well, Comcast is going to offer ESPN360.com to it's subscribers soon... at some hidden cost of course

Just as well, there's nothing on TNT or TBS that I want to watch anyway.
I can see how this would sound good to an executive - "People can't get these shows online (this is my assumption) anywhere else, so they'll have to get them from us!" *cue maniacal laughter*

Are there still going to be the 20+ minutes of commmercials and promos and the pop-ups (not your regular computer pop-ups, but the tv pop-ups where the actors pop-up on the screen and move along the bottom)?

And what about all the extra on-screen text that is now on more and more channels' screens?

am I the only one out there who has never had cable, ever?

I think it's going to depend in large part on which networks get on board. They're going to need heavyweights - TNT and TBS are nice, but between them they don't have nearly the amount of original programming that an ABC or NBC does, nevermind viewership.

And of course, there's the argument that this is extremely anti-competition. And it is.

They are doing the phone challenge for people like myself. I have Comcast cable, but have Verizon Dry Loop DSL. My IP would be out of the Comcast Network, but because I am a subscriber, I am still "entitled." I give them +1 for thinking ahead!

Hulu isn't ready to replace TV yet. It will get there, but not yet.

Until that time, I would love it if my cable provider got a brain and provided me with a streaming service rather than trying to manipulate my internet access so that I couldn't stream.

Whether or not I would use it depends on if it was any good. It would need to be HD, nearly ad free, and the most I'd be willing to pay for it on top of my cable bill is %5 to $10.

My bad... I just read the article and realized that they're trying to close off content, while marketing it as a feature.

I see no problem with this. Cable customers pay for access to cable networks and allowing access to those networks online is a bonus. Non-cable customers don't pay for access to those networks, so I don't see a problem with disallowing them access online.

@Parapraxis: Yes :-)

The whole point of swapping to TV over internet is so that you don't have to be a cable subscriber. I'm enjoying the 60/month I'm saving so far.

I gave up both my TWC boxes today - bill will be 45 instead of 140 per month. I have a roku player for netflix and just upped my subscription to 3 DVDs a month. Whatever else I need I will get from hulu or iTunes by hooking laptop to tv. Only concern is not being able to watch baseball

Will they succeed? Probably. And I hope they do. It's a legitimate fear that right now that online revenues are nowhere near as sizable as old school TV advertisements or subscriptions.

If the Internet kills old media before the revenue streams have been replaced, there'll be no money to fund big-budget shows. The apex of content would be similar to YouTube's All-Time Most Watched Videos. "Charlie bit my finger again - again!" really isn't all that much better than, say, Ow! My Balls!

@Parapraxis: Me too.

@Trai_Dep:

maybe it's a vietnamese thing?

@coren: No, throttling or blocking streams from existing online providers is anti-competitive. Offering your own online service to your subscribers isn't anti-competitive unless you start blocking other sites that offer the same shows.

Note that the summary is in error about cable companies charging for access to Hulu. The referenced article refers to Hulu contemplating the need to institute subscription fees based on their own financial situation.

Not saying the cable companies don't try their damndest to stifle competition, just that offering their own online video service doesn't fit the definition of anti-competitive.

@bwcbwc: That's what I get for not reading the full article. They WILL be blocking specific shows from other sites that are (also) offered on their own service. Supposedly for a limited time, which I guess means "as long as regulators let us get away with it."

@wickedpixel: Right now, someone who has Comcast internet but not cable service can view shows on Hulu, Joost or other sites. According to the article, once comcast and TW start their online service, any shows offered on their services will be blocked from being shown via other sites (to their internet customers), even if they are available to non-Comcast customers.

Once AT&T does the same thing to their DSL and uVerse customers, the internet video revolution will be over for about 2/3 of U.S. consumers, since we will be locked into a single video provider the way we were in the 1990's with cable.

@metsarethe...: Aren't the Mets on the radio? Granted, you don't get to see the action, but then you get to use your imagination as to what's going on. Granted, I haven't watched them since the strike of '94, so I don't miss 'em.

Does the MLB.com site let you see the games? That might be another option (a paying one, I susepct).

@Michael Belisle: +1. I love how Idiocracy and Soylent Green make it into the comments.

@Michael Belisle: So we go through a media drought until new funding mechanisms arise that support the change in technology. Once media becomes scarce enough, the costs on the internet will rise to a level that can fund productions. Either there will be more advertisers competing for a limited number of advertising spots, or premium sites (something like HBO online) will offer content for subscribers.

Also, as more people get their media on the internet rather than through cable or broadcast, the advertising income will rise even without increasing the advertising rates. The advertisers will be getting more coverage.

@bwcbwc: Actually it looks like there won't be a media drought after all: Hulu is charging more to advertisers for The Simpsons than Fox TV itself is:
[www.pcworld.com]

The cable companies are a day late and a dollar short.

Either way, they're going to screw us. No matter what, it'll still end up costing a boatload of money if you want to watch your shows.

@bwcbwc: That title is misleading. You only get one advertiser per Hulu episode. Keeping reading to the third heading, "The Internet is not the Answer . . . Yet" and then do some back-of-the-envelope, highly inaccurate math for the final episode of season 20 of the Simpsons:

TV ($20/1000 viewers/advertiser)*(5.86 million viewers)*(16 advertisers) = $1.9 million

Hulu ($60/1000 viewers/advertiser)*(1 advertiser)*(1 million viewers) = $60 thousand.

Which current revenue stream do think is going to fund a season of the Simpsons?

@nybiker: I love how so many people have seen Idiocracy here. It didn't exactly get a wide release, so it's nice to be in a crowd of people who have heard of it.

@nybiker: Crazy, listening to mets right now on the radio, uber retro. Was willing to pony up the $$$ for MLB TV their online streaming tool but it blacks out ALL local games, Mets & Yankee's.

Young consumers? How about older consumers, who used to get all of their TV and radio for free back in the day? (and going to the movies were cheaper, too)

Yeah I can see why they want to do this, but i don't think it'll work big in the long run. For starters all that content is avail for free with no commercials from torrent. Also, I get about 30 HD channels OTA for free which is about 25 channels more than I need (pbs, fox (simpons, fam guy, am dad) and ABC/NBC/CBS for occasional live sporting events) Daily Show & Colbert Report stream already and if they didn't, torrent.

@mariospants: Some of still do. It sucks, but most of what's on TV isn't worth paying for anyway.

@metsarethe...: Gee, I figured only the NFL did the blackout thing. That sucks. As I said, I don't follow 'em anymore, but for someone who's willing to pay to see them, you'd think they'd let you do so.

I would think that, considering the price of a seat in the new joint, that if you could afford that seat, you'll buy it. But if you don't want to pay that, but are willing to pay the $$$ to MLB for online streaming, wouldn't the Mets get a piece of that pie? Wouldn't everyone win then? But with the blackout status, the Mets and MLB loose since you aren't going to the game or watching it on tv (I'm assuming you're not going to the games since you mentioned the loss of the broadcast).

BTW, how's the roku player working out? It's on my wish list of things to get when I am working again.

@metsarethe...: that was what I hated about not having cable...not that i loooooove baseball, but it's nice to be able to watch a sport at home and not have to go to the bar.

@☠Grяrяrяrяrя sings the doom song now!: yeah i moved back home to where they have cable....and i never have the TV in my bedroom on, well rarely. There are a few shows I watch, but not much else.

This is why I'm studying extra hard with the intent of leaving america before that happens. Goodbye backwardness!

@metsarethe...: MLB TV is awesome, as long as you aren't in a big market (Yankees, Sox, Mets). We have it for the Cardinals and only had a couple games blacked out.