Some new developments in the ongoing transition from “free” to “fee” in the e-publishing world. After sending mixed signals back in February, The New York Times clarified its position on whether blog-originated article views will count toward a user’s quota under the paper’s eventual metered access system (due to debut next January). The verdict: The articles will count toward the quota, but in a sense it won’t matter because users will still have free access to articles referred by third parties – even after the limit is exceeded. That will come as good news to the thousands of bloggers and consumers who send and receive links to NYT articles.

A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 80% of the articles that bloggers link came from four news outlets: BBC News, CNN.com, The New York Times and The Washington Post. The absence of The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times from this list strongly suggests that those organizations’ longstanding pay walls have deterred blog referrals.

And speaking of pay walls, the WSJ’s parent company, News Corp., is taking an even harder line with its UK properties The Times and The Sunday Times. News Corp. is about to unveil a pay structure for those outlets that will see them disappear entirely from Google and other search engines (except for legacy content that’s already archived in those sites’ databases). The Times and Sunday Times won’t even publish headlines or paragraphs on the free side of the pay wall, as the WSJ has done for years. If I were a poet I’d say The Times’ content will be AWOL outside the pay wall (I’m obviously not a poet).

I wish News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch good luck on this one. I’d be willing to bet a week’s worth of online access to The Times and Sunday Times that News Corp. will eventually soften its stance for those papers and implement something closer to the WSJ model. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the struggling industry’s new monetization plans will have a negative impact Web traffic, which continues to grow on major newspaper sites. For now.

Comcast has spent much of the past two years maneuvering against Hulu. In January 2008, the cable giant pre-empted Hulu’s long-rumored debut by launching its own free, ad-supported online TV venture, Fancast. This year, Comcast and Time Warner partnered for a service they call TV Everywhere, which essentially means free online video content for current subscribers to either company’s cable package.

Now comes news of Comcast’s imminent purchase of 51% of NBC Universal, which is a 30% stakeholder in Hulu. This begs the question: What impact will the Comcast-NBCU deal have on Hulu?

Some bloggers have theorized that Comcast will try to kill Hulu. Read my lips: it won’t happen.

Comcast knows a good brand when it sees one, and Hulu has carved out a comfortable space as the go-to destination for online TV content (much as YouTube has dominated the user-generated video space pretty much since its inception). According to comScore, Hulu ranked second among US online video properties by videos viewed in October. The site was also in the top 10 as ranked by unique viewers. Not bad for a relatively new site. Fancast, by contrast, doesn’t show up on any credible lists of top video destinations.

It’s in Comcast’s best interest to nurture and shape the Hulu brand rather than abandon it and push a nonstarter (Fancast) in people’s faces.

It should also be noted that Comcast will have only a minority stake in Hulu. The other partners in the venture–News Corp. and Disney–will flex their muscle in any decision over what happens to the site. GE, which will still own 49% of NBC, won’t be muzzled, either.

That said, it’s likely that Comcast will nudge Hulu further in the direction it is already leaning: toward a paid-video experiment that will likely involve a portion of the content on the site.

News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch has been a strong proponent of paid models for his other online properties (notably the Wall Street Journal), and he and other Hulu principals have made noise about tinkering with transactional monetization on the popular video site. Having Comcast whisper over his shoulder will only embolden Murdoch to pull the trigger on this plan.

Look for 2010 to be the year when Hulu and YouTube start charging for some of the content they’ve been offering for free. Apple, too, is rumored to be shopping a TV subscription service that would carry premium content for $30 per month to the consumer.

How will consumers react to these experiments? Unless it’s ultra-premium content (live broadcasts of top-rated shows or feature films) consumers are likely to revolt against any plan that charges them for something they have been getting for free.

Update: Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and COO Steve Burke briefly discussed what the deal will mean for Hulu after the sale was officially announced this morning. From The Wall Street Journal:

“We see, with more distributors and more technologies, what consumers want. We want to be part of delivering to them,” Mr. Roberts said. “The reality is consumers want electronic distribution. Some of it, they want it for free. Some of it, they want it in subscription, and some of it, they want it pay-per-view.”

He said there are no plans to alter Hulu’s free model. “That is certainly not in the cards,” he said when an analyst asked if a “Hulu Premium” is a possibility.

Mr. Burke called Hulu and TV Everywhere — Comcast and Time Warner’s online-video initiative — complementary products, with broadcast TV shows appearing on Hulu and premium cable programs on TV Everywhere.

“Right now, NBC Universal is distributing a lot of their broadcast content on Hulu, and they have been quite careful not to put too much of their paid-for-cable content out for free over the Internet. We think both those strategies are smart and appropriate — not that they asked us,” he said. “I think right now, the way NBC Universal are managing those two ways of distributing are very similar to the way we would want to do it when the two companies come together.”

There you have it. Now let’s see if it turns out to be true.