I'm guessing this entire thing is quite a bit more complicated than the proverbial "evil cable companies".
But CONTENT is king. Cable doesn't own most of the content it broadcasts, but pays the providers. ESPN I think was one of the bigger ones, and has frequently been a very contentious negotiation....believe they get somewhere between $2-$4 PER subscriber.
So then what happens with cord cutters, where HULU comes into the negotiation, is less subscribers means less revenue from the cable company, but also less revenue FOR THE CONTENT PROVIDER!!! So, ok, I'm seeing people shift from cable (where I get $2 per subscriber) to HULU (where I get $0.25 per subscriber, or whatever).
The only model being propped-up here is the Content providers. They're just looking at the bottom line, and to maximize profits they're looking at licensing deals (in whatever form) with cable AND a variety of digital delivery, such as HULU and on-demand services. This smells more like the end of an industry subsidy to an emerging technology than propping-up a dying technology.
one thing you are forgetting, the major cable companies are buying networks so they have both the content and access. take a look at what comcash owns
Because I don't steal?Popcorn time casts any movie or show to a smart device in your house free of charge and can be installed on any android, Apple or windows platform.
I understand having free Netflix or Amazon prime. But Hulu? Why?