NBC's Zucker also hinted at the company's interest in the matter. "Whether there are other ways to monetize Hulu down the road, it is something that we are open to, something we will explore," he said, but like Murdoch, reiterated "there are no plans at this time."

Subscription Services Already in Testing?

While that may be the official company line, other sites are reporting a slightly different variation on this story. The Business of Video blog, for example, says they've been in contact with sources who have confirmed that Hulu is already beta testing a subscription-based service internally and is working out the technical requirements. If that story is to be believed, the offering won't go live anytime this year as Hulu still needs to figure out the details of the business plan.

Whether or not that rumor is true, it wouldn't be surprising to hear that Hulu is working on such a project, given their obvious interest in adding more revenue-generating features to the site. Zucker himself even updated his ongoing conference comment about "analog dollars" being used to chase "digital dimes." (In 2008, it was "digital pennies.") "Certainly by next year the goal should be at least quarters," he joked.

What We Want to See: Premium Channels on Hulu

Subscription services would be a brilliant way to chase those quarters, indeed. Perhaps it could even convince cable-only paid channels like HBO and Showtime to get on board with the venture. They've already tentatively given iTunes a shot, but still seem reluctant to share current episodes in a timely fashion on that service. The reason for the networks' timidity is because their iTunes revenue simply doesn't compare to their cable TV subscription offerings or even their DVD sales. (Ironically, that's probably due to the fact that they don't offer current programs via iTunes!). Instead, they would rather entice consumers to subscribe by tempting them with their backcatalog of programming.

However, if the situation was to change and consumers could subscribe to these channels online for a comparable fee to what the companies generate through cable TV distribution, would they continue to put up such resistance? After all, money is money, who cares where it comes from?

These days, more and more consumers are pinching pennies by cancelling cable subscriptions thanks to the numerous alternatives available online. Obviously, premium channels are getting the boot, too. Imagine if they could have a chance to win back some of those penny-pinching former subscribers by way of an online subscription service. After all, what would you give for piecemeal plans that let you buy a 3-month pass to HBO instead of the all-or-nothing combo packages available via your cable TV provider?

Of course, all this is just wishful thinking on our part, but if Hulu does it right, the possibilities for their new TV distribution network are virtually endless.

At the same time, Murdoch also dismissed Amazon's Kindle, because he doesn't want News Corp to cede its content rights "to the fine people who created the Kindle." During a Senate hearing about the future of the newspaper industry yesterday, the CEO of the Dallas Morning News announced that Amazon will take a 70% cut of the newspaper subscription revenues from the Kindle. Those numbers do, indeed, seem rather outrageous, though some might argue that the 30% the newspapers will get from Amazon is still more than the zero dollars they are getting from people who read the paper without the Kindle.

Interestingly, though, while Murdoch heralded the return of paid online newspaper subscription, News Corp also proudly announced that the Wall Street Journal's free iPhone application has been downloaded over 360,000 times. And that app, on a device fully controlled by Apple, gives users all of the WSJ content for free without the need for a subscription.

Senate Hearing

Yesterday's Senate hearing on the "Future of Journalism" made it clear that there are quite a few newspaper companies who would like to go back to charging for their content (while lobbying for tax breaks at the same time). Google's Marissa Mayer and Arianna Huffington managed to put some of the newspapers' hyperbole into some much needed context (Huffington's testimony starts at around 58min here). They argued that while the age of the printed newspaper may be coming to an end, journalism itself will blossom in the future, and that online publishers can indeed make money from their online content by smartly monetizing their traffic (and those who don't want their traffic to come from Google can just add a line to their robots.txt file anyway).

It's Not About the Future of Newspapers - It's about Journalism

We also think that it is important to move away from the question of how we can save the newspapers (easy answer: we can't). Instead, the more interesting question is how we can save good, in-depth, investigative journalism. There are clearly no easy answers for how to save the newspapers and still be able to finance good journalism, and we have doubts that charging for online access is a viable model. Users have clearly voted against this, and even if a paper wanted to charge, users could just head to another paper that decided to go with an advertising-based revenue model.