The Mayans predicted the end of time wouldn’t arrive for three years, but it seems as if Armageddon has come early.

So board up your houses, stock up on perishables and fill your gas tanks.

There’s bound to be heavy traffic on the highways, so make sure you’re adequately prepared. Take some blankets,  comfy shoes and cargo pants to store all those cans of food.

And be careful. People get violent in these apocalyptic situations. So bring a gun. Two guns, even! Your trusty flamethrower, too.

Sorry, I’m getting ahead of myself. Are you curious what the reason for all this hullabaloo could possibly be? Well, buckle up, it’s a doozy.

Hulu, one of the Internet’s most popular sources for the legal streaming of television, is going to start charging for certain content beginning in 2010, according to an Oct. 21 News Corp. — part-owner of Hulu — announcement.

Go ahead. Scream. Cry. Let it all out. I’ll wait.

“I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content,” News Corp. Director, Deputy Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey said at the Broadcasting & Cable/Multichannel News 2009 OnScreen Media Summit, according to www.broadcastingcable.com. “I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value.”

It’s an interesting move for a website with a title bar that currently reads “Watch your favorites. Anytime. For free.” And keep in mind Hulu launched a string of commercials satirically referring to the site’s usefulness and free content as “An evil plot to destroy the world. Enjoy.”

Anyway, in a statement as simple as the one above, Hulu has effectively nullified itself. In some fantasy world where left is right, Mad Men actress January Jones is unattractive, and Hulu has a stranglehold on streaming of TV shows, this may have been a good idea, but the company has underestimated its audience.

There are many available methods for viewing TV shows and movies for free, questionably legal though they may be, and masses of people will move to these alternate methods.

Hulu was great because of its user-friendliness, high-quality streams and sheer quantity of shows offered. But there’s no way those advantages will ever be enough to compete with a free service.

If Hulu starts charging in 2010, a better, freer alternative will subsequently pop up, and audiences will flock there.

Or assume the supposed Hulu killer never shows up. No matter — in the interest of free programming, audiences will quickly find all the SideReels (www.sidereel.com) and NinjaVideos (www.ninjavideo.net) of the Internet. Keep in mind people still have to pay for their actual Internet service. Who wants to add money on to that if it can be so easily avoided?

So not only is the fee for Hulu going to have to be absolutely microscopic to keep people on board, but the site will need to amp up the quality of its services considerably. Maybe they’ll be able to strike deals with off-network channels, such as AMC or HBO, or more kid-friendly channels to entice a younger crowd.

But then again, would people want to pay for that either? Name a show, obscure as it may be, and it’s currently streaming for free on the Internet. Go ahead, look. I’m sure anyone with enough desire to scratch his TV itch will find what he’s looking for.

After all, the Internet’s a big place. Just because a website has become one of the most popular in its niche doesn’t mean it completely controls that niche.

So as soon as Hulu starts asking for your credit card information, unless it has introduced some futuristic technology where you can actually become a 1960s ad man on Madison Avenue, just avoid the site. Go somewhere else. You’ll find what you need. I promise.

Just don’t start fleeing the country. We’ll save that panic for things that really matter, like if in some terrifying future, Facebook announces it will be only available to paid subscribers.

jwolper@umd.edu