HULU WANTS TO CREATE IT'S OWN IVI-TV LIKE SERVICE

[gregg75]

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Hulu is considering creating it's own "virtual cable
opperation" capable of streaming TV media. In 2007 Hulu started making money by adding
advertising to it's free video service. Now, owners NBC Universal, News Corp. and the Walt
Disney Company would like for Hulu to become more profitable by transforming into an on-
line subscripton cable opperator which would include LIVE TV show broadcasts.

Sounds a bit like they would like to copy what IVI-TV has already accomplished. It would be
unfair for IVI to be shut down and Hulu permitted to do the same thing. Several interest
and consumer groups have filed briefs supporting IVI in it's court battle to stay alive which
is happening this week. IVI is fighting an injunction in what many feel is a David vs. Goliath
battle.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Re: HULA WANTS TO CREATE IT'S OWN IVI-TV LIKE SERVICE

Hula, is of course, the Hawaiian version of the website we all know as "Hulu".

 

[Irishfl]

It would be
unfair for IVI to be shut down and Hulu permitted to do the same thing.

Except for the fact they would own and/or pay for the rights of the streaming content. Similar to how MLB.com can have MLB video on it, but my youtube account can't.

 

[ansky212]

It would be
unfair for IVI to be shut down and Hulu permitted to do the same thing.

Except for the fact they would own and/or pay for the rights of the streaming content. Similar to how MLB.com can have MLB video on it, but my youtube account can't.

And that would likely mean the price for the Hulu service would be significantly higher than the $4.99/mo that IVI charges.

 

[gregg75]

Hulu would probably go the "correct" legal route, which they can afford. IVI was not sitting
on $50 million and able to do that. They started on a shoestring and because of that they
had to go the "outlaw" route. Yes, Hulu would surely jack up the price to Comcast standards
................say $54.99 a month.

 

[azumanga]

Yes, Hulu would surely jack up the price to Comcast standards ................say $54.99 a month.

And then casually cancel the service, due to "lack of interest".

 

[gregg75]

Not so sure about that. Streaming seems to be where it's at. Just think, no dish to install
or cable to hook up............this IS the fastest and cheapest way to get cable to the
consumer.

 

[azumanga]

Streaming seems to be where it's at. Just think, no dish to install or cable to hook up...

Though for some of us, you'll still have to deal with the cable company.

 

[ansky212]

Not so sure about that. Streaming seems to be where it's at. Just think, no dish to install
or cable to hook up............this IS the fastest and cheapest way to get cable to the
consumer.

Good luck trying to get streaming HD content.

 

[KeithE4]

Streaming seems to be where it's at. Just think, no dish to install or cable to hook up...

Though for some of us, you'll still have to deal with the cable company.

Either the cable company or the phone company (either landline or cellular). Either way, there's a physical connection to some kind of wiring or fiber. The municipal-wireless idea looks DOA outside of a few cities' downtown areas and/or airports.

 

[gregg75]

Not so sure about that. Streaming seems to be where it's at. Just think, no dish to install
or cable to hook up............this IS the fastest and cheapest way to get cable to the
consumer.

Good luck trying to get streaming HD content.

I actually read that they are working on HD streaming. If it can be done they will
find a way.

 

[ding12]

I tried Hulu Plus and was dissapointed. Hulu doesn't have CBS or Viacom programs.

Even some shows from the NewsCorp family, like FX's "Sons of Anarchy" isn't on Hulu, even though Fox Entertainment, NewsCorp is part owner of Hulu. In this case, NewsCorpo doesn't want to make everything current available, thus Hulu Plus barely passes as a legitimate replacement to anything, leaving it so that customers need to pay for cable for FX, or buy the DVD sets, or rent them at a snail speed on Netflix.

 

[Irishfl]

It would be
unfair for IVI to be shut down and Hulu permitted to do the same thing.

Except for the fact they would own and/or pay for the rights of the streaming content. Similar to how MLB.com can have MLB video on it, but my youtube account can't.

And that would likely mean the price for the Hulu service would be significantly higher than the $4.99/mo that IVI charges.

Well on their end price will be higher too. I'm sure just as with radio streaming content suppliers will want more money based on how the content is delivered. NFL, MLB, ect will all want more for allowing sports to stream. Movie studios aswell.

All and all, Hulu already is a ripoff of the old tv links websites that got shutdown. In those cases they much like hulu had a tv shows lists, and movies lists. Their loophole legally was they didn't host the content, they merely linked to the content on various 3rd party video hosting sites. Anyway, since hulu was based off of that anyway, what difference does it make if they start copying streaming sites?

 

[arnoldevns]

Sounds a bit like they would like to copy what IVI-TV has already accomplished. It would be
unfair for IVI to be shut down and Hulu permitted to do the same thing. Several interest
and consumer groups have filed briefs supporting IVI in it's court battle to stay alive which
is happening this week. IVI is fighting an injunction in what many feel is a David vs. Goliath
battle.

IVI and other websites that take live TV programming and put it online without permission are breaking the law. Hulu's proposal is exactly the opposite: they would legally buy the rights first, then put the stations online.