

News Corp pulls its Hulu content from Cablevision customers - CrazedGeek
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/16/news-corp-removes-hulu-from-cablevision-escalating-carriage-dis/#comments

======
IgorPartola
I am currently paying for Hulu Plus and can't figure out whether it's worth it
or not. Things that bother me are (1) commercials despite me paying, (2) the
fact that I can't reliably play the videos on my Ubuntu boxes since they use
Flash, (3) lack of content from certain networks (e.g.: Survivor is only
available on cbs.com, not on Hulu which makes it kind of useless to try to
build a media center PC around Hulu), (4) all the silly clips of shows they
have: I am trying to watch full episodes and think that clips are for YouTube,
and finally (5) the fact that since I started paying they pulled a bunch of
content (e.g.: first season of Glee, first season of Modern Family, etc.)
despite the premise that you pay for that content being available.

On one hand I'm still actively using their service. On the other, I am trying
to figure out the most effective way to tell them that I am not satisfied with
it. Canceling will lose them $120/year which is measly. Anybody got any ideas
of how to make an impact on what they do?

Alternatively, does anyone know of (legal) alternatives to Hulu? I have no
problem with paying for a good service, just can't find someone to give my
money to.

~~~
CrazedGeek
I'm very happy with Netflix, but you'd have a rather hard time getting it
running on Linux: the best workarounds are running a Windows VM or playing the
Wii Netflix disc through the Dolphin emulator.

Only downside is the content can be a bit lacking, but it has most (if not
all) of the shows I usually watch, so I'm content.

~~~
X-Istence
I supplement my NetFlix with Hulu. I personally use Boxee to build a media
center like computer and it automatically pulls from the many different
websites, like NetFlix, Hulu, CBS and others.

Makes my life simpler since I get one interface that just lets me view my TV
shows.

------
tomjen3
Meanwhile everybody with a torrent client can get the stuff free and without
commercials. What exactly is fox trying to do here?

~~~
naner
Get millions of dollars from Cablevision. Cablevision used to pay $70 million
a year for Fox. Now Fox says they cost $150 million per year. So if they piss
off Cablevision customers enough they think the company will cave instead of
risk loosing subscribers.

~~~
lkijuhygtfd
So now the interests of the ISP are aligned with torrent downloaders - that
should make things interesting.

When your ISP is doing the torrent anonymizing for you and caching the
download on their servers.

------
TorKlingberg
I guess this is what the internet will be like if the traditional media
companies are in charge. Websites will work or not depending on deals between
your ISP and the content provider. Who is cutting off who for not paying
varies, but either way it is very different from the traditional web where
everyone can reach everything.

------
Terretta
Network neutrality fail.

~~~
raganwald
I've heard the expresion "Network Neutrality" used to describe a situation
where carriers like Cablevision treat all sources of content (like Fox)
equally.

Is this a failure of the carrier to treat all content equally? Or is this
something else? I'm not familiar with the dispute, however it appears that
Cablevision were already paying Fox M$75 for its content.

Why were they paying for the content? Is Hulu free or do you pay a fee for it?
Does Fox have a business model where ISPs pay for Hulu and then their
customers get it bundled with their internet access?

I don't understand the entire story here, so I'm not 100% sure this is exactly
the same thing that most people talk about when they use the phrase "network
neutrality."

~~~
X-Istence
Cablevision (their Optimum Online service) is both an ISP and a Cable TV
provider. Fox wants more money so in an attempt to put pressure on Cablevision
has shut off Cablevision's access to Fox content on both the internet and on
cable TV. Or more aptly, to Cablevisions customers...

~~~
raganwald
I got what you summarized from the article. But why was Cablevision paying in
the first place, and more importantly, is this a case of Network Neutrality
failing or something else?

If I put up my blog and try to extract a payment from ISPs in exchange for
making it available to their customers, how is that a failure of network
neutrality? I'm just a guy with an unlikely-to-succeed business model. But
it's my content to extend or withold as I see fit.

My understanding of the network neutrality debate is that it is around ISPs
governing access to content, not content providers governing access.

My question above isn't about the OP as much as it's a question is to how--if
at all--this relates to network neutrality.

