I just watched stuff on hulu for the first time two weeks ago, and while I really liked that option, I don't think I'd pay for it.

I have a TiVo, and the reason I went to hulu is because somebody forgot to record The Office (thanks, boyfriend). I was disappointed the show wasn't available the same night, but we did watch it the next day.

Watching it on the computer isn't as comfortable as seeing it on a regular TV, but the commercials weren't nearly as annoying as watching it regularly.

I think if I didn't have TiVo, I might be more willing to pay for hulu (the commercials are shorter, too!).

But since I do, I'll just be more careful about recording the shows in advance.

I use Hulu a lot to catch up on programs, but it's a pain in the rear to use since the buffering takes forever and more often than not, the voicetrack doesn't line up with the picture. Paying for Hulu might be the thing that makes me go out and purchase a DVR (finally).

kill your television

I don't even watch it for free. Few months ago I tried to catch up on some episodes and not only had to install some proprietory software from ABC, but at the end I just couldn't stand the poor quality and already mentioned voice track problem. And I have a cable Internet! I would also rather get a DVR than pay for such poor service.

As with any product, it would depend on how much they were planning on charging. My hometown newspaper, newsday.com is starting to charge this week. I would have considered getting it, but they are charging $5/week which is insane to me. So, if Hulu charged a dollar or two per show, I may do it - but if it was $200/year, I would pass.

I'd pay $5 a month for Hulu to stop blocking access on the PS3. I've never had the long buffering (10 seconds is long?) and voice track issues on the PS3. I'm not about to pay to sit at my computer to watch TV. $5 a month for Hulu would be great for those of us that don't want to shell out $70 a month for cable, to then DVR a show because I had better stuff to do at 7pm on a weeknight. Give me $5 a month access and no hassle of setting a DVR.

No way. Hulu is awesome because of the next day online, old shows, and high quality, but I have live TV and a DVR...not to mention it's not like people can't find this stuff online somewhere, which was the reason these companies created the joint venture Hulu in the first place, wasn't it?

Why would I pay for something that I can access on the network websites for free? (I can watch the latest episodes online there as well - and in HD.) I just like Hulu - it's well organized, easier to navigate, and has the same number of commercials...

Why doesn't Hulu try asking for donations along with the ad revenue. Donations appear to work for Wikipedia.

Being on a fixed income I am no longer getting CATV(or SAT TV). I can no longer afford the $100.00 plus for such a luxury. I do retain my cable internet(obviously)for these reasons:(1- To keep in contact with my family,(2- To keep up with local and world news, and (3- To be entertained. I have an LCD flatscreen that I have hooked up to my PC via an S-Video cable. This enables me to watch streaming video from my couch just like anybody else. I can't "channel surf" but I'm not all that dissapointed. I AM saving up for a wireless keyboard, or maybe I'll get one for Christmas(hint).
Needless to say, Hulu is a big part of my TV regime. It's easily accessible, it's got a wide range of programs, and it is super user-friendly.
However, if Hulu started charging even a dime for it's service I would delete it from my "favorites" list.
Let's be real here. I can honestly say that I am not the only one who has cut their cable/satelite TV and simply went for the web. There are many people who have done the same, and more and more are doing it everyday.
Hulu has a chance to give the monopolies some competition! Instead of trying to make each user pay monthly(or whatever), Why can't they solicit the ADVERTISERS!
After all, that's how a successful network makes their money isn't it?
I, personally, would not mind more (not too much more) commercials during shows, nor would I mind some of those "long term announcements" that Hulu sometime runs.
My point is, If Hulu wants to make the profit it deserves, they will have to stroke their advertisers and not their viewers.***Hedge

um there are a million sites that don't host their own videos (saving money on bandwidth) and show the same quality vids as hulu. So no, I won't pay for hulu.

I won't pay for hulu. If NBC/Fox want my money for a television show make it available for purchase from Amazon or iTunes so I can watch it on my TV not be forced to watch it on my laptop screen.

It Is really strange to me that we not only have to pay for the different T.V. option eg. cable, dish ,exct. we also have to pay for the internet option too. When will it ever stop let us all go back to the raido days or free T.V. and enjoy life with out paying for it. Seems like every one wants money for something Take your internet site down. And lets all start over with the simpler thing in life no I wont watch HULA. If you all start charging for the movies.

Hulu is great. I found some real old shows that I had enjoyed in the past. But, I wouldn't pay to watch any of these shows. Some reruns are available by some cable companies if you have a box. It's "free" to see those reruns and what I would do if I find it necessary.

Media companies mismanage and they then want to start charging more (consumers implictly pay for ads through products they purchase). I've heard that some movie studios are mad at Redbox for charging only $1 per night. If they want to charge more, I'll take up to reading more books, games and entertaining myself in other ways.

We have been cutting back on expenses, so no. There are plenty of other sites to be entertained by for free.

I enjoy hulu, but I will not be paying for it. I already pay for cable. I'll just have to make the effort to record shows that I'm unable to watch during their air time.

why doesn't rupert just buy the internet and put it out of business? and if anyone actually justifies paying to watch nbc or fox, they are absolutely crazy. you throw hbo or showtime on there with reasonable rates, we MIGHT be talking. the current format though? i'd go buy a black and white tv and watch vhs tapes on it before i paid to watch this.

NO, charging for commercial TV that has commercials is the single most idiotic idea I have heard. Now, offering commercial free Hulu for a fee makes sense. Take your money from us once, not multiple times.

If I wanted to pay for TV shows, I would get cable.

Hulu should not charge for its views, but should instead put ads on the sides of the window and should do as youtube does and put a small ad across the bottom of the video area that can be hidden if so desired. This should considerably increase advertisement income without increasing the cost for viewers

I most likely will not pay for hulu if they start charging! That is going to be the killer blow to hulu if they end up charging! If someone is paying for their internet their not going to want to pay for an additional charge to use one particular site! Try www.fancast.com

I used to watch my TV shows on the many pirate sites available out there. Why? Because I wanted to live my life on my time and watch my shows when I had the time. I shifted to watching on Hulu ONLY because I wanted the shows creators to get the revenue that they deserved. However, if Hulu started charging the viewers instead of the advertisers I would go back to watching on the other sites.

The websites showing the pirated videos will always be around no matter how many times they get shut down. Hulu is only popular because it provides an EQUAL, LEGAL alternative. If it stopped being an equal alternative, though, internet piracy would just skyrocket again.