Granted, “not horrible” doesn’t equal “good times are here again.” But I keep hearing that the sickening decline in advertising spending has stopped, at least, and that some marketers are actually spending money again.

Here are a couple more bits of anecdotal evidence:

The newest Advertiser Optimism Reports conducted by Advertiser Perceptions Inc., show that ad buyers are slightly more optimistic than they were a few months ago. MediaPost:

“The most recent survey suggests that the degree of ad budget pessimism may have bottomed out, or at the very least, is leveling off. The average for all media shows that 29% or ad executives expect to increase and 29% expect to decrease their ad spending over the next six months. That’s a marginal improvement from two months ago, when only 26% planned to boost their budgets, while 30% planned to cut them.”

And from Wall Street, a little more cautious optimism: Barclays Capital analyst Anthony DiClemente has upgraded his outlook and/or his price targets on a swath of entertainment stocks–Time Warner (TWX), News Corp. (NWS), Scripps Network Interactive (SNI), Viacom (VIA) and CBS (CBS).

That’s in part because DiClemente also thinks advertising–or at least TV advertising–has bottomed out. He now thinks broadcast TV ad dollars will increase by four percent in 2010, up from a previous estimate of minus-one percent, and that cable TV will increase 5.5 percent, up from two percent.

It’s easy enough to be skeptical of this stuff, especially any happy talk about TV, given that we’re now in the “upfront” season when network executives do their best to convince buyers that sales are hotter than ever. But wouldn’t it be nice if they were right?

[Image credit: Iragerich]

That’s the thinking behind plans some of the big cable TV operators and cable networks are drawing up. But while it’s tempting to describe these offerings-to-be as Hulu 2.0, it’s not nearly that simple.

Both Comcast (CMCSA) and Timer Warner Cable (TWC) want to give their subscribers Web access to more shows than they can currently get–at least legally. But the two companies have competing plans, based on different technologies and philosophies. Here’s the latest info I have on the offerings-to-be, which The Wall Street Journal first wrote about last night:

• Comcast, which is referring internally to its plan as “Authentication” (ugh), wants to beef up its Fancast Web site, which is currently an also-ran behind Hulu in the video portal competition. But Time Warner Cable, in conjunction with Cox, is offering a different take, powered by the same technology it used when it offered HBO to some broadband customers in a Wisconsin test last year. The cable provider’s plan, which it has dubbed “Entitlement” (double ugh), doesn’t call for a single portal. Instead, each cable programmer that signs on would distribute its programming via its own site.
• Comcast would eventually like to syndicate its Fancast-on-steroids site to other cable providers. But don’t expect to use the souped-up Fancast if you’re a Time Warner Cable customer–the company has no interest in letting someone else control its subscribers’ Web video experience.
• Most of the major cable networks have been talking to cable providers about both plans, and most have offered up some degree of enthusiasm, including GE’s (GE) NBC, Viacom (VIA), Time Warner (TWX) Discovery Communications (DISCA) and Scripps Networks Interactive (SNI).
• Notable player not involved in discussions, at least so far: Disney (DIS). Which means you shouldn’t expect to get full access to Disney channel or ESPN programming on your laptop for some time to come.
• Comcast plans on a trial run of its service this summer; Time Warner Cable had originally planned to launch its trial in the first quarter of 2009, but has pushed back its launch to the much-vaguer “sometime this year.”

But while the strategies and specifics of the plans are different, the underlying philosophies are the same. Both plans are meant to keep customers from defecting to TV services offered by the satellite companies and telcos. (And Time Warner Cable has been specifically warning its programmers of the danger of “cable cutters” by touting a test in Texas where up to three percent of its cable subs have dropped the service in favor of free TV from the Web.) And both plans are meant to impress upon customers that someone, somewhere has to pay for the TV they watch.

Will any of this work? It’s easy to assume that it won’t, since it involves slow-moving cable providers linking up with protective cable programmers to produce compelling Web services. But that’s the sort of thing that all of us geniuses said about Hulu, and that JV between NBC and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox has worked out great, at least from a technology and user perspective. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

And regardless, the tension between broadband providers, content providers, and consumers who don’t care who pays for their programming as long as they can watch “Heroes” whenever they want wherever they want, is going to make for interesting stories for a long time to come. We’ll be revisiting this one frequently.

Meanwhile here’s a clip reel from HBO’s excellent new “Eastbound & Down” series, which literally kept me from canceling the pay service this week. But as soon as it’s done, so is my subscription. There’s just too much good stuff out there on the Web for me to justify the extra cost. NOTE: This clip has a lot of swearing. If you want even more swearing and a little bit of nudity, there’s a much better clip here.