Earlier this month, Comcast launched Fancast XFinity, their branded name for their version of TV Everyehwere. Essentially, XFinity is a distributed authentication system, in which users prove their association to an existing cable subscription, and receive corresponding entitlements to an online video catalog.

Browsing to a video which requires authentication results in this modal dialogue:

Trying to View Premium Content on Fancast Requires Authorization

Comcast Access (and a specific Movie Player from Move Networks) has to be installed to your machine – and running – to be able to view videos behind the paywall. Comcast Access is an Adobe AIR based application and is available for Mac OS X (intel-based Macs running OS X 10.5 or later) and Windows (XP Service Pack 2, Vista, or 7). No love for Linux and Unix users (which won’t make Comcast Access very popular around Optaros), older PowerPC Macs, or Windows users stuck on Windows 2000. (This also means you’ll have to have or accept AIR being installed on the machine as well). Finally, you’ll need administrative rights on the machine(s) you install Access on – which may restrict some work desktops (a popular place one might want access outside the home).

Installer for Comcast Access on Mac OS X

Users can authorize up to three named computers for access – though it isn’t clear to me yet what happens when you reach your fourth machine (can you un-authorize the first and sawp in the second, as in Apple’s FairPlay DRM in iTunes?).

Once you’ve installed Access (and the Move Networks player) you can authorize the machine it is running on:

Setting up Comcast Access

The process was relatively painless (though I did have to chat with a customer service rep to find my “comcast email account,” something I set up when subscribing to cable but have never used) on my MacBook Pro, unless you count the pain of accepting yet-another set of digital restrictions management (DRM) shackles. Specifically, the Comcast Access Terms of Service make it clear that this isn’t really TV Everywhere. (I’m reminded of one of my favorite The Princess Bride quotes: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”).

In addition to the platform restrictions, and the requirement that Comcast Access be running as you watch the videos, the TOS notes:

• “You may only install the Software . . . and use Protected Services on Authorized Devices.” – Comcast defines which devices are authorized – they mention PDAs and portable devices, but if your device isn’t on the list you’re not part of everywhere
• On software upgrades: “Upgrades will either be optional, in which case you will be presented with the choice to install such Upgrade, or mandatory, in which case the Upgrade will install automatically and you will be notified after such Upgrade has been successfully installed. By installing and/or using the Software, you consent to such Upgrades being delivered and implemented in such manner.” At least some upgrades might be optional. ;)
• Whose devices can you authorize? “you will not . . . designate as an Authorized Device any device that is not owned and used solely by people then-resident at the service address for your Comcast Digital Cable subscription.” Does this mean that by authorizing my laptop, which I don’t technically own (Optaros does) I’ve violated the TOS? What does then-resident mean: if I’m travelling on business for a week, am I still resident at my service address? What if your roomate moves out – is it your responsibility to de-authorize her authorized devices?
• You also will not “export, import or re-export the Software in violation of any applicable law, rule or regulation of any jurisdiction.” Does traveling with a laptop on which the software is installed constitute export? What if the installer itself is sitting on the desktop? Is it my responsibility to know about the applicable laws in all jurisdictions?

Much (if not all) of this is fairly standard proprietary software TOS fodder, I suspect. DRM systems have to be able to insist on the ability to force updates in case holes in existing versions are discovered and need to be plugged. Controlling the devices (and system software versions) on which the software can be legally installed also helps prevent folks from, for example, hacking a version to run without enforcing DRM.

I wonder how Comcast Access deals with geographic restrictions – can I access premium content to which I have rights as a Comcast customer even while in, say, the UK or Germany where those rights haven’t (potentially) been negotiated?

Or would Fancast, maybe even before requiring Comcast Access authentication, already geolocate my IP and prevent me from requesting material not available in that geography?

Will TV Everywhere be enough to keep cable subscriptions relevant? Frankly, if faster fiber-optic were available at my home address, I’d drop cable in a heartbeat. For me cable is and has been since the mid-nineties primarily about access to the Internet, and only secondarily a way to see a breadth of content on TV. But I recognize I may be the minority there.

Might folks who are not Comcast Cable Subscribers someday be able to purchase a “Fancast XFinity” subscription independent of whether they current have coaxial cable hooked up to their home address?

What will Fancast XFinity, and Comcast’s purchase of NBC Universal, mean for services like Hulu? Is this the beginning of a “return to paywalls” for professional video online?

I hope not. I hope that it’s a first step in the direction of acknowledging the user desire for control, and a first step toward separating the value of the content from the value of the delivery medium. (Just as newspapers aren’t the only or even the best way to consume/distribute news, coaxial cable via subscription isn’t the only or even the best way to consume/distribute professionally created long-form video content.)

Freeing the content from the channel should enable lots of different monetization models, including some form of Freemium access (let users watch the first five episodes of Entourage free, or all free two weeks after original air date) as well un-bundled access (I never want premium sports channels, but many packages include them).

Will the restrictions imposed by the DRM encourage consumers to keep going to unauthorized channels to get content, or will the ease-of-use (so far it has been quite simple) and the low barrier to entry (for subscribers) make this an iTunes moment for online video? (Perhaps this is only possible if/when the service gets extended beyond current cable subscribers and becomes a way to subscribe to premium content online directly).

Coverville's Original Logo

Coverville is a podcast hosted by Brian Ibbott and recorded in his home near Denver, which features cover songs and the topic of covers generally. He does a fantastic job, hosting theme shows like originalville (in which he plays the original versions of songs people mostly know by a famous cover) and cover story (in which the whole episode is devoted to covers of and by a specific artist). Check out the Wikipedia entry on Coverville for a sense of how popular the show’s become.

One important note: from the beginning, Ibbott has been careful to work as necessary with “rights holders” through ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC – he even moderates a forum at podcast alley on using licensed music.

Recently, as the economy has depleted sponsorships and advertisers, it’s become more difficult for Coverville to make money. Rather than just folding, or moving all the way to “pay subscribers only,” Ibbott’s created a new offering: Coverville Citizenship.

Coverille Citizenship

Coverville Citizens get:

• a DVD each year of the previous 100 episodes (more than a year’s worth)
• a limited edition T-Shirt not available to non-citizens
• a subscription to a premium ‘bonus tracks’ podcast including tracks not used in the show
• the good feeling that comes from being part of something you enjoy and helping to support it

For which they (myself included) happily pay $40.

Is this the future of media?

A niche producer (though it feels odd to me to call cover songs a niche, since the genres Ibbott includes are so broad, he did identify and develop a specific hook or angle that was unique) connects to a long tail of fans, many of whom are casual fans dipping in and out, but a number of which are more devoted fans (in the case of Coverville those fans make suggestions, record trivia quizzes for Ibbot and wife Tina to play, phone in dedications, record intros for the annual countdown, and so on). Those devoted fans are willing to pay for premium access to bonus content.

Would it work if a mainstream media outlet tried to replicate it? I wonder if the producers or execs at such a company (could be radio, tv, film studio, whatever) would have the patience to let the show (and it’s audience) develop. Coverville’s almost 5 years old now – the first episode was in September of 2004 – and I’m not sure how early in the process the audience began to reach the levels an ROI focused company would require.

Would they be willing to let the host be so authentic and personal? Involving his wife and son in the show, doing the trivia bits live, and being willing to totally flub an answer (though of course he generally does quite well)?

If they would, maybe we’d stop hearing about how people online won’t pay for content . . .

Returns to favor among publishers, that is. Will readers accept new paywalls, or simply go elsewhere? Will micropayments finally become a cost-effective option users adopt, or just a costly distraction? What about freemium models, in which base content remains free but other rewards are used to entice what amount to donations?

Please Pay Here (Photo by Mykl Roventine, cc-by license, click through for details)

According to Editor & Publisher (reporting based on an aritcle in Financial Times, which ironically you may or may not be able to read depending on your rank in FT’s metered access system), the Wall Street Journal plans to begin testing the micropayments approach this fall:

They call it “a milestone in the news industry’s race” to find better online business models.

“A sophisticated micro-payments service” will launch this autumn, Robert Thomson, editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of the Journal, told the Financial Times.

What kind of pricing will the micro-payments support? Financial Times reported:

Pricing for individual articles and for premium subscriptions had yet to be decided, [Thomson] said, but would be “rightfully high”.

Wouldn’t that make them not micro-payments? Not exactly macro-payments, which might be a good term for the $100+ regular Wall Street Journal subscription, but just plain old payments?

Pay What You WIsh (Photo by Delwen L., cc-by-nc, click through for details)

Meanwhile, at the New York Times, Valleywag reports based on the Twitter streams of two attendees to a strategy meeting that the model will not be micropayments:

Apparently the NYT does not want to have its standard content be paid per se, because they feel that it would hurt online ad revenue too much. The paid online plan that’s being floated sounds instead like some sort of backdoor way to get revenue out of those readers who love the NYT so much that they’d be happy to donate money to it. So—and all of this is still in the planning stages, it seems—the idea would be to keep access to the current content free, then devise some sort of program offering superlatives or rewards to people who want to pay to be “members.” Keep ad revenue high and add additional revenue streams, rather than gate content and risk seeing traffic plummet.

Yes, the irony of citing a Gawker media article, which is itself based on twitter streams, in a piece about the future of the New York Times is not lost on me. I love twitter as much as everyone else (see @jeckman) but it does feel strangely postmodern to try to divine the strategy of the Old Gray Lady from a tweet like this one:

What wud premium members want? Free stuff and discounts? Access to ppl? Trying to fig that out.

That said, the transparency that Twitter provided in this case is an interesting improvement over the carefully edited, on-message press release that must eventually result from the brainstorming in that room.

My own twitter response?:

@michaelluo Want: more access to ppl. More good content. Do not want: macro-payments or micro-payments. kthxbai #nytimes #premium

(Update: See more info about the WSJ’s plans on paidcontent.org and Jeff Jarvis’ response: Bring it On, Rupert which outlines what Jarvis feels are the negative results likely to occur)