Hulu has long since reigned king in the streaming video market, and seems intent on growing at an outrageous pace until it reaches sublime market saturation – so long as its investors and parent companies don’t shut it down, or cripple it, long before the point of critical mass.  But while 2010, and the foreseeable future, is considered part of the age of connectivity, there are often long periods without a network connection that could be better used:  planes, cars, trains, buses, etc.  In light of this situation, why should content delivery services not implement a longterm caching mechanism for streaming video?

Netflix, despite the protestations of movie studios, has done wonders for the industry, resulting in millions of Americans that now watch DVDs on a regular basis who would otherwise probably watch whatever made-for-TV movie was on AMC...

We're focused on the free streaming experience on the computer today, but our overall mission at Hulu is to help people find and enjoy great content when, where and how they want. That means we’re continually listening to user feedback and evaluating new technologies to develop new experiences for users to enjoy Hulu.

Hi Kyle,
Thanks for your email. It's good to know our users are still pulling for shows
like TSCC and Dollhouse. Hulu provides viewership reports to all of its content
partners. Our partners can view this information on demand whenever they like --
so, in other words, viewership on Hulu should be taken into account when networks
determine the next steps for their series.

We're fans of TSCC and Dollhouse ourselves, so we'll continue to do our best to
support the shows by promoting them on our home page and TV page.

Thanks,
Rebecca

I wanted to point out something obvious, in case you guys haven't thought of it.

"Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" is one of the best TV shows in existence right now, let alone the fact that it's SciFi.  But TV networks are full of retards who jump off a bridge at the first sign of a non-mainstream audience.

And for shows like "Dollhouse", and "Terminator", a majority of the viewers are nerds.  Which also means you're probably seeing very high views through your service on each new episode within, say, a week of it's premiere on TV.

What I'm getting at is this:  FOX has moved "Terminator" to Friday nights, and "Dollhouse" started on Friday nights... they're not even giving the ratings a chance.  But in addition, I don't believe they include the viewership from legitimate services like their online distribution, or Hulu itself.  And people are already whispering about how "Dollhouse" "tanked" in the ratings, and "Terminator" "fell".  I bet your stats would disagree.

This needs to be something that you impress upon your content suppliers.  Not only should you provide them statistics, weekly, on what is watched, and by how many people, but you should also be constantly repeating that these viewers count no less than the "live TV" version does.  If a network cancels a show because they don't get enough live viewers, when a large part of their audience actually watches it online, that's complete crap.

Networks need to realize that the future of video media is not schedule-based TV, but rather "on demand" content, with the Internet as a viable and legitimate source.  And by continuing to kill and maim, intentionally, some of the best shows, they are reinforcing the Old World media mindset that nothing but the-night-of views count.

Which, again, is crap.