At first glance, this seems strange. Fox is a broadcast network (ad supported) that one doesn't need to subscribe to in order to receive.<p>However, broadcast channels do make money through re-transmission rights that they sell to cable and satellite carriers. It might seem silly that your cable company is paying Fox for programming you can already get over the air, but the cable company also knows that their service won't be as attractive to you if the don't also carry your local channels without the need for an antenna. By confirming that you subscribe to Comcast, DISH Network, or something else, they know that they're receiving more revenue than just ads from you - they're also getting the re-transmission fees from your paid service.<p>There can also be the perception that if you're paying for TV, you're likely to watch it sometimes even if you use the internet TV for some of your TV watching. I'm guessing Hulu isn't getting advertisers to shell out as much money as traditional TV is right now. So, if you subscribe to cable or satellite, they might not be making a lot on what you're watching on Hulu, but at least they know you're more likely to be watching programming that they do get better money off of.<p>I'm definitely not defending the move and I don't subscribe to pay-TV myself, but I can understand why they'd make the move. Subscribers to pay-TV bring them revenues directly through the re-transmission fees and indirectly through a greater likelihood of watching non-internet programming with more ad slots that pay higher. If "cutting the cord" becomes the norm, it could mean lower margins and greater competition in programming for Fox and others. That's good for consumers, but I can see why Fox would try to stop that.