Question: How much difference is there between Comcast offering its TV Everywhere service to its own multichannel video subscribers in its geographical footprint, who have chosen to get their broadband Internet service from another company (e.g. Verizon, AT&T, etc) vs. Comcast offering TV Everywhere services to consumers who similarly get their broadband Internet service from one of these companies (or another cable operator), but happen to also get their multichannel video service from another company (e.g. another cable operator operating in a non-Comcast geographical area)?

If you answered "not that much," then you'll likely have the same reaction that I did upon reading last week's Light Reading article, "Comcast to Expand 'Xfinity' to DSL Subs," which describes Comcast's plan to offer its Fancast Xfinity TV (which I call FXTV) TV Everywhere service to those of its video subscribers who use DSL or some other method to connect to the Internet instead of Comcast's own broadband service by the second or third quarter of 2010.

(As quick background, in December, Comcast launched the beta of its FXTV service, but it's only been available to homes that subscribe to both broadband and video, which is about 14 million out of the 24 million who subscribe to Comcast's video service. Of that 10 million difference, using the 70% national broadband penetration rate, I'd estimate there are about 3 million of Comcast's multichannel video subscribers who use Verizon, AT&T or someone else for their broadband access.)

When I read the article, my reaction was: if Comcast is going to target this group of users, wouldn't the next logical step in FXTV's rollout be to offer it to non-Comcast video subscribers? This is the concept I suggested back in September in, "How TV Everywhere Could Turn Cable Operators and Telcos Into Over-the-Top's Biggest Players." In that post I argued that with sizable revenue per subscriber gains largely behind it, Comcast' big growth opportunity is to expand into other cable operators' territories, by offering FXTV as a TV Everywhere 2.0 over-the-top service in those areas.

To be sure, I noted that this type of move would be a serious breach of protocol in the insular cable industry, and with today's incomplete FXTV offering it wouldn't be viable competitively just yet anyway. But given nationally-oriented competitors like DirecTV, DISH Network and newer OTT alternatives like Netflix mobilizing, it seems logical that somewhere down the road, Comcast, whose geographical reach today only encompasses about 25% of American homes, will have to go national to stay even.

When Comcast's executives have been asked about the possibility of FXTV as an OTT service they have denied any intentions. With their hands full making sure FXTV is working properly for its current subscribers, that's probably the case, at least for now. Plus, with the NBCU deal facing regulatory scrutiny and the net neutrality debate heating up again, Comcast certainly isn't going to hint at anything that would further expand its dominance. But still, given competitive issues, will limiting FXTV access to its own multichannel video subscribers remain the case? It will be interesting to see if and when this changes.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).