http://gizmodo.com/5387909/hulus-free-glory-days-are-officially-numbered

"Hulu, at the behest of its co-parent News Corp, is going to start charging for content in 2010. This is not so good, this here news.

Here's the money quote from NewsCorpian Chase Carey, so there's no confusion:

It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online. I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value. Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business

An optimist might interpret this as a move toward tiered access, or even the decidedly good addition of paid premium content, like HBO and Showtime. But read carefully:

It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online

It doesn't get any less premium than broadcast content, which is exactly what Carey says we'll soon be paying for—sometime in 2010, he supposes. (Though to be fair, there's a scrap of reassurance later in the same article: "not all content on Hulu would be behind a pay wall." Cool?) This is extra-extra-foreboding next to last week's statements about a paid Hulu from Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, highlighted by TVBizwire: "That's not an if," he said "that's a when." It was fun while it lasted, I guess.

On a totally unrelated note, here are some neat articles, for pleasure reading!

Update: Reader Frank pinged Hulu about the issue, and got this not-quite-specific-enough-to-contradict-Carey's-statements response:

Don't worry, Hulu's mission has always been to help people find and enjoy the world's premium, professionally produced content. We continue to believe that the ad-supported, free service is the one that resonates most with the largest group of users and any possible new business models would serve to complement our
existing offering.

Thanks,

Betina Chan-Martin
Hulu

It's a purposely vague reassurance, but a definitive, public "we're not going to charge you for what is currently free" statement would be awfully easy to make, and would quell the concerns of people like Frank. Hint: They haven't made it. [Broadcasting Cable via TVBizwire]"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there goes that. Time to pay up I guess

Haven't used Hulu in a while. Maybe they'll use unskippable commercials (if they don't already).

They should just use unskippable commercials and add more. 4 commercials for the entire broadcast is really nice but I'd rather have 8 commercials than have to pay $5/month.

The NFL was really stupid about their live broadcast too. Last year (when I used it) they made it so if you switch the camera to many times it would kick on commercials, even if it was the middle of a huge play. All they had to do to keep me happy was just play commercials when the TV is normally on commercials.

I guess they are afraid that the user is going to switch over to another browser and surf the web, but honestly I do the same thing on TV but just a different channel.

EDIT: either way, this doesn't really affect me as I typically use nbc/cbs/abc/fox's website for my online content.

Too many options, anyway. Broadcast, Satellite, internet, MP3's, Video Games, Netflix, Porn, etc. Entertainment time is divided in a million different directions. All that charging for Hulu will do is make the choices easier for some. They simply won't watch it.

Hulu doesn't have enough content to warrant a subscription price. Look at a place like Megavideo. They have a monthly subscription, but they also have a ridiculous amount of TV shows almost in their entirety, from many countries, and tons of desirable movies. Hulu has the last few episodes of TV shows just so you can catch up if you miss an episode, and the #1 network on US TV (CBS) isn't even supported on there.

Aww, I use it all the time.

Oh well. :-/

Would this affect fancast too? they're basically the same.