Hulu's Posting Rights

I'm confused, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I also am sure that somebody out there knows the answer to my question, so I'm going to ask it here, despite the fact that the likelihood that anyone who will see this post falls into that second category is very slim. What is the deal with hulu and their rights to air episodes? I'm going to ignore hulu+ for now, since that is an entirely different ball game.

Most of NBC's shows are available the day after they air for about a five week period, during which they cycle through. This is probably the most reasonable airing schedule that hulu offers, which makes sense since hulu is an NBC Universal-run website. But USA, which is a subsidiary of NBC Universal, only airs the first two episodes of a season and then requires a month long wait before the rest of the episodes start cycling through. FOX and ABC shows vary somewhere between these two methods, and CBS doesn't host their shows on hulu at all. Obviously contracts vary from show to show, and there are exceptions to all of the general guidelines I just described.

I'm choosing to ignore the possibility that these restrictions are in place as a result of hulu's side of the negotiations for two reasons. One, in the "availablitly" section of the hulu pages I have often seen the box read something to the effect of "we are currently allowed to offer..." which seems to imply that the restrictions are not of their own making. Also, episodes available on the networks own websites tend to follow similar, if not exactly the same, posting schedules, a schedule hulu has zero influence over. Therefore, we'll assume that it's the networks.

So here's my question. What benefit do the networks get from these limited contracts?

In the modern age of internet streaming technology, where convenience is everything, illegal websites are cropping up left and right that offer these shows unrestricted, without commercials, free of charge. The networks that develop and produce these shows don't see a dime for episodes that people watch in this way. At least with hulu they get a contract and payment.

I know that there have been countless shows that I have wanted to watch (Modern Family for example) but didn't have access to the pilot or early episodes because I had, unfortunately, heard about the series too late and the older episodes had already cycled through. In such cases, without additional payment for video on demand from amazon or netflix, I am unable to pick up the series and start watching halfway through. The direct result of which, is that I don't end up watching the show until at least a full year later when friends offer to lend me the DVDs. Sometimes that means that it's too late for me to get on board with a great show until after it has cancelled from lack of viewership.

Obviously I do not make enough of a difference to overall viewership for the networks to care about whether or not I watch their show, but I also know that there are other people like me who prefer to watch a show in its entirety from pilot to current episode in the order aired, and don't like to pick up shows in the middle of the season. They also probably are like me in that they prefer a free viewing experience, or at least one that doesn't cost them more than the cable they are already paying for. Add us all up, and I'm sure we'd make a sizable dent to the ratings if we could catch up and start watching episodes live. Plus, if those "like-me" people are truly like me, then as soon as they've started watching, they'll start talking to all of their friends, even the ones who don't mind watching episodes out of order, and spread the word. Therefore, it seems to me that networks would get more benefit out of providing their content on hulu to provide a legal viewing method whose commercials and contracts would provide them with some revenue as opposed to the multitude of online piracy sites where their shows end up anyway, despite their best efforts.

The desire to control their content is only natural, and I completely understand it. Networks can't get paid for stolen property, and they can't make new shows without some source of revenue. The more control the networks can maintain over their content, the more control they will have over its price, which in turn leads to more episodes, series, etc. That's just supply and demand. The demand is high for quality programming. The problem for the networks? So is the supply. Placing arbitrary restrictions on episodes posted on hulu only serves to potentially drive viewers to illegal sites that provide the restricted content.

Now I'm sure that none of this is news to the people at the television networks establishing contracts with hulu. This isn't exactly rocket science, and executives and administrators tend to be fairly intelligent people. Which means that there is some benefit to these restrictions that I'm not seeing. Right? If you know what that invisible benefit is, please let me know.

Because it seems to me that the networks are mistaking restrictions for control.