Back in the days of early cable, it was touted to my grandfather as a way to enjoy movies and shows without commercials. So all the governments and public were lied to and convinced to allow cable, and they bought it with great expectations and hope. Now we get as many, if not more, commercials on cable and 200 channels with nothing to watch. They still can’t seem to make enough money to charge a low, reasonable fee for everyone to have access.

I can’t agree with you more. I only watch maybe 15 channels out of the 200+ that I have. Of course, not my choice to have since it comes in a “basic package”, but its costing me mucho money every month. I’ve heard many people complain about this issue, since I work with a large Telecommunications company, (no names, but you can probably guess)…

If the sucker next door is going to pay $100 / month for his TV and movies, that’s his foolishness (especially in this economy).

The stuff is out there, free and clear, if you’re smart enough to operate a computer. I’m not saying I wouldn’t pay for the stuff I like. But the TV and movie industry just needs to wake up and figure out how to give me exactly what I want for the right price — and not charge me for 99% of what’s being produced, which is stupid CRAP.

It’s a long tail entertainment world. Maybe when all these fat, 60-year old execs die off, the next generation of TV and movie producers will figure out how to keep making money in the 1990’s. (That’s not a typo, that’s sarcasm.)

Long live free content.

“…there is no doubt that Hulu, if it doesn’t already, will have…monetizable traffic and greater revenues…”

“…the more traffic Hulu generates, the more money it makes.”

Aside from the fact (actually more my opinion based on astute observation) that the majority of television based “free content” is made available by major networks, which has and always will be “free,” if Hulu is generating revenue SOMEONE is paying for it. Just because the end user isn’t bearing the cost doesn’t mean it’s free

Hulu is not much different, and has the potential to cure the problem (from what I can see). The bandwidth/lack of being able to store the episodes is a real problem, however. I would gladly pay a monthly fee to be able to record the shows I want to see, so that I can watch them on my schedule. I pay over $100 a month right now and if I had to average (it’s not a high estimate – we watch too much TV), probably watch at least 100hrs a month — or $1 for every CSI or Heroes episode, and $2 for every Meredith Baxter-Birney movie my wife watches on lifetime. Does that sound like a profitable model? Recording limitations, buffering programming skirts make it harder to see the content – isn’t that the end goal of any content owner? How is saving 100 hrs a month on a PC (or media server) any different than on a DVR or a pile of VCR tapes? If I record a new episode of Heroes, and burn a copy for my friend who missed it, how is that any different than inviting him over to watch it?

I would suggest a solution to pay for content. If a subscription website offered the all (or most) of the content, much like a cable company, and easily interfaced with a media server, or PC DVR, I would subscribe in a heartbeat. It could easily record most content when I was fast asleep, using unused bandwidth and only stream, if it were something that needed to be watched live (or close to live – sporting events, American Idol, etc).

I’ll see if I can wing together a suitable business plan for the MC Stimulus package, and we can get this beauty rolling.