Looks like the guys over at Neowin must have been refreshing the nightly builds like mad (I know I have) but Mozilla has released the final build of Firefox 4.0 for Linux, OS X and Windows today. Boasting a faster rendering speed, an improved UI and so far in my personal usage lesser memory usage, it seems like the next round of browser wars has already started – Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 was released last week and Opera 11.10 was just released a few days ago.

Firefox 4.0 for Windows
Firefox 4.0 for Linux (x86, x64)
Firefox 4.0 for Mac

Mozilla has yet to update their website, but the install so far has been good!

[ Links: Neowin, Mozilla Firefox ]

France was one of the first countries to impose laws that require ISP’s terminate the service of users who repeatedly engage in copyright infringement. Under the rules, the entertainment industry tracks offenders and submits infringement claims to a specifically-created government agency named Hadopi. Hadopi then works with ISPs to obtain personal information and send out warning letters or kick people off the Internet. By October, the industry was already making 25,000 requests per day, a daily total they’d like to see at around 50,000. However, according to the Record Labels, Hadopi isn’t sending out warnings fast enough for their liking, only sending out about 2,000 per day.

Techdirt correctly wonders about any kind of accuracy in the claims process when you’re working at that speed:

Think about how many mistakes are being made when you’re sending 50,000 notices per day. Over the course of about five years, the RIAA apparently sued less than 20,000 people and still made a lot of mistakes. US Copyright Group got a lot of attention for accusing a few thousand people of file sharing particular movies and also appears to have made a lot of mistakes. Yet, here, with Hadopi, the labels are accusing 50,000 people per day, and are upset that Hadopi isn’t just rubber stamping all the notices? It appears that the record labels don’t care at all about what happens if they accuse totally innocent people.

Of course the goal of the record labels with any of these campaigns has never been accuracy or fairness. The goal has long been to generate media coverage and create fear, something that’s easier to do with the government’s help. Of course this is all a rather expensive taxpayer and ISP funded game of whack-a-mole, where non-infringing users can easily get caught up in the wash. Meanwhile, France piracy rates remain stable or growing as people simply move to less-watched alternatives like direct downloads.

Link to the original article…

Last week it was discussed at length how the investment community would like the public to believe that the shift to low cap and high overage broadband pricing is “inevitable.” We also discussed how cable industry lobbyists would like the public to believe that such a shift isn’t about making more money, it’s about helping the poor. Not only is the metered billing push absolutely about making money, it’s about artificially constricting the pipe to protect uncompetitive carriers and TV revenues from Internet video. But instead, there’s a very concerted effort afoot to portray this shift as necessary, inevitable, and even altruistic.

Most consumers prefer the simplicity of flat rate pricing, and understand that ISPs are perfectly profitable under the flat-rate pricing model. They also understand that this is a pipe dream forged by never-satisfied investors, and once implemented ends with ever soaring per gig fees and ever shrinking usage caps.

The PR campaign continues this week, with Hewlett-Packard’s Joe Weinman claiming at GigaOM that not only is such a pricing shift “inevitable,” but that it’s a shift that actually originates with consumers, not investors or ISP executives. Weinman starts out on the wrong foot immediately, by confusing “pay per use” with low cap and high overage pricing models:

For the record, I like unlimited Internet access just as much as anyone else. However, such plans appear to be on their way out, and here s why. As explored in “The Market for Melons”, pay-per-use is not an evil plot by greedy robber barons, but a natural outcome of independent, rational consumer choice. Consider a town with an all-you-can-eat (flat rate) buffet and an a la carte (pay-per-use) restaurant. Smart shoppers on diets will save money by patronizing the a la carte restaurant, whereas heavy eaters will save money by visiting the buffet…. Bottom line: it is not the proprietors driving this dynamic, but the customers themselves acting out of pure, rational self-interest

Except for the thousandth time, ISP’s are not interested in real pay per use plans because the majority of their users (who simply check e-mail a few times a day) would downgrade to $5 tiers and cost carriers billions. What ISPs are proposing is flat-rate pricing with costly per gigabyte overages (completely detached from any real-world costs, which for ISPs are fixed or dropping) layered on top. Meanwhile, the suggestion this is a consumer driven push is absurd. This is an investor driven push for obvious reasons, and you have to wonder if Weinman saw the consumer reaction when Time Warner Cable proposed charging consumers up to $5 per gigabyte then insisted such pricing was for their own good.

Weinmen offers up a second post in which he hallucinates a laundry list of supposed benefits that will occur from this change in pricing paradigm. Most of them revolve around technology platforms designed to aid this monitoring and metering of usage and billing, which we’ll go out on a crazy limb and guess is precisely what Weinman is selling at HP. Unfortunately, Weinman begins his sales pitch just like the cable industry traditionally has by pretending this is an inevitability consumers want, and that such a pricing shift is financially necessary. Neither are true.

Link to the original article…

Verizon today unveiled more detail about their LTE wireless broadband launch, announcing that they’ll be offering the 5-12 Mbps service in 38 markets and 60 airports starting December 5. Most importantly, Verizon finally unveiled their pricing for the new service, which after a year filled with endless hints by executives about wanting to try something new winds up being somewhat underwhelming, traditional, and expensive.

The base pricing for LTE laptop connectivity via USB modem (there will be no smartphones at launch) is significantly more expensive than the 3G pricing they unveiled in October, though the caps are obviously higher. Verizon’s current EVDO USB modem plans come in two flavors: $40 for 250MB of usage and $60 for 5GB of usage. Verizon’s LTE pricing will now be $50 for 5GB of usage, or $80 for 10 GB of usage, with $10 per each additional GB. Sayeth big red:

Verizon Wireless customers can choose from two 4G LTE Mobile Broadband data plans: $50 monthly access for 5 GB monthly allowance or $80 monthly access for 10 GB monthly allowance, both with $10/GB overage. For laptop connectivity, two 4G LTE USB modems will be initially available: the LG VL600 is available at launch and the Pantech UML290 will be available soon, each $99.99 after $50 rebate with a new two-year agreement. Both USB modems provide backward-compatibility with Verizon Wireless’ 3G network. If laptop users travel outside of a 4G LTE coverage area, they will automatically stay connected on the company’s 3G network.

It’s interesting to note there’s not even really an entry level LTE plan (say $25 for a gig of use) after literally dozens of Verizon executive comments claiming usage-based pricing was going to be the future. We’ll assume this pricing may evolve as the company begins offering LTE smartphones, which Verizon today announced will arrive sometime in “mid-2011″. Verizon also again today confirmed these devices will initially use 3G/CDMA for voice until LTE voice standards are hashed out. As an added aside: the service will only support MS Windows based PC’s at launch.

Link to the original article…

With Comcast and NBC’s immense lobbying firepower, there’s virtually no chance their merger will be denied by regulators and while there will be some conditions, recent history suggests the conditions may only give a quick nod to substantive consumer protections. According to the Wall Street Journal however, these conditions will be “significant” focused largely on preventing Comcast from withholding, or threatening to withhold, NBC Universal’s programming from competitors. The Journal also claims that the FCC is considering imposing some kind of network neutrality requirements on Comcast’s network:

The FCC is looking at all parts of Comcast and NBC Universal’s combined online-video distribution chain for ways Comcast could promote content over its rivals. The agency is considering imposing a “net neutrality” condition on Comcast’s Internet network, banning it from deliberately slowing or blocking legal traffic. FCC staff members are meeting twice a week with commission Chairman Julius Genachowski about the deal and have set an internal deadline of circulating proposed conditions by mid-December, according to a person familiar with the review.

Given the contentiousness of network neutrality and the FCC’s seeming unwillingness to seriously tackle this issue, any neutrality language will likely be very vague and focused on simple transparency if it even survives the final cut at the FCC. According to the Journal, final DOJ approval could come within weeks, though Comcast is apparently kicking back at any proposed conditions that would cover Internet video.

Link to the original article…

As we mentioned in March, Harbinger Capital Partners is building a new nationwide LTE network dubbed “Lightsquared” using spectrum owned a satellite subsidiary by the name of SkyTerra. Leaked launch information indicates that the company should have 20 markets live by 2012. While they may not have built any cell cites yet the company this week announced that they’ve launched their SkyTerra 1 satellite, which will provide the satellite half of their network build equation.

According to the company, the new bird is one of the largest ever built:

The satellite, a Boeing 702HP built by Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems, is designed to provide wireless mobile services to millions of subscribers. LightSquared’s SkyTerra 1 satellite features a 22-meter L-band reflector-based antenna the largest commercial antenna reflector to be put into service. The satellite, among the most powerful commercial satellites ever built, will provide ubiquitous nationwide coverage and enable integrated satellite-terrestrial service using products that are similar to today s typical mobile devices in terms of size, capabilities and build costs.

Lightsquared plans to sell wholesale access to their LTE network, which will use this new satellite for rural coverage and emergency communication services. The LTE portion of the network will cost about $7 billion and will be built by Nokia. On the more terrestrial news front, it was revealed this week that Harbinger is being investigated by the SEC for a $113 million loan taken out by Harbinger founder Philip Falcone to pay personal taxes and potential “preferential treatment” of certain investors.

Link to the original article…

Clearwire’s third quarter earnings were very positive in the sense that the company added a whopping 1.23 million new subscribers during the quarter. On the other hand, cash continues to be a concern as the company continues deployment and preps Mobile WiMax launches in Los Angeles and San Francisco starting in December.

The company posted operating losses of about $540 million during the third quarter and Clearwire CEO Bill Morrow means that this is going to result in some operational streamlining:

While we continue to exceed our subscriber and operational goals, we have not yet secured future funding and prudence dictates that we take appropriate cash conservation steps to reduce costs. We continue to pursue all options for future funding including debt, equity or a potential sale of excess spectrum or other assets, and we remain cautiously optimistic that we will resolve our short-term funding needs in the near future. We continue to believe that our unmatched spectrum portfolio and our all-IP based network will keep us extremely well positioned in the dynamic and burgeoning market for mobile data.”

Clearwire says they’re going to cut back sales and marketing spending, delay commercial Mobile WiMax launches in Denver and Miami, and reduce their workforce by about 15%. Clearwire insists these efforts should reduce costs by $100 million to $200 million this year and the same amount during the first half of 2011. Despite some very deep pocketed sugar daddies (like Comcast and Intel), questions have long lingered about Clearwire’s financial ability to get their network completed. Stacey Higginbotham at GigaOM notes that Clearwire is $2 billion in debt, with several checks coming due soon.

Link to the original article…

Back in June Hulu announced Hulu Plus, a $10 a month broadband video subscription service that is supposed to allow users to access entire back catalogs of TV shows above and beyond what’s available on free Hulu, albeit still with commercials. In August, a scathing study showed that the service really wasn’t worth much with 88% of the content already available for free via normal Hulu.

After significant criticism, Hulu is now considering reducing Hulu Plus to $5 a month according to Peter Kafka at AllThingsD:

Hulu is considering cutting the price of Hulu Plus, the subscription service it began testing in June, sources tell me. I’m told the video site is talking about slashing its $9.95 per-month fee in half, to $4.95… a price cut would indicate that consumers haven’t bought in to the pitch. That shouldn’t be a shock, considering the other video options that consumers have, and the limits that Hulu’s content providers have placed on the service.

As we noted earlier this week, Hulu’s made it very clear they don’t want to truly disrupt and reach their full Internet video potential for fear of upsetting their broadcast owners and that’s before they become part of an even larger Comcast media empire. Like other recent decisions, charging and paywalling first and considering whether you’re offering real value later falls right in line with typical broadcast/cable thinking.

It’s not clear if $5 a month would be any more compelling, though if you act now, Hulu will buckle to the most ridiculous demands of broadcasters at no additional cost.

Link to the original article…

Just got an update for your Zune software, didn’t see much of what it did? Neither did I until I started snooping around and found the above “Do More On The Web” option on the device portion of the options. It doesn’t do much more than state “This Feature Works Only With Windows Phone 7″ at the moment… and I’ve not one clue what else has been added.

[ Links: Microsoft, Zune, Windows Phone 7 ]

After the Verizon data overcharge, how AT&T is still the only place you can get an Apple iPhone without having to do something illegal, among other complaints, observations and gripes with cellphone carriers in the United States they all suck in one way or another, it seems like U.S. Cellular is trying to reverse that with their recently unveiled “The Belief Project”…

Some highlights of The Belief Project:

• We’re the first carrier to eliminate the need for post-pay customers to continuously sign contracts. With the new “One and Done” contract policy, new customers who fulfill an initial two-year commitment with U.S. Cellular never have to sign a contract again.
• Loyal customers have become accustomed to new customers getting the best deals. At U.S. Cellular, all of our post-pay customers can earn Belief Points simply for being a customer. The points can be redeemed for things they actually want: phone upgrades, additional lines, accessories, ringtones and forgiveness of overage charges.
• Customers are automatically enrolled and start receiving points when they sign up for any U.S. Cellular Belief Plan. There are no fees, blackout dates or expiration, and points are easy to redeem in-store, online or by calling customer service. Belief Points are earned based on a customer’s monthly plan, the number of lines on the account, and how long they’ve been a customer.

As you can see, we believe we are differentiating ourselves in an industry with little differentiation amongst customers.

With reward points being given to users that actively decide, not being forced to stay due to contracts or other incentives that actually cost people more than just outright buying an unlocked phone – number portability does not equate to freedom – this sounds like a seriously great step in the right direction.

Way to go U.S. Cellular. Let’s hope that other companies take note and try to actually reward their customers instead of making them feel like they’re locked into a contract that serves only the company and not the person. Take a look around and see if you’re in their coverage areas.

[ Links: The Belief Project ]

As part of their franchise agreement with New York City, Verizon was required to deploy FiOS services to every home in New York City by 2014 though the agreement allows Verizon lawyers to wiggle over, under and around those obligations should Verizon not see the kind of service uptake they’d like. According to Verizon, they’ve now passed about 1.8 million homes and businesses, or 58% of the roughly 3.1 million households in New York City.

Verizon says they’re ahead of their agreement to pass 54% of NYC premises by the end of this year. Of course while Verizon is moving forward with FiOS deployment in several cities where they’ve signed franchise agreements, they’ve frozen overall FiOS expansion elsewhere.

Link to the original article…

As noted the other day, Charter Communications has decided to add a new $1 “Broadcast TV Surcharge” to user bills, in order to offset the cost of network affiliates demanding higher carriage rates. Despite being simply the cost of doing business, the company is tacking the fee below the line to keep the advertised rate the same.

Worse perhaps, Charter tells Stop The Cap that “Charter Price Guarantee” and contract customers (who are supposed to have their rates locked) will also see the hike:

A Charter representative we contacted claimed the company will impose the fee on all customers, including those on contract, because of a clause in the terms and conditions which says, “The guaranteed price does not include the cost of installation and equipment, any applicable franchise fees, taxes or late fees, or costs for other ancillary services that you may order.”

Except one user e-mails us their latest bill with a notification of the new fee, and it claims contract customers and price guarantee customers won’t be impacted at least until their contract is up. We’ve reached out to Charter to clear this up but have a feeling Charter misspoke, given that promising customers a fixed rate then imposing a rate hike disguised as a below the line fee would be valuable fodder for class action attorneys.

Burying the cost of business in below the line fees so they can jack up consumer bills (but leave advertised rates the same) is bad enough.

Link to the original article…