# Directv may consider buying Hulu again



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/22/could-a-hulu-acquisition-pop-directv-stock.aspx


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

That we will pay for.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Another article on it.

http://mashable.com/2013/05/18/directv-hulu-report/

My take? TV has been constantly evolving and moving into the internet. I personally have 4 programs installed on my tablet for watching content online.

To me, a move to buy Hulu (or another company like it) would bolster the DIRECTV Everywhere platform immensely..


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Netflix would be the better buy, I think. Would put DTV at the top of the heap across the board.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Draconis said:


> Another article on it.
> 
> http://mashable.com/2013/05/18/directv-hulu-report/
> 
> ...


DirecTV needs to do something to survive. As more and more people and content move to the Internet there will be fewer and fewer subscribers for DirecTV. They need to adapt to survive.

Not going to happen overnight but the ever increasing costs of cable and satellite TV are going to force more viewers to the Internet.

The middle-man is going to get squeezed. We no long 'need' anyone to force us into bundled programming. Why does Showtime need to pay DirecTV when they can go directly to subscribers over the Internet?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Why does Showtime need to pay DirecTV when they can go directly to subscribers over the Internet?


Agreed with most of what you said, but D* pays Showtime, not the other way around.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Athlon646464 said:


> Agreed with most of what you said, but D* pays Showtime, not the other way around.


Well... DirecTV takes amount 'A' from subs and pays amount 'B' to Showtime. The difference between the two DirecTV keeps and ads to the bottom line.

I'd personally pay more for and to Showtime than I pay DirecTV for Showtime if I could have access to their programming online without paying DirecTV anything. That would be a double win for Showtime and cut DirecTV out of the loop.

Really the few reasons I have DirecTV at all are: Showtime, Sunday Ticket and convenience. If there was way for me to legally pay for Showtime and Sunday Ticket and not involve DirecTV at all I would cancel my DirecTV today. It's only a matter of time....


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

jerrylove56 said:


> Netflix would be the better buy, I think. Would put DTV at the top of the heap across the board.


Netflix isn't what it was. Hulu is still on the up and up so I think they would be the better buy. Netflix made some bad business choices in the past and I doubt D* would want to go through the effort of repairing relations. At least, I wouldn't.



Draconis said:


> To me, a move to buy Hulu (or another company like it) would bolster the DIRECTV Everywhere platform immensely..


I agree entirely.


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

DirecTV acquiring Hulu would be a path in the right direction.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> DirecTV needs to do something to survive. As more and more people and content move to the Internet there will be fewer and fewer subscribers for DirecTV. They need to adapt to survive.
> 
> Not going to happen overnight but the ever increasing costs of cable and satellite TV are going to force more viewers to the Internet.
> 
> The middle-man is going to get squeezed. We no long 'need' anyone to force us into bundled programming. Why does Showtime need to pay DirecTV when they can go directly to subscribers over the Internet?


The thing is, those costs will just shift to the internet. The media companies aren't going to trade dimes for pennies in this landscape.

Showtime doesn't pay DIRECTV, DIRECTV pays Showtime a split...this is how Showtime makes money. And think about it for a second, Directv (or Comcast, or Dish, or Verizon, etc, etc) answers all those calls for Showtime, does all the technical work for Showtime, does all the billing for Showtime, does a tremendous amount of marketing and sales for Showtime (or HBO, or Starz, or NFL, etc, etc) that they do not incur right now. All of these entities would have to establish those costly setups AND they have to rely on the customer wanting to have a separate relationship with Disney, and one iwth A&E, and one with Showtime, and one with Discovery, and one with Fox, and one with Viacom, and one with HBO, and one with Starz, and one with the NFL, and one with Big Ten, etc, etc, etc.

This has a LONG way to go in my opinion and I'm not sure you are going to see the cost savings because I don't believe the content makers are going to make that tradeoff. Just my two cents.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

There are reports online stating DTV has put in a bid.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> The thing is, those costs will just shift to the internet. The media companies aren't going to trade dimes for pennies in this landscape.
> 
> Showtime doesn't pay DIRECTV, DIRECTV pays Showtime a split...this is how Showtime makes money. And think about it for a second, Directv (or Comcast, or Dish, or Verizon, etc, etc) answers all those calls for Showtime, does all the technical work for Showtime, does all the billing for Showtime, does a tremendous amount of marketing and sales for Showtime (or HBO, or Starz, or NFL, etc, etc) that they do not incur right now. All of these entities would have to establish those costly setups AND they have to rely on the customer wanting to have a separate relationship with Disney, and one iwth A&E, and one with Showtime, and one with Discovery, and one with Fox, and one with Viacom, and one with HBO, and one with Starz, and one with the NFL, and one with Big Ten, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> This has a LONG way to go in my opinion and I'm not sure you are going to see the cost savings because I don't believe the content makers are going to make that tradeoff. Just my two cents.


However you want to state it - Showtime charges DirecTV less than they could sell their programming directly to the viewer.

Either way things are moving to the Internet and hopefully DirecTV has a plan.

Sure DirecTV markets and supports Showtime etc... But streaming companies could do the same thing.

It isn't going to happen overnight but there is no question the pay TV model of the 70s and 80s is outdated and is going away. Just take a look at what the 20 something year old kids are doing... How many of them plan on every paying for cable or satellite TV? As the costs of traditional pay TV continue to go insanely up fewer and fewer young people are going to pay...


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Does anyone think ISPs are just going to let gigabytes of programming flow through their networks for nothing? Why do you think there are more and more caps being placed on data downloads? What about the VAST areas of the country that don't have sufficiently fast internet service? For these reasons, traditional MCOs will continue to dominate the video entertainment landscape for at least a decade yet.

If Showtime tries to sell their programming directly, they are unlikely to make any more money than they make selling through DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, etc., because they will either have to split the money with the ISPs or price the service to take the bandwidth costs into account so that the bottom line to the viewer is a wash.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Diana C said:


> Does anyone think ISPs are just going to let gigabytes of programming flow through their networks for nothing? Why do you think there are more and more caps being placed on data downloads? What about the VAST areas of the country that don't have sufficiently fast internet service? For these reasons, traditional MCOs will continue to dominate the video entertainment landscape for at least a decade yet.
> 
> If Showtime tries to sell their programming directly, they are unlikely to make any more money than they make selling through DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, etc., because they will either have to split the money with the ISPs or price the service to take the bandwidth costs into account so that the bottom line to the viewer is a wash.


I don't think that ISPs are going to 'let gigabytes of programming flow for nothing'. In this 'battle' the ISPs are in a great position... Traditional MCOs have to change is the bottom line.

Costs are going up - quality programming is not - in fact I'd say having 40 'reality' TV shows a night is not worth $3 let alone $150 a month. As both the cost of Internet and pay TV continue to climb more and more people are going to have to choose one or the other and I think we all know which the majority of people will pick.

I don't think I'm alone in paying DirecTV mostly out of convenience and a very little programming that I couldn't get online. Sunday Ticket and Showtime are the big ones for me but as costs continue to skyrocket I'm not sure how much longer I'm going to pay.

If I could get Showtime online I'd personally pay 2 or 3 times what I pay for Showtime through DirecTV but that's just me...


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Don't overlook that there are large numbers of people who'll pay a premium for the PQ and convenience of big boy delivery. I will not watch anything on my HiRez computers if I can see it on an actual TV.

The twenty somethings, not all of whom are streaming now, BTW, will eventually migrate the the higher quality delivery. Of course, some will not. Some will never watch TV. Some will have their own HMCs, and all in between.

Look at DIRECTV's numbers for subscribers.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

until the US gets with the "program" regarding internet speeds and cost, IPTV is a dream that will not come true, at least here in the USA. we are # 33!!!!

http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> Don't overlook that there are large numbers of people who'll pay a premium for the PQ and convenience of big boy delivery. I will not watch anything on my HiRez computers if I can see it on an actual TV.
> 
> The twenty somethings, not all of whom are streaming now, BTW, will eventually migrate the the higher quality delivery. Of course, some will not. Some will never watch TV. Some will have their own HMCs, and all in between.
> 
> Look at DIRECTV's numbers for subscribers.


Good point on picture quality... I suppose I'm in that boat also.

It looks like DirecTV's growth has slowed and the cable companies are shrinking. I think the market is pretty much saturated and will likely not get much bigger - and will soon start to slide....


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jerrylove56 said:


> Netflix would be the better buy, I think. Would put DTV at the top of the heap across the board.


I've said this for awhile now. I think it would be especially smart since Netflix gets the Disney movie library starting in a couple years.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Greer said:


> Good point on picture quality... I suppose I'm in that boat also.
> 
> It looks like DirecTV's growth has slowed and the cable companies are shrinking. I think the market is pretty much saturated and will likely not get much bigger - and will soon start to slide....


If Samsung's development of a way faster IP comes to fruition, yes, the slide will be visible. Otherwise, DIRECTV will continue to add from former cable subs, though at modest rates. At some point, growth in adult population will be the only thing that drives higher subs, as I agree we are near saturation.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

I am finding the older I get the less TV I watch. I am 61 and not in the demagraphic the shows are made for any longer. I have helped friends "cut the cord" and go to what ever they can find for free OTA or on the internet. I even know some younger (30's) folks who have done this. The cost of having a HD DVR and a programming package is driving a lot of folks back to basics. Newspapers and magazines have seen this happen and I think DirecTV and the others have to change or watch their number go down.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CNBC is announcing they have 2 sources indicating Yahoo will be bidding for Hulu as well. Indeed, quite a long list of potential buyers.


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

I completed a Directv Pulse survey today asking questions about my use of on-line media services.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Report: Yahoo becomes the latest company to place a bid on Hulu

"The rumors on the potential sale of Hulu started circulating again a couple of months back. Now, according to AllThingsD, Yahoo is joining other big-name companies (such as Time Warner Cable and DirecTV) in the race to try and acquire the streaming service. Per the always-insightful sources "familiar with the process," Marissa Mayer & Co. submitted a bid for Hulu just this morning, though there are no details on how much the company is willing to spend on the video site. Something tells us we'll know more soon enough, but we can say with confidence that Yahoo is starting its holiday shopping really early."

Full Story Here









_Engadget_


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

DirecTV Said Among 3 Hulu Bidders at $1 Billion or More

DirecTV, the second-biggest U.S. pay-TV service, and two other bidders are each offering at least $1 billion for Hulu LLC, the online video website, said people with knowledge of the bid. The other two couldn't be identified immediately. Los Angeles-based Hulu's board has been weighing at least seven buyout offers and plans to narrow those to three or four in a few weeks, said the people, who requested anonymity because the deliberations are private.

Bids of at least $1 billion increase the odds that owners Walt Disney Co., News Corp. and Comcast NBC Universal will sell Hulu after a previous auction and plans for an initial public offering faltered.

Hulu would give DirecTV, with 20 million subscribers, a lower-cost online video offering alongside its more expensive pay-TV packages.

Full Story Here


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Good point on picture quality... I suppose I'm in that boat also.
> 
> It looks like DirecTV's growth has slowed and the cable companies are shrinking. I think the market is pretty much saturated and will likely not get much bigger - and will soon start to slide....


I think you're right about growth slowing, but question whether it will soon start to slide. I think the slowing of growth is mostly due to market saturation (as you point out) and very little to do with streaming. PQ and convenience are what keeps satellite and cable companies in business, and if you check out the thread about how dard it is to use watch now even with fast download speeds I think you'll see the problems that streaming faces.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Where'd they get a billion dollars?
Sounds like they're making money, even with those "outrageous" retransmission "demands".... :hurah:


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Where'd they get a billion dollars?
Sounds like they're making money, even with those "outrageous" retransmission "demands".... :hurah:


most companies likes to hoard their cash  take a look at Apple 140 billion "under the mattress"


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

kenglish said:


> Where'd they get a billion dollars?
> Sounds like they're making money, even with those "outrageous" retransmission "demands".... :hurah:


More like all their loop hole tax breaks.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

I wonder if they plan on picking it up to lessen the impact of local agreement disuputes, give them a presence in the streaming market and perhaps use it to improve their on demand service, which is lacking.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

kenglish said:


> Where'd they get a billion dollars?


They don't need a billion dollars cash to make that offer. They can leverage the funds, include stocks etc. to make a purchase like that. As long as the 'mortgage payments' are less than the cash flow Hulu would generate it makes sense.

There are others ways to get it done as well.


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

kenglish said:


> Where'd they get a billion dollars?
> Sounds like they're making money, even with those "outrageous" retransmission "demands".... :hurah:


Any company the size of DTV needs to have investment funds. These funds are used to develop new products and services that continue to provide you with choices in their product. Usually a budget is built and a certain amount of money is allocated toward re-transmission costs which is completely different from the money used to invest in new technology for customers. As a consumer I am glad D* is attempting to improve their online services. This may also attract additional customers who aren't able to have dishes on their property which would lower the ARPU needed per an account to meet their desired financial goals.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

I'm just jabbing at them a bit, since the Cable and satellite companies like to blame the stations for "raising prices".....
Broadcasters use money (like from retrans) to improve service, create programming, etc
Just like anybody else.
:righton:


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Sources: DirecTV will acquire Hulu by month's end

Several sources with knowledge of the ongoing Hulu acquisition talks tell PandoDaily that a deal is imminent and that DirecTV is the likely victor. The acquisition price will be written with a "B," according to our sources, but just barely.

It's no secret that Hulu's owners are seeking an acquirer for the premium streaming video on demand (SVOD) platform. Over the last several months reports have surfaced of bids from DirecTV, Time Warner Cable, Yahoo, KKR, Guggenheim Digital, The Chernin Group in partnership with AT&T, and Silverlake Partners in partnership with William Morris Endeavor Entertainment. To further muddy the waters, the company is being advised by Guggenheim Partners, a sister company to the above mentioned bidder.

Full Story Here


----------



## bakerfall (Aug 23, 2006)

I really hope DirecTV includes Hulu as an expansion of its DirecTV everywhere to existing subscribers. I don't see why they couldn't as Dish did effectively the same thing when they acquired Blockbuster. 

This could be very m'eh, or it could be fantastic for D* subscribers. I can't imagine D* acquiring Hulu to not use it as a value add. Let's hope so.


----------



## woj027 (Sep 3, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> The thing is, those costs will just shift to the internet. The media companies aren't going to trade dimes for pennies in this landscape.
> 
> Showtime doesn't pay DIRECTV, DIRECTV pays Showtime a split...this is how Showtime makes money. And think about it for a second, Directv (or Comcast, or Dish, or Verizon, etc, etc) answers all those calls for Showtime, does all the technical work for Showtime, does all the billing for Showtime, does a tremendous amount of marketing and sales for Showtime (or HBO, or Starz, or NFL, etc, etc) that they do not incur right now. All of these entities would have to establish those costly setups AND they have to rely on the customer wanting to have a separate relationship with Disney, and one iwth A&E, and one with Showtime, and one with Discovery, and one with Fox, and one with Viacom, and one with HBO, and one with Starz, and one with the NFL, and one with Big Ten, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> This has a LONG way to go in my opinion and I'm not sure you are going to see the cost savings because I don't believe the content makers are going to make that tradeoff. Just my two cents.


In my opinion, your two cents are worth a lot more than two cents. not to date some of us, but "When E.F. Hutton talks..."


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

bakerfall said:


> I really hope DirecTV includes Hulu as an expansion of its DirecTV everywhere to existing subscribers. I don't see why they couldn't as Dish did effectively the same thing when they acquired Blockbuster.
> 
> This could be very m'eh, or it could be fantastic for D* subscribers. I can't imagine D* acquiring Hulu to not use it as a value add. Let's hope so.


 They may. I had previously confirmed with a person out of the Office of the President (lol i was talking to them about my employee account and we veered off topic ) they want Hulu as they are losing some customers to online streaming sites like Netflix. Buying a smaller competitor would help that and possibly help reduce churn and they may integrate Hulu with Direct Everywhere but it is to early to say. DirecTv's Hulu Everywhere


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

Volatility said:


> They may. I had previously confirmed with a person out of the Office of the President (lol i was talking to them about my employee account and we veered off topic ) they want Hulu as they are losing some customers to online streaming sites like Netflix. Buying a smaller competitor would help that and possibly help reduce churn and they may integrate Hulu with Direct Everywhere but it is to early to say. DirecTv's Hulu Everywhere


Hey, that would work with me as long as they don't tie it too closely with DirecTV Everywhere as I don't have the hardware requirements to use it. I would love to see DirecTV subscribers getting access to Hulu Plus as part of their subscription.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

crkeehn said:


> Hey, that would work with me as long as they don't tie it too closely with DirecTV Everywhere as I don't have the hardware requirements to use it. I would love to see DirecTV subscribers getting access to Hulu Plus as part of their subscription.


I've had Hulu + for a long time and I hardly use it. Perhaps D* can get rid of those commercials.

Rich


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

crkeehn said:


> Hey, that would work with me as long as they don't tie it too closely with DirecTV Everywhere as I don't have the hardware requirements to use it. I would love to see DirecTV subscribers getting access to Hulu Plus as part of their subscription.


I'm just curious what you mean when you say you don't have the hardware requirements to use it (Directv Everywhere). If you have a PC you're good to go.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

TiVo fighting DirecTV for Hulu analysts claim

TiVo is tipped to be among the potential suitors for Hulu, with the DVR company said to be a rival to DirecTV who, in reports late last week, was described as in "very advanced stages" to acquire the on-demand service. The suggestion, from market intelligence firm StreetAccount, described TiVo's recent share price bump as on "follow-through from speculation on a Hulu acquisition", Zatz Not Funny reports.

Full Story Here


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well that wold be an interesting prospect for TiVo.... They'd basically be trying to build a new cable company without owning any of the distribution infrastructure, only the start and end of the distribution.... And then they'd be direct competitors with all their current partners. That'd be interesting to see if partners wold drop them or continue with them as contracts come up. Patent licensing not withstanding of course.


----------



## jasondm4 (Mar 5, 2010)

I wish Directv the best and hope they get it. They should since it's in the advanced stages but you never know.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Interesting, but looking at financials DirecTV for FE 2012, DirecTV has a lot more muscle in that department then TiVo


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Everyone has more clout than TiVo, and not just in terms of financials.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> I'm just curious what you mean when you say you don't have the hardware requirements to use it (Directv Everywhere). If you have a PC you're good to go.


I would be interested in watching it on my tablet, which requires an HD DVR connected to the internet. From the website:

To watch live TV channels on your tablet or mobile device, you need an HD DVR connected to your home broadband network. Your device must be connected to the same Wi-Fi network as your HD DVR.

The tablet DirecTV app is worthless to me. I can't use it for scheduling, streaming or much of anything else. I can use it as a schedule but that's it. At least the cellphone app will enable me to program my two dvrs and stream selected shows.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

So you have Internet access but don't connect any of your receives to the Internet? Or no hd? or no dvr?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

crkeehn said:


> I would be interested in watching it on my tablet, which requires an HD DVR connected to the internet. From the website:
> 
> To watch live TV channels on your tablet or mobile device, you need an HD DVR connected to your home broadband network. Your device must be connected to the same Wi-Fi network as your HD DVR.
> 
> The tablet DirecTV app is worthless to me. I can't use it for scheduling, streaming or much of anything else. I can use it as a schedule but that's it. At least the cellphone app will enable me to program my two dvrs and stream selected shows.


What tablet? And Inky's questions are pretty key, as well.


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

crkeehn said:


> I would be interested in watching it on my tablet, which requires an HD DVR connected to the internet. From the website:
> 
> To watch live TV channels on your tablet or mobile device, you need an HD DVR connected to your home broadband network. Your device must be connected to the same Wi-Fi network as your HD DVR.
> 
> The tablet DirecTV app is worthless to me. I can't use it for scheduling, streaming or much of anything else. I can use it as a schedule but that's it. At least the cellphone app will enable me to program my two dvrs and stream selected shows.


Somethings not right here.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

As long as whoever owns Hulu maintains the current free access to non-Plus content (so that I can stream it via PlayOn) I really don't care who owns it.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> So you have Internet access but don't connect any of your receives to the Internet? Or no hd? or no dvr?


I can't have HD. LOS issues.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

Laxguy said:


> What tablet? And Inky's questions are pretty key, as well.


I have a Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9. The cell phone app runs fine on it and I can stream a limited selection. The Tablet app apparently requires HD service and an HD DVR and consequently any feature that requires communicating with the DVR doesn't work.

As I responded to Inky, I have been informed that I can't have HD service due to Line of Sight issues, consequently I'm restricted to SD service with an R-15 and an R-16.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

When was the last time they checked? 

I am mot sure ive heard of this since they got all Hi Definition programming to 103. And 99 which are so very close to 101 where you are getting all your sd. 

It used to be that hd came from 119 which can have all kinds of Los issues for people who have no issues with ad programming. But since the move to only 103 and 99 you'd have to have one heck of a tiny whole for Los to get SD and not Hi Definition.


----------



## MCHuf (Oct 9, 2011)

I don't have anything against DirecTV, but I don't want Hulu being bought by any pay-tv provider. While it would be great news for DirecTV subscribers, it would be bad news overall for consumers. Eventually an alternate to traditional pay-tv would disappear and just become another offering from an entrenched player. Hulu is already owned by entrenched players and it is nowhere near what it could be because those guys don't want a real alternative. Being owned by DirecTV or TWC (another company mentioned a few weeks ago) would just be more of the same or even worse. I think being bought by someone like Yahoo or Tivo would be better in the long-run for competition and consumers.


----------



## dod1450 (Dec 16, 2009)

MCHuf said:


> I don't have anything against DirecTV, but I don't want Hulu being bought by any pay-tv provider. While it would be great news for DirecTV subscribers, it would be bad news overall for consumers. Eventually an alternate to traditional pay-tv would disappear and just become another offering from an entrenched player. Hulu is already owned by entrenched players and it is nowhere near what it could be because those guys don't want a real alternative. Being owned by DirecTV or TWC (another company mentioned a few weeks ago) would just be more of the same or even worse. I think being bought by someone like Yahoo or Tivo would be better in the long-run for competition and consumers.


 Does Dish charge for Blockbuster? If not I think Directv should do the same.


----------



## MCHuf (Oct 9, 2011)

dod1450 said:


> Does Dish charge for Blockbuster? If not I think Directv should do the same.


Dish does charge for Blockbuster. They are using the name for pay for rental VOD service and renamed the Dish Platinum package to [email protected], added the disc-by-mail service to it and renamed the free On Demand to Blockbuster. While they did greatly improve online streaming, you must be a Dish subscriber to access it.

I can't see a DirecTV owned Hulu offering a free version, even with the ads.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> When was the last time they checked?
> 
> I am mot sure ive heard of this since they got all Hi Definition programming to 103. And 99 which are so very close to 101 where you are getting all your sd.
> 
> It used to be that hd came from 119 which can have all kinds of Los issues for people who have no issues with ad programming. But since the move to only 103 and 99 you'd have to have one heck of a tiny whole for Los to get SD and not Hi Definition.


It was about 2 years ago that they checked. At that time I was informed that the dish was aimed at the SD satellite through a notch between two trees. It was big enough to allow access to the 101 but not to the two HD satellites. Neither the installer or supervisor were able to obtain a clear signal.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Hulu Deadline for Final Bids Arrives: Keep an Eye on DirecTV

Hulu and its corporate parents are accepting final bids for the online video service on Friday, and according to several individuals close to the process the field has whittled down to three companies: Guggenheim Digital Media, Chernin Entertainment/AT&T and DirecTV.

But keep your eye on DirecTV.

Here's why: Chernin is bidding with AT&T, but the telecom giant is driving that bid, according to one knowledgeable individual. Hulu management is apparently wary of being owned by AT&T.

Observers of the M&A landscape are skeptical that Guggenheim has the intention to step up to the desired $1 billion selling price.

That leaves DirecTV. Buying Hulu would give the satellite service a major foothold in the digital world.

Full Story Here


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

With the viewing restrictions in play, Hulu is a whole lot less interesting.

If even Hulu Plus doesn't offer the top five plus one other of the top ten, the appeal to cord-cutters would seem to diminish quickly. Last season that would have looked something like:

Big Bang Theory
Modern Family
Grey's Anatomy
Revolution
New Girl

and one of the following:

Elementary
Criminal Minds
How I Met Your Mother
Office
Grimm

Of the half-dozen shows I follow, that gets the top three and one I was considering adding.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The big variables going forward for Hulu (and, btw, this means Hulu Plus: the free version can really be considered dead, or a limited trial version at best) is what DirecTV's distribution network and the new attitude at CBS regarding Internet delivery will mean.

If they make Hulu content available to all DirecTV subscribers (at an additional cost, I would assume), and if even a small percentage take the offer, it would significantly increase Hulu's revenue stream, giving it more leverage in going after content. If they use that to pick up the top CBS shows that are either not currently available online, or are in very limited availability, then this could turn into a very competitive service. Add in the Criterion Films deal and Hulu is looking a lot better.


----------



## booboo (Mar 3, 2011)

Take two of the sale of Hulu is approaching its inevitable end, as multiple sources report the final bids have come in. Currently the site is owned by Disney, Fox and Comcast, while reported interested buyers include DirecTV, Chernin Group / AT&T and Guggenheim Digital Media. Of the potential buyers, The Hollywood Reporter reports Guggenheim would be the one most likely to retain the site's "entreprenurial spirit," while DirecTV may want to use it both as a part of its satellite package and as a standalone business. Finally the Chernin Group is reportedly backed by AT&T, which may have goals similar to those of DirecTV. According to the Wall Street Journal, the site's current owners are considering how potential buyers will want to license content going forward as part of the bids, with potential restrictions on their top rated shows, or longer windows before content is available on Hulu. We'll have to wait and find out who had the best pitch before we move on to the next step -- deciding if whatever Hulu becomes under new ownership is still worth visiting. 


I got this story from Engadget. Looks like we will know something soon. I recently dropped Hulu plus basically because it sucked in my opinion.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Hulu has been down the sale road before, and in the end nothing happened. The problem is that Hulu is only as valuable as the content it carriers. The providers of the content can walk whenever they want, so unless you have a long term deal locked up Hulu is only worth the platform.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Looks like you were right. Hulu is off the market.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/12/hulu-off-the-market/#continued


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

IMHO, good! I'd rather see DIRECTV use that $1B on something else. If they have the money burning a hole in their pocket I'd rather see them spend it on buying NetFlix.


----------



## espnjason (Sep 30, 2008)

Well, there goes my thinking that NFL Sunday Ticket replays will be on Hulu instead of iTunes.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Barcelona! 

Nice avatar.....


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Looks like you were right. Hulu is off the market.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/12/hulu-off-the-market/#continued


Shows me ABC/Disney, Fox, and NBC were never serious.

The buyers wanted long term deals and none were willing to do that. It's like when the key man leaves a closely held business....he goes so does the business.....here content is king and if ABC, NBC, and Fox could peddle their shows to multiple outlets then Hulu loses value.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Update:* *Bloomberg: Time Warner Cable still in talks to buy stake in Hulu*

Hulu may have put the kibosh on auctioning itself off wholesale, but it looks like some money may still be changing hands. Citing three people familiar with the situation, Bloomberg reports that Time Warner Cable is still participating in talks to purchase a stake in the streaming firm. According to the same trio of sources, TWC was previously interested in nabbing a 25 percent claim in the outfit, and an agreement could be reached within two weeks. Hulu could soon have extra cash in its coffers from the cable giant, in addition to the $750 million its owners just vowed to pour into it, but it's entirely possible this deal could fizzle out too.

Full Story Here









_Engadget_


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Diana C said:


> Add in the Criterion Films deal and Hulu is looking a lot better.


Pardon my going OT, but is the Criterion material commercial-free on Hulu Plus?


----------

