Hulu May Start Charging For Content

Just when free tv on the internet was starting to get good, Hulu board member Jon Miller had to go and talk about subscription fees. Miller, an AOL refugee who’s now squeezing cash out of consumers for News Corp, said last week of subscription fees: “in my opinion the answer could be yes. I don’t see why that shouldn’t happen over time… it seems to me that over time that could be a logical thing.” Charging for content isn’t his only big idea…

“I think what works for consumers most likely-and this has to be tested, frankly-is bundles,” he said. “I think you have to figure out what are the right bundles that people buy and what’s contained in that bundle. For example, you could have-and I’m making this up entirely-you could have a New York bundle, and that could consist of various papers or publications that are relevant to the audience in New York, and you could make that all, potentially, a bundle to a consumer at one price.”

What do you guys think? Would you pay for Hulu? Tell us in the comments.

Hulu board member: let’s talk subscription fees [Ars Technica]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Overheal says:

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

    • Anonymous says:

      @Overheal: I often do the same thing. But if Hulu conks out and makes me pay as much as iTunes does, I’d just go to the Comedy Central website, where you can watch full episodes streaming free. I don’t think I’d be the only one.

      • eXo says:

        @JordanTerpsichore: All tv shows are ripped and uploaded to the internet within minutes of broadcast these days. My cable TV has been out for over a week now while douchy timewarner gives me the run around, so I’ve been downloading all the shows I regularly watch and streaming them over my network tot he television.

        Who needs hulu or any other “internet tv service” when its all out there already.

  2. Zorks says:

    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.

    • Rachacha says:

      @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.

      • TheWillow says:

        @Rachacha: Except it’s been shown repeatedly that pay/subscription models don’t work on the web.

        • Rachacha says:

          @TheWillow: I need to start off by saying that I am opposed to Hulu going to a paid service. Thus far, the content that is available through the service is not really the content that I am typically looking for. That said, iTunes is a pay model on the web that does work (or did until they raised the prices of the songs). If you make something easy enough and cheap enough, I think that most people would rather pay for the convenience rather than wasting hours to try to get it for free. If Hulu put all of the NBC and Fox shows online and charged $5.00/month and allowed you to install a Hulu player on your Xbox, PS3, Apple TV or media center PC connected to your TV would you pay if the only other alternative was to download the content from torrents? I think most would just for the convenience.

    • FrugalFreak says:


      It’s not enough for AD revenue, It’s never enough. HULU can be just another site bought by conglomerates that jumped the shark. PAY HULU??? MUHAHAHAHA, That is funny. Back to Youtube, tvants, or million other ways to get media. Did they think embracing internet media then trying to control market share online would work??? They must have forget they don’t own internet and never can.

    • henwy says:


      They can be skipped. I do so all the time.

    • zandar says:


      >: and the bundle concept is what I’m running screaming from by watching tv on the internet. What do they mean bundling hasn’t been “tested?” I guess the concept of “thirteen channels of shit on the tv to choose from” (nowadays, hundreds of channels of shit) goes right over these guys’ heads.

      • bohemian says:

        @zandar: Jon Miller is obviously clueless and should be “exploring new career opportunities” asap. No I won’t be paying for Hulu. There are 101 other ways to obtain media. You can’t offer something for free and then try to make it a pay service, it never pans out.

        I also would have zero interest in any “bundle” of content based on where I live. People are not city based in their interests, they are far more individual and diverse. That is why that whole wacky intertubes thing took off so well.

      • bobcatred says:

        @zandar: No, it doesn’t. What they want is for you to pay for ALL those channels, not just the stuff you’re interested in. Companies like bundles because it’s guaranteed money every month, whereas how much revenue they get off each ad on Hulu is contingent on the number of people that watch (at least, I assume that’s the model).

        The media industry just doesn’t get that they have to evolve to make money on the internet.

  3. Daniels says:

    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.

    • nybiker says:

      @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.’

    • seamer says:

      @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.

      • Alexander Saites says:

        @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 :/

    • WillG says:

      @Daniels: put commercials in the normal spots and _I_ wont bother to skip them.
      (Unless it’s billy mayes, I hate that blowhard)

  4. Anonymous says:

    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.

    • kaceetheconsumer says:

      @EnochHylas: Not just Netflix, but other cheaper ways of watching. When we moved to Austin I considered signing up for Netflix until I realized the library here has most of what I’d get from Netflix, and it’s FREE. Granted, I had to wait four months for my turn with the second season of Dexter, but I’ve learned to check frquently around release dates so I got to see Dark Night and Mamma Mia each within a couple of weeks of the library acquiring them.

      I save money this way and help drive library usage which increases its overall funding so everyone in my community is better served. They’ll even frequently order stuff they don’t have if asked via the proper web form. Why oh why would I ever pay for Hulu, especially with metered Internet looming over us?

      Plus, our DVR has a direct link to Hulu and we’ve used it once: to see if it worked. When I’ve missed eps of shows I like, I go to the network website through the DVR’s browser.

  5. squikysquiken says:

    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.

    • frank64 says:

      @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.

    • Comms says:


      Seriously. Bundles is the reason I canceled my cable years ago and use Netflix and Hulu exclusively. So, no, I won’t pay for “bundles”.

  6. Skaperen says:

    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.

  7. ForrestWhitakersLazyEye says:

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

  8. Teradoc says:

    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…

    • rinse says:

      @Teradoc: I tried catching up on a show on Hulu once, and I swear I must have watched the same “Pink Panther” twenty times or something. It got to the point that I made a point to not watch the movie.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      @Teradoc: But a lot of that has to do with them being unable to get permission to have full episodes up. Bravo only lets them put up two episodes of of their shows a month, won’t tell them which two episodes it will be, and won’t tell them when they’ll make them available. I don’t blame Hulu for that, I blame Bravo for being stupid.

  9. frank64 says:

    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!

    • Jessica Haas says:

      @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.

      • frank64 says:

        @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.

      • frank64 says:

        @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!

        • HogwartsAlum says:


          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.


      • Rachacha says:

        @Jessica Haas: on Cable/OTA for each commercial break I have 2-3+ minutes to get up go the the bathroom, get a snack, take the trash out to the curb,or throw some laundry in the dryer, all without a DVR, But on Hulu, you have 1 commercial per break, so you only have about 30 seconds to get up and do something during the commercial. There is not much one can do in 30 seconds, so most people are forced to watch the commercial.

    • nybiker says:

      @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.

      • Dansc29625 says:

        @nybiker: Start your own damn tv station!

      • b01000100 says:

        @nybiker: What really pisses me off about some of the good shows is that they put the recap after the commercials. Every time you come back from commercial, there is an extra 30 or 60 seconds of what you have already watched. It takes a 60 minute show to about 41 or 42 with commercials…and then down to about 35 with all of the recap or Up Next! crap. I know what happened, I just watched it. I know what is next, I read the info for the program. Just show me the crap.

        • West Coast Secessionist says:

          @fantomesq: “Thats what the AppleTV is for!”

          I’m not being sarcastic here, but I just want to know, what IS the AppleTV for? Without hacking it, it can’t play any video formats besides QuickTime so it’s obviously not for watching streaming video from the Internet, it’s not for watching things you downloaded via torrents, it seems to me like it’s not “for” anything besides paying a rather large sum of money ($2+ per episode) to buy TV shows from iTunes that you could have watched for free on network TV, or on Hulu.

          So I’m just curious, why did you buy that? What do you use it for? What am I missing here?

  10. fantomesq says:

    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.

    • HogwartsAlum says:


      Yes, I would pay for a la carte.

    • rinse says:

      @fantomesq: Huh? Just connect your PC to the TV. Done.

      I agree, though. Watching TV shows on the computer kinda blows compared to broadcast TV. Audio/video quality kinda sucks, too. Connecting it to TV just makes the streaming quality even more obvious.

      • fantomesq says:

        @rinse: Yeah, I’ve got six computers in the house as it is. I don’t want a full blown PC hooked up to the TV. Thats what the AppleTV is for! Not to mention that computer interfaces don’t really work well on TV. Let me control the box with a remote – not a keyboard and mouse.

        • baquwards says:

          @fantomesq: I have a PC hooked up to the TV and really enjoy it. It is great for hulu, netflix, youtube and showing pictures to people when they come over. I got a cheap logitech RF keyboard with built in touchpad and it works great. The computer interface works just fine on my LCD tv.

    • nakedscience says:

      @fantomesq: Uh, they have software that makes it easy and you can even use a remote!

  11. MercerCh00x says:

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

  12. Jessica Haas says:

    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.

    • Ben Edwards says:

      @Jessica Haas: You must have an old computer, or a heck of a lot of programs already running if Hulu is capable of slowing down the whole thing.

      • baquwards says:

        @Ben Edwards: I have a 2.66 ghz P4 when scaling hulu at full screen Adobe Flash eats up just about all of its processing power. I have to make sure that nothing unnecessary is running in the background. It is a shame that Adobe has to make full screen viewing impossible for those with computers that are only a couple years old.

        • West Coast Secessionist says:

          @baquwards: Adobe blows the big one and all, and Flash is their worst product. However, a 2.66Ghz Pentium 4 dates from approximately 2003 or 2004. Which would be about 5-6 years old now.

          That said, we use 3Ghz P4’s at work here and they are more than adequate for business uses, and even YouTube.

          If it makes you feel any better, Flash is evern worse on Macs than on PCs. On my brand new Mac laptop, Flash still hogs a huge amount of CPU and usually turns my fan on. Adobe seems to be completely ignorant of how to write efficient code.

  13. breny says:

    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.

    • Brian James Schend says:

      @breny: What the Hulu guy is missing is that bundles works for cable because they have no competition. Maintaining a monopoly on the one cable going to someone’s house is easy, maintaining a monopoly with a website on the interweb is almost impossible.

      This is why, on the internet, the pay-per-song format of I-Tunes is wasting the subscription (aka bundling) competition.

      On the other hand, paying a subscription fee to eliminate ads might be a good idea. People who don’t pay still watch the ads.

  14. CumaeanSibyl says:

    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!”

  15. Wombatish says:

    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 says:

      @Wombatish: a resolution button**

    • ScarletsWalk says:


      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.

    • HRHKingFridayXX says:

      @Wombatish: I would pay for HD commercial free cable channels. And they would have to have the full current season.

    • NeverLetMeDown says:


      Hulu gets its feeds from the network sites, just like Fancast (and Hulu is owned by the networks, while Fancast is owned by Comcast).

      Problem with something like Hulu is that programming, particularly cable programming, is dependent on both ad sales and on the fees cable/satellite providers pay to the programmers. Without both of those flows, the business model doesn’t work, and the cable/satellite guys are saying “hey, if you’re putting all this content online for free, why should we pay you to distribute it?”

  16. dukegreene says:

    “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.

  17. milaround says:

    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.

  18. brettt says:

    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!!!

  19. DanteDiablo says:

    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.

    • Rachacha says:

      @DanteDiablo: Some independent podcast/videocast networks are doing this. They have a nice audience (games, technology, wine, food etc.) and all of their ads are selected specifically to target that audience. Ads are inserted in the content (just like TV and radio), they are non intrusive (usually 30-40 seconds), and targeted towards the audience…guess what, I DONT skip them, I do listen to them, and I actually buy the products using the shows promotion code to send a message to the advertiser that their ad is working, and hopefully they will keep supporting the shows that I love

  20. theblackdog says:

    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.

    • Anonymous says:

      @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.

  21. Dietrich Duke says:

    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.

    • henwy says:

      @Dietrich Duke: And you won’t be missed because it’s a sinking ship as it is. Ad revenues just don’t do it for hulu. Have you seen who’s been running ads on there to begin with? NYC public health department and non-profits. I’m sure those are just raking in the ad dollars. Half of nothing is still nothing.

  22. Anonymous says:

    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.

  23. WiglyWorm must cease and decist says:

    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.

  24. chrisjames says:

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

  25. frank64 says:

    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.

  26. PSUSkier says:

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

  27. Molly St.Cyr says:

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

  28. Anonymous says:

    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.

    • Karita says:

      @SherlockAndromache: I would consider paying for hulu if there were no ads at all. Not even the 10-second ones before the show. And, it’d have to be a lot less than cable or satellite. Otherwise it’s just another way to get pay television, and it has a lot less appeal than cable or satellite as, depending on how my internet connection feels like working, it isn’t always fast.

  29. Ron00 says:

    One word: Torrents

  30. Anonymous says:

    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.

  31. bjdhtgjvbhdgd says:

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

  32. Anonymous says:

    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.

  33. Etoiles says:

    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.

  34. Kevin Do says:

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

  35. L. Tatton Partington says:

    I don’t think it would be bad to pay for the service, assuming it’s priced effectively. Personally though, I think most mainstream companies have completely missed the boat with advertising in this day and age. There are so many social network sites now that tracks products, media, etc… that people like. We should really see a more intelligent advertising system where my ads are personalized to things that I like. I hate watching expensive car, KFC, medication commercials because I’ll never use those products (except maybe medication, but then I would see my Dr. first). If Hulu would advertise nerd things to me (US/import video game releases, technology sales at newegg/woot/etc…, anime) then not only would I be happy to watch through them but I’d also probably make direct purchases from them. I’m sure there are plenty of other people who would be happy to link their Facebook and have companies and products they are fans of advertise to them in lieu of paying for a service they like.

  36. Haggie1 says:

    Meet your new cable company, same as your old cable company…

    Back to torrents for me for everything. I’m not going to support Hulu growing their business just so they can turn around and start charging for everything.

  37. Goatweed says:

    why pay when you can torrent the show(s) and watch them at your convenience on a portable media player?

  38. Andrew Farris says:

    I will not pay for anything bundled. I will pay for what I want, and only what I want, because I do not want the same things everyone else wants and I should not be forced to pay for content I am not interested in.

    Bundles ARE NOT consumer-centric, they are a corporate price fixing tool. Anyone claiming that providing bundles to their customers will be good for them is blatantly lying.

  39. pwillow1 says:

    No, I would not pay for Hulu. It’s barely watchable when it’s free.

  40. frank64 says:

    One question I have under the very old broadcast TV model is how much revenue per viewer was brought in? There seemed to be enough profits to go around. Now I think there are more companies getting in the act and they want a piece of the pie. We have producers, studios, networks, cable companies, internet companies, internet sites, wireless providers, and DVD rental companies. They all want a piece and some do not add any value at all.

    We have to pay something by watching commercials or direct payment. I just think that there are so many hands in it that we are now being asked to pay for more than we used to.

    If I get a DVD from Netflix, my average cost for a DVD is around $1 and I can watch 4 shows. If I pay for the show from Amazon it is 1.99 per episode, so the 4 shows costs me $1 from Netflix and $8.00 for streaming. I thought streaming was supposed to be cheaper?

    With the economies of scale should a show cost less than $1 to watch, more like 25-50 cents?

  41. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    I like Hulu, and don’t mind watching the occasional commercial, but I’m not paying them a subscription fee.

  42. Donathius says:

    If (Hulu == $$$)
    me =
    screwyou = Hulu

  43. panzerschreck1 says:

    hell no.

  44. arthurborko says:

    No Thank You.

    Hulu is an excellent idea as it is. The suits really need to stop being Greedy and need to start understanding moderation.

    If they need to add two more 30 second commercials fine. If they want to offer a premium section for a fee that includes no commercials + some sort of extras thats fine. But the basic service they currently provide should be and should stay free.

  45. Brittany Stewart says:

    I would not and will never pay for something like Hulu. Hulu is excellent because it’s free. I don’t mind watching ads in return for watching a good show or movie. If they start charging- just like EVERY other TV site out there that I’m aware of- I’ll peace out.

  46. VeeKaChu says:

    Blame Disney. That RAT-BASTARD Corp screws up everything it touches. They may make swell theme parks and awesome animation, but their media empire just sucks balls- wrote about this here, when Disney first started making ovetures towards Hulu, and now it’s come true.


  47. Wit is periodically disensouled says:

    I say this with all honesty: Hulu should oust this boardmember. This is the kind of oldschool, inside-the-box, stick-it-to-the-consumer thinking that could sink them before they ever really get anywhere.

    Change the model. Don’t become the equivalent of cable companies on the internet or your competitors will run you over.

  48. Thorny says:

    I’d pay if I got same day or pre-broadcast access to the content. Otherwise I’d just go back to torrents.

  49. Christopher Bragg says:

    The only way I would pay for Hulu is if, and only if, I could watch it on my TiVo HD like I do now with Netflix, and if the shows were available in HD. That way I could cancel my cable service, yet still watch my favorite cable programs on my television.

    The thing is, Hulu was conceived as a way to curb torrent downloads of television shows. If they start charging for service, everyone will flee back to torrents, and TV industry will loose altogether.

  50. I Love New Jersey says:

    Sounds like a way to fail. People are used to it free (with ads), but when you wind up having to pay for it you might just realize you can live with out it and seek out a free alternative.

  51. Jan Scholl says:

    I dont watch much on tv besides sports and I don’t watch local tv because of the crappy digital signals. I can live without it all. I am paying for Sat dish for ESPN and news, sat radio in car (for hubby) a home phone I havent used in 2 years but have to have for DSL A(another fee and slow as heck). Cell phones I dont use much at all. The only one I want is the internet. I can look at scores and still follow my teams that way. I have never used Hulu.

  52. Steele says:

    Hulu already gets revenue from the ads on their website and the commercials in the programs and now they want more? Many people can barely pay for their internet service as it is, and use Hulu to offset their cable bill to watch their favorite programs.

    Now Hulu wants to charge for the service, just so you can watch reruns with commercials on your computer…….. If IM gonna pay a fee to watch shows and movies on my computer, its gonna be cable (with commercials) or netflix.

    If Hulu wants to charge for their service, then charge for no commercials. (Good luck with making a profit on that one.)

  53. tape says:

    1) Everyone uses Hulu now because it is free. Ask anyone who ever gave a service away for free to form a customer base and then began charging for the same service how that worked out for them.

    3) Everything on Hulu is already available for free elsewhere, whether it be on the TV network’s site or via BitTorrent. If Hulu begins charging, people will simply change to one of the other outlets where the same content is free.

  54. thepill says:

    It’s unlikely that I’d pay for Hulu as it stands now. There are just too many alternatives. But I suppose it could happen in the far-off future, if Hulu becomes the best available option.

    That said, I can almost promise that I will not pay for a bundle, ever. I don’t have cable television for this very reason – I watch maybe 3 channels, but the cable companies give me no choice but to pay for 85 channels. That’s a lousy deal. And if Hulu adopts the same pricing model, I’ll have no use for them. I would rather live with no TV at all (something I’ve in fact done in several long stretches throughout my adult life) than pay too much for TV. It just isn’t worth it to me.

  55. takes_so_little says:

    Count me as one of those who won’t watch if there’s a charge. I like Hulu, but I don’t really need it.

  56. jsboehm79 says:

    How many of us pay for Netflix and can get content online delivered to TV through Roku or Tivo or whatever?

    How many of us buy DVDs of our favorite TV programs?

    How many of us pay for cable? And for many people that charge is bundled with rent in apartments or college dorms, so we have no choice.

    My point is that many of us are already double and triple paying for the same content over and over.

    If HULU wants to charge, they’ll forget bundling and they will offer complete series runs of a much larger variety of television programs than they currently do. And no week long delay on some new programs.

    And no more than $5 per month.

  57. Tim says:

    As long as these shows are still free on the networks’ sites, I’m fine.

    If that stops too, I’m definitely not fine.

  58. S-the-K says:

    No, I will not pay for Hulu.

    Why would I pay to watch commercials when I can watch commercials for free (unless I DVR’ed it and can skip past the commercials) on TV?

    And bundles is a huge clusterfrack. Clearly the guy who thought that up is from the cable TV division.

    Maybe if it were free with a few commercials for recent shows but for being a paying subscriber you get no commercials and full archives of shows, then it would be worth paying for.

  59. azntg says:

    How the evil plot to take over the world was foiled. Enjoy.

  60. tom2133 says:

    No way I would pay for Hulu.

    /What really gets me is the commercials “Hulu users are proud to support the efforts of ______.” I’m not proud to support them – in fact, I would not give money to them anyway. Thanks for deciding what “I’m proud to support.”;

  61. HeatherLynn30 says:

    Nope, no way. I wouldn’t pay a cent, because Hulu is just a convenience when I want to watch shows on my laptop instead of DVRing them. I could easily live without it.

  62. Robobot says:

    Most of the shows I watch are aired legally on network websites or semi-legally on Project Free TV, so I guess I’ll just stop using Hulu once they start charging for it. Shame, I like Hulu a lot and I am more than willing to watch their commercials if it means supporting their cause.

  63. skyhopper88 says:

    I wouldn’t mind paying if they had a system like this:

    Keep all of the current content that they have (say, the last 5 episodes of a show) free, but charge for the back cataloger of shows for those that want to watch shows from the beginning or something (which they don’t even offer anymore)

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      @skyhopper88: See, I might pay for that, at least for a while. At some point though it’d become more expensive than buying the DVD sets.

  64. cunninglinguine says:

    Hulu doesn’t have nearly enough programming to make me consider paying for it. Since I don’t watch any TV shows in particular, if I watch anything on Hulu its the movies and occasionally a documentary. Yet most of the movies Hulu has are forgettable–nothing at all that I’m really eager to see–just time-killing stuff or fluff to fall asleep to.

    I can’t imagine giving Hulu money when there’s Netflix.

  65. ReverendBrown says:

    I don’t like paying to be advertised at, so no. No Hulu.

  66. Anonymous says:

    If I want to watch something for free, I’ll find a way. The only reason I go to Hulu first, instead of other methods, is because its the most convenient.

    Basically, as soon as they start charging, I’m going to go elsewhere.

  67. WeAre138 says:

    I prefer hulu over cable tv since there are less commercials. If the rates are reasonable and paying customers get NO commercials, I’m in.

    On a side note, does anyone remember when cable tv first stepped into the market. People used to ask “why would I pay for tv when I get it free?” and cable tv people would say “Because there will be no commercials since you are paying for it!!!” Man, what happened there?

  68. jsboehm79 says:

    BTW – I read that this board member, Jon Miller, is new. Like, Monday is his first board meeting.

    Something tells me he’ll be receiving feedback.

  69. Claytons says:

    I would pay for Hulu if and only if they dropped commercials and significantly expanded their catalog to include entire shows rather than only recent episodes like they presently do for some shows. They’d also need more movies, and better ones at that. Under these circumstances, and if the price was better than cable, I’d consider paying.

  70. VashtiDuty says:

    No I would never pay for Hulu. There is a reason digital distribution still has not taken off, because people do not want it. If people put money into something they want a physical thing not a file they can only watch in 1 place.

  71. Nitrokart knows CPR and took that guy's wallet says:

    Come on everybody! To BitTorrent and YouTube we go!

  72. crichton007 says:

    Packages? Wouldn’t that just be like cable or satellite, except over the Internet? Does this guy understand what the Internet is and how easy it is to get these shows for free outside of his site?

    • TheSpatulaOfLove says:


      No, he’s an AOL refugee, meaning he’s used to a clueless captive audience.

      I’m thinking the rest of the board of Hulu should reconsider this guy – look where AOL is now. Um yeah, they’re in the shitter now and it’s because of bone-headed thinking like this.

  73. DaBull says:

    I don’t know about everyone else, but I have buffer problems when trying to watch something on Hulu. I can’t even view it now, why would I pay?

  74. lannister80 says:

    Fuck em. Back to bittorrent, USING the NET, etc.

  75. Mike Graham says:

    Fee based Hulu makes sense only if the service is unimaginably complete. What I would find compelling enough to dig out my wallet is if Hulu could supply on demand all series ever aired by every major network–the full catalog in its entirety.

    This catalog should be searchable not only by title and actor, but by tag. If I search for “Shakespeare Moonlighting” it should return the episode of Moonlighting that is based on Taming of the Shrew.

    The maximum fee for that level of service should be $20. At $20, I am not likely to pay. At $15 I probably would, and at $10-12 I am already getting my wallet out.

    Sadly, we are a long way from seeing this. Providers are far too protective of their content to permit an encyclopedic searchable corpus of the last 60 years of television, but it would be fantastic. I am thinking that if all that content were streamable, It would be a simple matter to extract script content into text files. 60 years of television zeitgeist to pour over and parse? A deconstructionist dream.

  76. Anonymous says:

    I can see where Hulu would like to implement subscription fees in order to generate additional and consistent revenue streams. However, I’m happy with DirecTV and use hulu only occasionally when I’m on my laptop at night or if I forgot to set my VCR for a particular TV show. I can easily live without hulu and have no desire to incur a new monthly bill for some type of service. If hulu charges, Ill just go back to getting episodes I miss via bittorrent.

  77. Brent says:

    Fee-based Hulu would just be TV, only on inconveniently small laptop monitors. And I’d pay for that…why?

  78. Andrew Hoyt says:

    No reason to freak-out everyone. If Hulu really wants to destroy their image and who they as the pioneer of free tv, then all hulu user can just move right on over to FANCAST, which is free, and will most likely capitalize on the fact that hulu users will not pay for its “bundles”, ultimately resulting in higher ratings for fancast.

    • Brent says:

      @Andrew Hoyt:

      Thanks, Andrew. I wasn’t aware of Fancast, but I’ll be getting to know them now. Your’re right. Even the suggestion that Hulu will start charging is leading viewers to other sites.

    • Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

      @Andrew Hoyt: Thanks for the tip. That will be my first stop if Hulu decides to charge for their content. Maybe I’ll just go over there anyway.

  79. crutnacker says:

    Why doesn’t Hulu figure out how to make itself attractive to advertisers? While I realize that internet advertising isn’t as expensive as a whole compared to TV ads, surely the ability to target and track ads is worth something to companies, and the inability to fast forward through the ads also is a plus.

    That said, if Hulu was a few bucks a month and gave me access to lots more content, I might consider it. I think anything over $5 would be a fail.

  80. AgitatedDot says:

    I would never pay for Hulu. I block their ads as it is. But then again I would never pay for cable or satellite. Being a cable guy I don’t have to. :)

    Internet is another story.

  81. crutnacker says:

    Perhaps the smarter move is to move this type of programming to On Demand cable with advertising you can’t fast forward through. On my cable system, Hulu and Netflix don’t look so great streamed on a big screen. But allowing me to access old episodes of classic shows and new episodes from the current season with advertising that can’t be forwarded through sounds like a killer idea.

    Figure out a revenue sharing formula with the content producer, networks, and local cable and over the air stations and I bet you’d have a nice little additional profit center.

  82. bobcatred says:

    um.. no. If I have to pay a monthly fee for it and it still has commercials, AND you’re blocking it from the media centers… Forget it.

    Even if I were willing to pay for Hulu, bundles can bite me. As far as I’m concerned, a la carte is the only way to go. I don’t want to pay for all the crap I’m not watching and have no interest in watching.

  83. Daniel Wumpus Fraley says:

    “Will you pay to use Hulu?”

    The answer is NO. Paying for Hulu would be like paying to use Youtube, or Myspace, or Consumerist AND watching mandatory commercials AND be part of a “bundle”. Its overkill and unnecessary and anyone with with an IQ above single digits will see that.

  84. robotrousers says:

    If it had all the shows I can get through HD cable and my tivo, and it cost less, I might. But what are the odds of that?

  85. dbshaw says:

    Well… I don’t pay for cable, so doubtful I’d pay for hulu. I suppose its conceivable that if they offered enough quality content and a low enough price, like .50 cents a year it might be worth it, but they need to remember, as immoral and illegal as it is, and I absolutely discourage the practice, their competition (torrents)offers quite a bit for free, PLUS they warm tingling feeling of stickin it to the man. Though again, I say SHAME!

  86. synergy says:

    This was a given the second they started putting out tv commercials with known people like Alec Baldwin and Dennis Leary. Someone’s got to pay them and the ad agency.

  87. Deborah Aldridge says:

    Oh great. I gave up Satellite because I could not afford it, and I get no reception where I am, so Hulu is basically my only option for t.v. If they start charging, I simply will watch things on the Chinese sites like I can’t afford to pay. Strange they would be thinking of charging during the middle of an economic crisis.

  88. BlueEyesTM says:

    There was, is, and will probably always be free options for most things. This wasn’t always the case. But because it is now, if services like Hulu start charging, we’ll just go elsewhere (and WITHOUT any – of less – of their advertising). They may as well continue to NOT charge fees AND get their advertising in front of us; rather than lose us totally.

  89. Malice Blackhart says:

    Dear Mr. Miller,



  90. The_IT_Crone says:

    I’d stop going to the site, which I go to every day. Bam.

  91. lilspooky says:

    simply put.. HELL NO!

  92. TheHeartless says:

    I would pay $10 / month for Hulu, but I wouldn’t be happy about it. But bundles… no siree.

  93. semiquaver says:

    Hulu May Start Charging For Content^H^H^H Losing Customers

  94. adhustler says:

    This must be a joke…..or a tradition media guy trying to monetize an internet service. People are not going to PAY for HULU unless their are NO commercials and it’s significantly cheaper then cable TV for the same or more content.

    If there are any commercials or limited content or the service is more then $10 or so a month forget it. I guarantee it will be a failure if any of those above 3 things are implemented.

  95. RobinPan says:

    I was under the impression that Hulu males its revenue through ad sales. If it stays free, more people will watch it. and they can charge advertisers more because of increased exposure.

    The only reason I watch Hulu is because it’s free, and I’m willing to sit through the ads. I definitely would not pay for it at all.

  96. jblaze1 says:

    Absolutely not. Hulu should just put more commercials in (to equal network TV). That way they can make more money and still be free.

    If they charge, I’ll just use Tivo more.

  97. xkevin108x says:

    In other news, everybody may stop using Hulu.

  98. JulesNoctambule says:

    I read about this a few days ago. Fittingly, it was right after a post here dominated by a lot of OMGCABLETVISTHEDEVILJUSTUSEHULU4FREEEE!!!!-type comments. I laughed.

  99. kamrom says:

    I could imagine a pay service within Hulu. Like currently, Fox is a jerk and only has a few weeks of their shows online. If it stayed like that, and free, but then they say added a pay service for seeing *all* the episodes, that could be fine.

  100. Nick Otto says:

    as soon as they start charging Hulu will be dead to me.

  101. TNA5000 says:

    The way hulu works right no I do not see myself paying for it. BUT, if i can drop cable/satellite for hulu i would be willing to pay.

    – That means that for a small monthly fee, $15 or so, I get:
    – all the shows on hulu plus episodes from shows on hulu that are not on there (older episodes).
    – They must leave all the shows on there all the time for me to watch (never take it down, EVER).
    – All the shows from most or all other channels espe. ones not currently on hulu (national geographic, USA, travel channel, etc).
    – No ads or at the very least very light ads (as much as they have right now but not a small amount more).
    – I want to watch it on my terms, that means boxee on ubuntu AND hulu desktop.

    When those things are in place and are consistent, they can have my money. Oh, and the second my ISP starts capping internet bandwidth and usage the whole deal is off.

  102. Maggie Champaigne says:

    Doesn’t matter to me. Can’t watch it in Canada anyway.

  103. shadowboxer524 says:

    I would not pay for Hulu. I really only use it because streaming directly from FOX or NBC online blows.

    I watch TV online, because I don’t have time during the week to watch it. I’m a college student, and I don’t watch enough TV to warrant a DVR. So, for the handful of shows I do watch, I will stream them online, either Hulu or ABC online (I like their player). If networks take away my ability to stream these shows, I will probably seek ways to download them, as I did before most shows were viewable online.

  104. Dan Cull says:

    Well, let’s see. I watch:

    Survivor (available
    The Office (available
    The news (available internet)

    Sorry Hulu, you lose.

  105. Eli Bishop says:

    I love Hulu and have used it since it first came out, but if they start charging for what little content they actually offer, then it’s back to pirating the shows, sorry. Hulu grew from the idea that people were getting the shows for free, so they might as well give it away with commercials. If they charge people, people will go back to pirating. Bottom line. You can debate the morality of it all you want, but the fact remains.

  106. myfigurefemale says:

    i don’t have cable because i can watch my shows on hulu, and i also have the roku from netflix. combined, these give me plenty of stuff to watch, for a much lower price than cable.

    if i had to pay for hulu, i’d just get cable – with a free dvr to skip channels and the opportunity to randomly catch stuff while channel surfing. hulu’s great, but literally its only advantage is that its free.

  107. pot_roast says:

    Exactly. If it’s going to start costing money, there better be more added value. Such as, NO advertisements during the shows, and actual HD quality shows with decent sound quality. And I’d love an Apple TV (via Boxee if necessary, since it was working juuuuuust fine before the ‘content providers’ had their little bitch fit) way to do it.

    Otherwise, TV = dead to me.

  108. Jessica Slavin says:

    I might pay something for Hulu, say, in place of Netflix. But I have no interest in “bundles.” The whole thing about Hulu is that I just go find the particular show I want to watch, and I watch it. I don’t care what other shows are made by the same people or show at the same time or anything. I don’t want to. I just want my particular, few shows.

    Actually, I should go write this to Hulu.

  109. Cylon12 says:

    First HULU does everything it can do to get me to log onto their site, to look at the embedded commercials. They run these funny ads all the time, and almost beg us to go to their website. Now they want me to PAY to watch the commercials they already get paid to display?

    I was doing fine without HULU, and I will do so again! As soon as HULU adds a fee….. or anything that smells like a fee, I will somehow lose my HULU ID and Password.

  110. silversilver says:

    No, I would never consider paying for Hulu. Since I only watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report on there, I can just watch those on Comedy Central’s website. Unless they start charging. I buy the shows I like that aren’t available elsewhere for free on iTunes. I keep them forever and there are no commercials. I refuse to pay AND watch commercials. This is why I don’t have cable and have to use Hulu in the first place.

  111. Black-Cat says:

    I tried it a few times for Family Guy, but I noticed they ran the same episodes that did. So why bother with Hulu? Fox is free. Are there any other shows that run like this on Hulu or is that just a freak thing? Anyone?

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      @Black-Cat: A lot of the shows that are on Hulu are also on the network’s web sites if they also put online video up. Personally, I like Hulu’s player better. It gives me a lot less trouble and doesn’t ask me to install anything.

      There are some shows though that aren’t on any other web site as far as I can tell (at least not legally). There’s an anime called Bleach and although Cartoon Network airs the dubbed version they don’t put the episodes online.

  112. alstein says:

    @undefined: Just means people switch to torrents/youtube.

    It’s hard to make people pay for something they view as a public good.

  113. johnfrombrooklyn says:

    @undefined: There are plenty of pay/subscription models that work on the web and have for over a decade. They’re called porn sites. And while free porn is starting to chip away at the less@TheWillow: I’m sure there are about 1,000 porn sites that could prove you wrong. So could And every fantasy sports website. So your comment is flat out wrong.

  114. johnfrombrooklyn says:

    Funny how everyone loves and thinks Hulu is a well-run new media company; the minute an exec floats the idea of some type of “paid content” everyone trots out the tired “they just don’t get it” line. I’d gladly pay a monthly subscription if I could get better content, download the shows, and watch them where I want. I’d much rather pay to watch 30 Rock than a laughing squirrel on YouTube. And don’t think YouTube isn’t toying with the idea of charging for content. It’s losing $500 million a year.

  115. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    Bundles? Why in the hell would people pay money to get access to less content?

    If you want people to pay you have to give them more: more GOOD movies, more shows, more episodes of those shows. The only thing people want less of are ads.

    Furthermore, I want my viewership to matter if I’m paying to watch a show online. I don’t want these networks taking a cut and then deciding to cancel a popular show anyway because there aren’t enough people watching it on TV instead of online.

  116. nakedscience says:

    I agree with someone upthread: Leave the free service as-is, but add a pay service with “extras” – no ads, full seasons available, extra content.

  117. axiomatic says:

    Path of least resistance is the order of the day. When Hulu starts charging… there are other streaming alternatives. And if they all go “pay” then there’s always still my HTPC that is attached to my Slingbox HD.

    Regardless, I have a lot of alternatives until I need to pay for Hulu.

    Hulu should be happy with the advertising dollars and stay popular.

  118. paradisefound24 says:

    I am happy to pay for Hulu, so long as it is not an eye-gouging, consumer-fucking amount, and as long as I can then stream shows directly to my TV (and cancel my cable).


    I am not going to pay for a fucking BUNDLE. That’s what I hate about Cable NOW. I only want to pay for the shit I’m actually going to watch, that way, my ass can vote with my dollars when I like something and give the finger to shows I think are stupid.

    If I am forced to continue paying for bullshit TV, I would rather not bother and just continue stealing it on some other video service.

  119. MoreFunThanToast says:

    I would simply find other free alternatives if Hulu start to charge for the service. There are plenty others, with no limits to the geographical areas.

  120. goldenmonkey says:

    Once they start charging for content I stop using it. Back to isohunt and mininova for me.

  121. trujunglist says:

    I wouldn’t mind paying a very, very low price, but I’d need better quality streams, new ways of accessing the material (like via my 360), and of course no commercials.

    • trujunglist says:


      I almost forgot: i’d also need to only be paying for the stuff I like to watch and nothing else. I’m not paying for shit I don’t like.

  122. BytheSea says:

    Hulu isn’t even that great. it has long lags and you can’t preload the vid, and there’s sometimes commercials. Often they just rout the vid from the show’s actual website, where the connection and quality is better. And they don’t keep vids more than a few months. So, it’s nice if you want to use some alternative site to watch the latest must see network tv, but if that’s what you’re into, why are you watching tv on the internet?

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      And they don’t keep vids more than a few months.

      @BytheSea: That depends on the show. There are some few shows where the episodes they get just stay up there.

      So, it’s nice if you want to use some alternative site to watch the latest must see network tv, but if that’s what you’re into, why are you watching tv on the internet?

      Because it’s cheaper. Also, because Charter sucks.

  123. stands2reason says:

    Thepiratebay/bittorrent isn’t that inconvenient. Hulu only wins on convienence. I might consider micropayments, if I actually had any income at the moment…

    And bundling? If I wanted to be forced to buy bundles (mostly) of crap I don’t want, then I’d just buy a cable subscription.

  124. akronharry says:

    Idiots……simple as that.
    I watch the occasional show on HULU but if I had to pay… way!