# It's official: Hulu Plus, now with $10 charge.



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

We knew it was coming...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/29/hulu-plus-announced-ipad-iphone-sony-and-more-on-board/



> We've just received word that the premium Hulu service we've heard chatter about for a while now has just become official. Dubbed Hulu Plus, the $10 / month service will feature entire seasons of shows that are available in limited quantities on the free service, as well as other programming not available via Hulu on the web.


Let me tell you about 100 other things I plan on doing with that $10 a month before I give it to Hulu. I have no problem paying for content, and I'm glad hulu will still have some free content. Honestly I don't know why I feel so spiteful toward hulu for doing this but I do. If they'd made an iPhone player and wanted to charge me $10 for it, I'd pay that, but another subscription charge... just too much.


----------



## Pete K. (Apr 23, 2002)

Don't need it, don't want it, won't pay for it. That sums it up.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I don't really see enough information about it yet to decide if it's worth the price.
I can tell you that a whole new generation is coming along, and they expect everything to to be on-demand. 

I have two young adult children and neither of them use any kind of cable, dbs, etc. for anything.

They're either online and streaming or online and gaming.

If HULU plus is going to be offering current programming closer to its original air date, I could see them forking over $10/month for it.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Something like this can easily take a bite out of satellite, cable and local station viewing. I could easily cut satellite but what would be the fun in that?


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

The worst it could do is help to drive down the pricing with other providers.

A la carte channels are VERY appealing to me. Pay for what you watch, without subsidizing all that crap that you don't watch!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

If one considers that you can get Hulu for "close to original air date" at $10 a month with a few ads and Netflix for just about anything you missed last year at $10 a month with no ads, plus free streaming video from the various network sites with a few ads....

Why, again, am I paying over $100 a month for satellite? Oh, right Chris, so I can be entertained here.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

The only thing I don't like is that they will still be serving up ads that can't be skipped through.


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

Pete K. said:


> Don't need it, don't want it, won't pay for it. That sums it up.


I'm not so sure myself. I didn't use Hulu because of the limited episodes. Now that they have full seasons, it could be a nice addition. It all depends on the content available. I'll take a look now. Maybe take a notch down my E* to 200 level for a lower bill to offset the cost.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Appropriate description for DBSTalk from the last paragraph in the Wired story: "But ultimately, because it only delivers shows from three networks, it's more of a side dish...."


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

But if one goes with hulu doesn't the internet providers bandwidth cap (if any) have to be factored in? It's one thing to use hulu as supplement viewing, but it might be another to use it as a main viewing source.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I might be the only person that's never even been to hulu's site.

But then again, my first visit to youtube was about 6 months ago


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Hulu hu? :shrug:


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I might be the only person that's never even been to hulu's site.
> 
> But then again, my first visit to youtube was about 6 months ago





Nick said:


> Hulu hu? :shrug:


I guess I make three.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

I've used Hulu a few times in the past to watch some retro shows but I'm sorry they aren't worth $10 a month.


----------



## drpjr (Nov 23, 2007)

Count me in, er out. I've never used Hulu and if it wasn't for my Sony TV having internet hookup I would never have seen Youtube either. With pay radio, cell phone, cell intenet, hulu, onstar and all the rest it's way past nickel and dime. As far as I can tell it won't kill me to miss something so I'll pass on all the extra charges. I guess I'm just getting grumpy in my old age.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

phrelin said:


> If one considers that you can get Hulu for "close to original air date" at $10 a month with a few ads and Netflix for just about anything you missed last year at $10 a month with no ads, plus free streaming video from the various network sites with a few ads....


crackle.com has some entertaining stuff as well, including an eclectic mix of old TV shows and several full-length movies.


----------



## AMike (Nov 21, 2005)

BubblePuppy said:


> But if one goes with hulu doesn't the internet providers bandwidth cap (if any) have to be factored in? It's one thing to use hulu as supplement viewing, but it might be another to use it as a main viewing source.


I downgraded my D* package 3 months ago to accommodate Netflix and PlayOn content. My internet usage shot through the roof and I had a provider that had the bandwidth cap (Comcast). I decided to switch to a business class account at the same price and no longer have this worry.

PlayOn and Netflix are becoming more of a main viewing source than D*. Granted, I won't drop D* just yet, but I can see a day where that may occur.


----------

