FT Launches HTML5 Web App (Free Access First Week)

The Financial Times has launched a HTML5 Web app that enables readers to access content across tablets and smartphones. In a thinly veiled jab at Apple, Financial Times CEO John Ridding comments:

FT Launches HTML5 Web App (Free Access First Week)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DTWB/~3/RDFbeuCsPnE/

FT Bypasses Apple’s iTunes, Launches HTML5 Web App (Free Access First Week)

The Financial Times would rather not have Apple take a 30 percent cut of in-app subscriptions for its iOS publications, and has launched a HTML5 Web app that enables readers to access content across tablets and smartphones. As part of the Web app's debut, FT will provide free access during launch week. FT acknowledges that the Web app has been initially optimized for the iPhone and the iPad, but says it will also be adapted for Android-based devices and the BlackBerry PlayBook.

FT Bypasses Apple’s iTunes, Launches HTML5 Web App (Free Access First Week)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/BCruuJOJ770/

Google Lat Long Blog: Better access to your content is, well, better

(Cross-posted from the Google Places Blog.)



Google Places makes it quick and easy for you to tell your friends, and the world, what you think about the places you visit.

lue lisää

Google Lat Long Blog: Better access to your content is, well, better

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/SbSV/~3/B1HQrP5MGng/better-access-to-your-content-is-well.html

The PlayBook Might Get Access To Hulu After All (RIMM)

Hulu wasted no time in blocking the PlayBook's Flash-enabled browser from viewing videos on Hulu.com.

While it wasn't a huge surprise, it was a bummer for those of us who got a taste of how awesome Hulu looked on the PlayBook.

Fortunately, RIM sees the importance of Hulu, and is in talks with the company to bring the Hulu Plus app to the PlayBook, WSJ reports.

Hulu Plus costs $7.99 per month, and works on several devices, including the iPhone, iPad, and a few smart TVs. It also gives you access to full seasons of TV shows, not just the five most recent episodes like non-subscribers get on hulu.com.

Don't Miss: Our Review Of The BlackBerry PlayBook

For the latest gadget news, visit Tools. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Verizon: We May Decide To Ditch The BlackBerry PlayBook
• There's A Cool New App For PlayBook: The Power Button!
• That Didn't Take Long: Hulu Blocks The BlackBerry PlayBook

The PlayBook Might Get Access To Hulu After All (RIMM)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/bTAXYtdqVVE/the-playbook-might-get-access-to-hulu-after-all-2011-4

New York Times for Kindle Customers to Receive Free Access to NYTimes.com

Amazon announced that customers who subscribe to The New York Times for Kindle will be receiving access to The New York Times Web site at no additional charge. The date for Kindle New York Times subscribers' free online access is yet undetermined; subscribers will receive further communication via e-mail in the coming weeks.

New York Times for Kindle Customers to Receive Free Access to NYTimes.com

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DTWB/~3/lvVB_KyTjWk/

In Search Of Open Internet Access

Our regular programming, MBA Mondays, is being interrupted this week for a public service announcement.

The net neutrality debate is front and center again. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has announced that he will ask the FCC to adopt rules to protect the open Internet at its open meeting on December 21st. We have not seen these rules. Apparently nobody has outside the FCC. But we have been briefed on them. And we think that with one small tweak they will work well. But without that small tweak, they are problematic. My partner Brad has posted our firm's thoughts on the USV blog.

Back in the 80s and 90s, you could start, build, and invest in cable based services. But in order to get your new company distribution on the cable system, you'd have to go to the cable MSOs and give them free equity in your company for distribution. This mafia style shakedown has not existed on the Internet thank god. And the result is literally millions of web services and trillions of dollars of shareholder value.

That's what this debate is all about. The advent of broadband internet access has resulted in a duopoly in most markets. And the companies that provide you broadband internet access want the ability to "manage their networks." We think it is critically important to set some rules on how they can manage their networks to make sure we don't recreate the cable monopoly on the Internet.

We'd love to have an open and unregulated Internet access market. That will take a lot more competition in the last mile than we have now. We need policies that allow the spectrum and fiber to the home to become available and the capital to get invested in making that happen. Until that happens, we need some rules to keep everyone honest in the Internet acccess market.

The FCC's proposed rules prohibit unreasonable discrimination but don't define what that is. We think they need to go that extra mile so that startups don't end up in expensive lawsuits with monoplies with huge bank accounts.

And we are proposing that the FCC adopts the following language:

A non-discrimination rule that bans all application-specific discrimination (i.e. discrimination based on applications or classes of applications), but allows application-agnostic discrimination.

The logic and reasons behind this approach are laid out in our blog post on the USV blog. If you are interested in this debate, and we think you should be, please go read it.

This post orignally appeared at A VC and is republished with permission.

 

 

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• AT&T On Net Neutrality: Trust Us, We Know What You Want
• CHART OF THE DAY: The REAL Reason Americans Don't Have Broadband – We Don't Want It
• The 10 U.S. Cities With The Fastest Broadband

In Search Of Open Internet Access

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/7dMpYbymsRU/in-search-of-open-internet-access-2010-12

If Net Neutrality Is Coming, So Is The End Of All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access (CMCSA, GOOG, NFLX)

It looks like FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and the lobbyists from Google will get their way: Net neutrality seems surer than ever, for better or for worse*.

But this will likely mean the end of all-you-can-eat Internet access for consumers, and will likely lead to more expensive Internet access, especially for those who watch a lot of online video.

If the FCC Chairman's plans, announced today, are adopted, this means that Internet service providers would not be able to treat some Internet traffic better than other Internet traffic (for a fee, of course), and will have to treat all traffic equally. (With some exceptions, like managing their networks.) That's "net neutrality."

This is generally perceived as good news for Internet companies like Google and Facebook, and not-as-great news for telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. (Though the telecom lobbyists should get a bonus, too, for preventing Genachowski from "reclassifying" broadband services, which would have opened a whole new can of worms for the telcos.)

But because the ISPs won't be able to set up express lanes with toll booths anymore -- not kosher, per net neutrality regulations -- they're going to have to find growth somewhere. And it's going to come directly from your pocket now.

As online video -- via sites like Netflix and Apple's iTunes -- becomes more popular, it's adding more cost to the ISP business, without adding more revenue.

So the ISPs will have to find their revenue growth by getting rid of all-you-can-eat broadband access, which millions of Americans have enjoyed for more than a decade, and by starting to charge Internet users by how much bandwidth they consume.

If it's priced in a way that's not offensive, this seems fair. That's how you pay for electricity, heating and cooking gas, and water, so why shouldn't it be the way you pay for Internet access?

But we get the sense that people just aren't going to like it. Too many people think they should be able to get everything they want on the Internet for free. So it's probably going to get ugly, and it could take a long time to roll out.

But let's face it, it's inevitable: Your all-you-can-eat Internet plan is likely going to be history. And if you watch a lot of Netflix and Hulu online, your Internet bill is probably going to go up substantially.

Just because online video is the future, doesn't mean it's going to be cheap.

* We're still not convinced that net neutrality -- government regulation -- is necessary, or a good idea. More here: Here's What's Missing From All The Net Neutrality Blather: Nothing Bad Is Going To Happen If Net Neutrality Dies

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Comcast Starts The Ball Rolling That Kills All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access
• Here's What's Missing From All The Net Neutrality Blather: Nothing Bad Is Going To Happen If Net Neutrality Dies
• The REAL Issue In Comcast's Dispute With Level 3: It's About Power, Not Money

If Net Neutrality Is Coming, So Is The End Of All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access (CMCSA, GOOG, NFLX)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/c-BQRdhyiu4/if-net-neutrality-is-coming-so-is-the-end-of-all-you-can-eat-internet-access-2010-12

Comcast Starts The Ball Rolling That Kills All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access (CMCST, LVLT, NFLX, AAPL)

Get ready to pay more for all the video you're watching on the Internet: The days of all-you-can-eat Internet access are growing scarce.

That's the REAL reason that Comcast is trying to get Level 3, a telecom company, to pay extra for the Internet video traffic it's pushing onto Comcast's pipes -- which Level 3 is now publicly complaining about.

As web video -- which uses a lot of bandwidth -- grows in popularity, Comcast will want to get paid more. Especially because web video is eventually going to replace a lot of the video you're currently watching on cable TV, and that you're paying Comcast a fat monthly bill for.

As more people replace part or all of their cable subscription with Internet video, Comcast is going to need to get its money somewhere, whether it's directly from consumers, or via a middle man, like Level 3.

Perhaps Comcast is first trying to make Internet video more expensive for Level 3 (and its customers like Netflix) to deliver, by charging more for bandwidth on the back end.

This would make business more expensive for streaming services like Netflix and iTunes, who may then have to charge consumers more for their video services. That would be extra sweet for Comcast -- more money, and weaker competition from iTunes and Netflix.

But if that doesn't work, because of either market or regulatory forces, Comcast may have to go after its own cable modem customers next to get that extra revenue. And that may mean an Internet bill that's much more than $45 per month.

Either way, don't expect this issue to go away -- and don't expect your all-in entertainment bill to go down.

Just because Internet video is the future, doesn't mean it's going to be cheap.

By the way, we'll be talking about this issue at IGNITION, our conference later this week about the future of media. If you haven't bought a ticket yet, what are you waiting for?

See Also: Why I Caved, Bought Cable TV, And Gave Up On My "Hulu Household"

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Comcast Shakes Down Internet Provider For Video Delivery
• Why I Caved, Bought Cable TV, And Gave Up On My 'Hulu Household'
• Sorry, There's No Way To Save The TV Business

Comcast Starts The Ball Rolling That Kills All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access (CMCST, LVLT, NFLX, AAPL)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/A1XVzq9yAfU/comcast-internet-access-2010-11