Hulu means I can go to bed early and still catch Jon Stewart AND Conan O'Brien. They want to do HIS to me?

I have a feeling that people won't look too kindly on paying for something that they used to get for free. The public is stubborn like that.

Put commercials in the normal spots and make it hard to skip them. That's probably more valuable than TV commercials that people can blow through via DVR anyway.

Two immediate thoughts ... they'd have to provide more value and content ala Netflix. I already get most of the content through cable... HULU just lets me watch it whenever I want. I could just start using my DVR more often.

Bundles, a little like the cable company forces me to pay for 200 channels I never watch just so I can pay even more to get Showtime? Yeah, that sounds like a plan.

This might succeed with niche programming for upper class viewers. It is working for the Wall Street Journal. It could work for CNBC, too. It won't work for the masses. It will be too difficult to set up a safe payment system. With fewer and fewer Americans having credit cards, this will be all that much harder to do. With most Americans accustomed to ad-paid "free" TV, they will expect the same model on the internet.

I could see this coming. Nothing gold can stay. *tear* I probably won't pay for it.

Am I one of the few people not impressed by Hulu? A number of the shows that I really enjoy, they only have clips/excerpts of. Their movie section is also kinda thin spread.
Also why would I want to pay something that is already ad based. I thought the purpose of showing those ads was to make it free...

We pay the old fashioned way- buy watching commercials. Just like I pay when I watch TV with my antenna. Except with HULU I HAVE to watch the commercials.

Just like cable used to be just a antenna like service. Why do TV stations like MTV and Comedy Central charge cable companies (and thus us) to carry the stations. There are more commercials on those stations than any OTA. They are double billing us!

I could see paying a reasonable subscription fee for Hulu - but I would have to be able to watch it on my television as opposed to my computer screen - they seem very averse to that right now. Give it to me as an add on to my AppleTV and allow me to subscribe to programming a la carte (which the cable companies are averse to). Let me watch not only the most recent episodes broadcast but also previous ones... yes, I could see myself paying for such a service.

@Daniels: I am not willing to sit through a 4- or 5-minute commercial break online anymore than I am if I watching a taped show on my vcr (yeah, old-school). If a 60-minute show didn't have 20 minutes of commercials and promos (not counting the crawls & snipes & pop-ups) I would happily sit through a commercial or two and watch a show (except reality & talent, they are not appealing to me) 'live.'

Hulu was watched because it was free, when it isn't people will move (most people).

@Taylor: You mean like when cable television replaced over the air TV? (just kidding, I know there is a difference, but it was a comparison that was made when cable TV was first being rolled out).

Not only will you need to pay for the shows, but pay for the bandwidth if ISPs keep dialing back download caps.

@Daniels: Hulu already has ads in the typical spaces, can't be skipped and can't be forwarded through. The difference is a 30 second ad online, or 3+ minutes via regular TV.

Eh, I never liked Hulu anyway. It always slows down my computer.

Honestly, if they start charging, you can still get your TV shows streaming online (without commercials) for free, if you know where to look. Hell, you can even do that now.

Cue flames about piracy and yadda yadda.

@frank64: You HAVE to watch the commercials on regular TV, too, if you don't have a DVR.

And, it's not just MTV and CC that have tons of commercials, NBC/CBS/ABC have just as many, AND charge more for advertisers.

I wouldn't pay for Hulu. I already pay too much for cable. The only reason I use it is if I forget to record an episode of something I want to watch.

Bundles---yeah--that's working really well for the cable companies. Consumers just LOVE paying for crap they don't want or need. Obviously this dude doesn't read Consumerist.

Tell you what, everybody just loves bundles.

I love the logic here. "Hey guys, people love this service just the way it is, so let's start changing it!"

Hulu is way better than all the network sites for watching video (what? A resolution video? Unpossible) but I will switch back to the network sites if Hulu starts charging. It's good, but it's not -that- good.

And if the network sites start charging? TV is just a perk for me, I would just go without.

But really... just offer ad-free Hulu for a charge, or normal, with ads Hulu for free. People hate ads for some reason, and would probably be willing to pay.

@Wombatish: a resolution button**

@frank64: I can't speak to MTV & CC since I don't watch them, but try watching the Discovery, NatGeo, & History channels and you'll see breaks sometimes every 5 minutes followed by a 3- or 4-minute commercials. And Hulu doesn't even carry those 3 channels, unless they just started to. As much as I like Time-Warp, Mythbusters, World's Biggest Fixes, Ice Road Truckers, & Modern Marvels (there are others but their names escape me right now), there's no way I can sit through them during their regular broadcast schedule. VCR FTW.

And while I am ranting, how all networks/channels get rid of the on-screen text that's blocking the view of whatever you're showing. Ok, your logo gets to stay (but make it smaller & not so bright), but we don't need the info about a new show premiering tonight or that Axe Men is starting is 10,9,8.. minutes from now. And these are the snipes / pop-ups we've all seen. No, this is permanent text on the screen during the entire episode. Discovery has put "new episode" above their "D". Big whoop! I just record the repeat a few hours later. BBCA, TNT, TBS, FX, TVLAND, E!, IFC, TLC, and USA all put extra text on their screens; therefore, I don't watch any of their stuff no matter how good a show might be.

The final item is length of shows. Make 'em either 30 or 60 minutes. None of this 61 or 62 minutes just to keep us glued to the channel. If you're not good enough to get it done in the regular boundaries, then don't put it on the air.

/end of rants. Thanks for listening.

"I think what works for consumers most likely-and this has to be tested, frankly-is bundles..."

Translation: "Our research has shown that bundling allows us to raise prices more while spending less to add value. I don't know how this will go over with consumers, bu I'll just make an unqualified statement about what they want and hope this sticks."

I can understand charging for the service - Denis Leary and Alec Baldwin don't do commercials for free - but bundling is the most aggravating thing about cable and satellite TV. Nothing stings like paying for a channel you never watch. Or twenty of them.

@Wombatish:

I agree. They can get people to pay if they offer something different than they offer now. I love hulu and use it frequently, but if they start charging, there is Fancast, for example, or individual network's sites, and I will go there instead.

I don't mind if they have to show more commercials. They are providing me a free service.

Pay for Hulu? Not a chance. I would switch back to torrenting all my favorite shows like I did before Hulu. The only high point about Hulu for me is that it's instant streaming content. I would rather wait for a torrent to finish for free, rather than pay for ad filled content on Hulu. It just makes sense.

@Jessica Haas: Many people have a DVR now and not watching the commercials is supposed to decrease the value to advertisers of normal TV, so at least with HULU you really have too, thus more value to advertisers with HULU?

As far as the amount of commercials, there are more on cable channels per hour. They charge less, but they also have smaller audiences, so I don't know enough if they charge less per viewer. I suspect so.

It just seems funny that we are charged extra for watching channels with MORE commercials, because cable gets charged for them. One reason for high cable bills.
I would think if not for strong profit desires these cable channels should be happy that the cable companies are transmitting their channel for free so they can reach everyone with their commercials. Like the model that used to be for OTA.

This comes into play because it appears to be what will happen with HULU. I think we are getting double charged for something in the old days of OTA we did not. We should not have to pay for things that have commercials in them.

what a fabulous idea! Let's take something that's whole niche, point, existence is to be the opposite of cable, because it appeals to those who don't like cable, and TURN IT INTO CABLE!!!

Broadcast (both tv and radio) pioneered free content with advertising. I don't understand why the internet drives people crazy and makes them forget that Google didn't invent this model, THEY DID! All of these content provider should get together and put together some kind of universal identity layer that would allow them to target ads at specific consumers. A 30 second web ad that's specifically tailored to ME, just my demographic, not somehow related to the content in front of me (like Google), but actually targeted at ME would have to be much more valuable to advertisers than an ad that goes out to X million people and targets, at most, 25% of the viewers.

If they go to a pay service, the only way I will use Hulu is if it is streamed through netflix, otherwise they can kiss my ass.

Honestly, up until recently, Hulu was rarely used by me. Now, however, as I discover more and more on it, its becoming more viable an option, especially with playon so I can watch it on the TV via Xbox 360.

If they charge for this, I suspect, many, including myself, will stop using it and migrate back or to torrents and other ways of getting it.

Simple answer is NO. I am all for copyright and the creators of copyrighted work making a living off their own work but it's the large network schmucks and publishing conglomerate schmucks who have made far too much money for practically doing nothing. If HULU ever begins to charge, I'll just go elsewhere.

At what point in this world will content creators all stand up, band together and take control of their own work and make what the nincumpoops at the top make.

@Jessica Haas: Another thing about commercials is that there are more commercials than there used to be on Network TV. I think this has had a severe dilution affect on their value and is a strong reason that commercial skipping on DVR's has grown. Hulu has very few commercials so I would think has a higher per viewer value.

I wish Networks would reduce their commercials and get more for them, thus limiting the flight they see from normal viewing. You almost have to skip the commercials or find a different way to watch or you will go bananas!

I will not pay for Hulu. Period. There are too many places to get free TV. I'm also building an HTPC (home theater PC) to record shows (permanently, unlike a DVR)... there's just so many options out there, and while hulu may be the biggest name, it's far from a one horse race.

Now, what I *would* consider, if Hulu wants to boost revenue, is paying for movie content, similar to Pay Per View.

@squikysquiken: Yeah, I think I get great value by OTA, Netflix and Hulu. I hardly watch commercials because of a DVR and I am watching 24 now with no commercials through Netflix.

So I pay $20 a month and watch more than I should, including Showtime and HBO shows.

Would I pay for a service that I use specifically because it is free? No.

If they charge why will they be much different than cable? Plus we don't know what the future will hold for internet providers charging extra for streaming.

Would I pay for Hulu? Nope. Seems like maybe its time to dust off that torrent program for TV shows once again.

@seamer: Interestingly, Adblock Plus blocks a few of the ads, but not most of them. However, on many other streaming sites that include ads, I find that Adblock blocks them completely, although sometimes I have to wait for the ad's timer to run out anyway. Of course, it's people like me that take ad revenue away from these sites, effectively killing what I enjoy. Go figure :/

Hell no. The fact that they are even considering it means I will stop going to hulu. Good job boys.

They need to leave what Hulu offers now as is. A subscription would have to add value. Namely, Ad Free hulu for starters. A big perk would be to allow subscribers to see all the episodes available, instead of the rolling seasons or select episodes they have available now which expire.

One word: Torrents

Nbc, Comedy Central, Fox, and others stream videos from their website. The only reason I used Hulu was because it was all in one place. I would not pay to use Hulu, I would rather be cheap and go to the individual websites for my content.

@theblackdog: I second that.

The switching costs for me to go back to free TV on the television (or a DVR if I won't be home) are low. I've already been annoyed at the limited # of episodes of shows available at Hulu.

If they really want me to stop watching their shows, the networks should keep down this path along with producing all the reality tv crap they've been making.

My money will go to Netflix over Hulu any day.

Regular tv is such a scam. We pay for it and are forced to watch commercials. Now hulu is going the same way.

I won't pay for Hulu. The bundles- they wouldn't be what I want, there's just no way they would cover my bases. There were ways to get free content before Hulu and if Hulu starts charging for content, well, it's back to the free ways.

@frank64:

I don't mind the commercials so much, so I can go pee or get a snack. But just when I was getting ready to think about ditching satellite to save money, they have to go and do this.

Jerks.

Would I pay for Hulu NOW, under the currently-existing models of cable TV and broadband internet video services? No.

Could I forsee paying a reasonable low fee for Hulu LATER, under an inevitably changed system of content delivery, 5 or 10 years down the line? Yes.

@fantomesq:

Yes, I would pay for a la carte.

WHAT?!? I'm not paying for Hulu--- especially when it used to be a free service.

@Skaperen: I could see one for the opposite, too.
Fox News, Beck/Hannity, car-crash TV, crappy reality shows (Biggest Losing Dancing Stars, I'm pointing at you), Jim Cramer and other programming aimed at the mouth-breathing demographic.
All tied together in a pretty bow and sponsored by Wal-Mart!