We heard last week that you're pulling the plug on free and going for a subscription model. Many of us were saddened because we highly value what you offer for free. Here's why:

Cable was great for our parents. The cable companies provided package deals, and they got a whole suite of channels for a low price. This worked in a world where people weren't bombarded with a cacophony of media almost every moment of every day. Now, we're overwhelmed. And we're short on time. And cable's value per dollar has greatly diminished. 

In short, when cable companies set packages and prices we get a whole bunch of stuff that is absolutely worthless (TBN, Home Shopping Network, A Land Line, etc...). We actually watch a very small percentage of what is contained in our cable packages. 

That's why Hulu is so great. We get to chose at the most granular level: content. 

So, as you switch to subscription, here's something to consider. What we all want that cable won't give us is A La Carte. If we could subscribe to a list of shows, not a list of networks or channels, but the content we actually consume, I think you'd be offering a radical new model that could be extremely popular. For instance, I like 30 Rock, Better Off Ted, and LOST. If you offered a subscription to 5 shows of my choosing for a reasonable price, I'd most certainly consider dropping cable in favor of the @Hulu A La Carte program. It's the thing that'd keep networks competitive: democratizing content. Of course, my in-laws can certainly subscribe to TBN and Home Shopping Network if they so desire, and that puts it on those content provides to do something they've almost never had to do - legitimize demand. 

Knowing you'll have to keep the networks happy, one wonders whether or not this is possible. But the reality is, somebody is going to get to A La Carte at some point. Why should it not be @Hulu?