have a couple of boxes for a medium-sized family, the equipment charges alone would cost as much as Hulu's service.

Unless they have a restriction limiting the number of streams to one device, you could have multiple streaming boxes in a home with a flat $20 DVR charge.

I personally would never use a DVR, but I know a lot of people depend on them.


You are right, but rarely are the DVR STBs cheap. In my area, Comcast and Verizon have been advertising cord-cutter-friendly options, where the majority of the costs would be the internet, but they would also include local channels and a premium channel for $10 more.

The problem is, the HD STB is an additional monthly fee, and HD DVR STBs are even more money. If you have a few TVs in your home, that is a monthly charge per STB.

I'm not forgetting about the STB and DVR...

That's why I asked how much people pay for everything right now from the cable company.

If your total cable bill is $120... is $60 of it for internet and $60 for everything else (TV channels/DVR/STBs) ?

Or is $80 of it for internet and only $40 for everything else? That's the question.

The problem is that they bundle everything together and make everything cheaper when you get more services.

Right now you can get TV, DVR, Internet and phone for one price... but Internet alone could cost almost as much as the bundle.

And then you would add an additional monthly fee for TV from someone like Hulu or whatever.

It might actually be cheaper to stick with your cable company's bundled Internet/TV/DVR than to get unbundled internet and go with a 3rd-party TV service.

Again... I said MIGHT... that why I'm asking this in the first place.

 

[Juicy Box]

So why don't the Comcasts and Time Warners offer bigger packages for those people? And charge more money?

I am not sure about TWC, but comcast does have a package for more data. It is $10 for every 50GB you go over 1TB, or you can pay a flat $50 a month and do unlimited data. It might be worth it for people that repeatedly go over. Also $50 really isn't that much if you are doing many TBs of data.

That's why I asked how much people pay for everything right now from the cable company.

This really depends on your area, so you can ask 50 different people and get many different answers.

Right now you can get TV, DVR, Internet and phone for one price... but Internet alone could cost almost as much as the bundle.

You are right, internet could be almost as expensive as the bundles, but it depends on the equipment, which bundle, area, contracts, and other things.

It might actually be cheaper to stick with your cable company's bundled Internet/TV/DVR than to get unbundled internet and go with a 3rd-party TV service.

Bundles do make it harder to do a straight comparison. And you are right, Cable bundles might be the cheapest option for some people..


It may not be available in all areas, but in my area both Comcast and FiOS are offering "semi" or "lite" bundles of primarily internet, but also a little bit of TV. For example, Comcast offers 25Mb/s download internet with local channels and HBO for $49 a month. If you own your own modem, you won't have a rental fee too. For $10 more, you can get the same deal, but with 100 Mb/s. Or, you can drop the TV and get 200 Mb/s download. Personally, 100 is more than I need, and if I wanted to save a few bucks, I could probably get by on 25Mb/s as Comcast is usually about 10Mb/s higher than advertised in my area.

Anyways, you could pair these semi-bundles that comes with HBO, with many streaming services like Netflix, Showtime, Hulu, Stars.... And still save a lot compared to the triple play bundles.

Basically it comes down to this, everyone's situation is different, and their may not be a one-size-fits-all combination for everyone. I see Hulu's new services as a good in-between for people that are itching to cut the cord, but still wants certain things that only Cable offers. Me personally, I will probably never use the service, as things like DVRs and Live TV do not interest me or my family.

 

[Michael Scrip]

This really depends on your area, so you can ask 50 different people and get many different answers.

Of course.

But the overall consensus in this thread is that this isn't a good deal from Hulu. If people are saying that... then they've compared it to what they are paying now. I just wanted to hear some actual dollar amounts.

Has anyone here said "hot damn.... this Hulu thing is exactly what I'm looking for!" ?

I haven't heard that.

There are now multiple ways to get "over-the-top" TV service. SlingTV, PlayStation Vue, DirecTV Now, YouTubeTV, etc. And that's great.

But this Hulu offer comes it at the highest starting price without the best features. For instance:

YouTubeTV starts at $35/mo with a great DVR.

HuluTV starts at $40/mo with a limited DVR... and it costs $20/mo extra to get a good DVR. So that's $60/mo.... on top of whatever you pay for internet.

And like you said... in some areas you can get TV and internet starting at $50/mo.

So yeah... it's not looking like this $60/mo Hulu thing is a good deal considering you would pay this in addition to internet.

It might be better to see what bundles are available from the cable company or whatever... if you are so inclined.

-----

On a separate but semi-related topic... this is actually an exciting time for TV.

All these "over-the-top" TV services are essentially uncoupling your TV channels from your internet connection.

You will obviously pay for a big fat internet pipe to your house... but then YOU select which TV service you want. And if you don't like one service... you can cancel and try another (no contracts)

The only constant is your internet connection.

For now... the cable companies are fighting like crazy to sell you their TV services. That's why the bundles are so aggressive.

The cable companies don't want to end up as a dumb pipe... but it's probably gonna end up like that.

 

[Juicy Box]

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I do believe there is a market for Hulu's service.

But the overall consensus in this thread is that this isn't a good deal from Hulu. If people are saying that... then they've compared it to what they are paying now.

You are right, but this forum hardly represents a realistic sample of average consumers.

Many people on this forum are quick to dismiss anything over the cost of Netflix, but Hulu's TV service would be a good choice for people with very large Cable bills that still want the Live TV, and many of the Cable channels, but want to save some money.

I just wanted to hear some actual dollar amounts.

Some people (my baby boomer parents) pay over $200 a month for Cable + internet. Many times Cable customer's service is under a contract for a particular amount of time like two years. Many times they only have a one choice of ISP and Cable provider, so once their rates increase, they are stuck paying that price.

Hulu's service could probably be cancelled at any time, without having to call and be put on hold for an hour to speak with the disconnect/retention department. I doubt the price will increase much over time, and they will most likely have a much better UI than what the cable companies are offering.

But this Hulu offer comes it at the highest starting price without the best features. For instance:

YouTubeTV starts at $35/mo with a great DVR.

Hulu might not be offering the best deal when compared to other "alternative" TV solutions, but I think it would be cheaper when compared to most Cable TV plans.

And like you said... in some areas you can get TV and internet starting at $50/mo.

So yeah... it's not looking like this $60/mo Hulu thing is a good deal considering you would pay this in addition to internet.

This is not a good comparison, as you are comparing the high end of Hulu's service to the lowest end of Cable's Internet + TV. Hulu's service comes with DVR at the high end, and the total cost of their service could be the same of the Cable Companies' equipment rental cost alone for a large family.

One we get more details of this rumored service, you could compare Hulu's $40 service to a similar Cable and internet plan over by a Cable company, I bet that it would be just as cheap, or many much cheaper. The problem with trying to compare services is that I doubt there will be a 100% match in different bundles so I guess it will come down to a subjective pick of what channels are most important to the customer.


So, I think there is a market for Hulu's service, but not for me, and like you pointed out maybe not with many people on this forum.

 

[mantan]

Pricing is starting to approach actual cable pricing. This is not going to work well. People who cut the cord are the target market. Pricing it as much as cable itself is a terrible strategy. Just because the programming is shifted from coax/satellite to the internet doesn't mean the pricing should be the same.

People want lower monthly bills. The free market will sort this out.

I think people will begin to slowly realize the pipe dream of cheap programming that they love doesn't exist. Somebody has to pay to pay the freight. The industry isn't looking to decrease its revenue stream and unlike the music industry, it's not being disrupted. In the current model, that price is spread around a broad group of diverse viewers. Skinny bundles have to make up those costs somehow.

I agree the free market will figure this out. And people will get different ways to consume content. But Netflix has given people the unrealistic expectation and large amounts of new content will be available for insanely cheap prices. In all likelihood, most people are going to entertainment bills pretty close to what they are paying today.

I still think it's a great deal. The future is largely going to be shaped by a generation who grew up consuming content completely differently than their parents/grandparents. I have a daughter in college who is happy to consume her content on her tablet/laptop. When I was young I wanted a big TV/media room/surround sound speakers. She'll probably keep consuming content on her tablet..or get a cheap TV to stream to. That generation will be the one to put financial pressure on the market to offer an alternative.

 

[MICHAELSD]

So... limited?

"Unlimited" as in you can keep using it if you delete content.

 

[nburwell]

I'll be sticking with Vue. I pay $35/month and the DVR is free.

I was really thinking/hoping that Hulu would come in around $35 and include DVR in the price. Pretty disappointed to say the least.

I will be sticking with Vue as well.

 

[Moorepheus]

So, now that we are cutting cords, these services want to charge us what we were already being charged. I had a feeling this was going to happen. If you were an early adopter, then you saved money. But going forward, it's going to be about the same price or more.

 

[turbineseaplane]

So, now that we are cutting cords, these services want to charge us what we were already being charged. I had a feeling this was going to happen. If you were an early adopter, then you saved money. But going forward, it's going to be about the same price or more.

Only solution is vote with your wallet on things that charge too much and/or don't have an offering that's compelling to you.

No doubt, there are some that are completely addicted to a lot of digital entertainment and the content providers and distributors will always have those kinds of folks right where they want them.

But people like me, who were fringe users and tolerated a certain offering up to a certain price/quality...well they lost me 9 years ago and will basically never get me back. That's the type of group they should be worried about, especially as such a large core of the business hinges on older demographics that will of course budget cut or simply die off at some point.

Sports is interesting to me, because my net spend on that hasn't changed much, but I now use my uncapped internet and go direct to leagues - thus cutting out the service provider from a higher tier package price, etc. It's actually a huge win as there have been years I haven't subbed (NHL for instance), I can do it seasonally and much more easily for only the sports/teams I want and, crucially, I enjoy the offering much much much more that comes through the Apps directly from the source of the sports.

Note that this part does still require some creativity in the form of AdFreeTime and/or VPN usage and some leagues have made a US user subscribe in another country to get out of country offerings which, bizarrely, can be much better than the native US offering - no doubt to acquiesce to cable/sat agreements. That's their issue. I'll go get it wherever I have to (and pay for it) if they want to play games like that.

 

[oktwindad]

Gosh... $60 a month for just TV + DVR...

And how much does this service cost from the cable company you already have?

That's about what I pay for 400 channel cable w/ whole house DVR and 1000 hours of rec. nice try but not economical.

 

[Juicy Box]

That's about what I pay for 400 channel cable w/ whole house DVR and 1000 hours of rec. nice try but not economical.

What service provider do you use?

 

[wayno12]

For my family, it was $115 per month for two HD TVs with DVR from DIRECTV. We switched to DIRECTV Now and are paying $35.00 per month now.

DIRECTV Now doesn't have any of the crap shopping channels and the package we have includes channels we want to watch that our more expensive traditional DIRECTV package didn't (SEC Network, for one). DIRECTV Now doesn't include DVR (yet). When DVR does roll out, it will probably cost extra; but we'd rather have the $80 per month savings than DVR right now anyway.

Just got another note from ATT about 'upgrading services everyday' NO forecast for DVR and it will definitely be extra.
we have directvnow but cannot go back and get full episodes of our news program, just clips, so looking at dumping that and directv satellite and go with hulu live.