Microsoft video streaming technology over HTTP works just fine and is still fully supported and improved upon, last I checked. It's one of the 4 major implementation of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (Apple HLS, MPEG DASH, Adobe Zeri and Microsoft Smooth/HDS). The Silverlight requirement was there because the client needs logic to switch up (or down) in bitrate depending on network conditions - instead of buffering, hence the "adaptive" part. The specification is open and anybody can implement it. The DRM part is optional, it's not Microsoft (or Apple or MPEG or Adobe or Netflix) fault it exists, it's the movie/show producers.
To make it "HTML5" somebody just needs to make a ABR client that will replace a browser's interpretation of the "video" or whatever tag Netflix uses on web pages. A set-top box doesn't need that, it can just connect over HTTP through a REST service to request the video manifest (the file that contains the URI of video fragments).
These guys have their head so deep up their asses they don't even understand the problem. The problem is that an album shouldn't cost $15 (or a $20 CD) with only a small amount (say, $1) actually going to the band while the rest is pocketed by the label. I realize labels need to market and produce albums, and that's how they justify their huge share of a sell. But when you look at their annual profits, clearly most of the money isn't spent.
The small bands are doing just fine self-producing albums in a home studio and sell them online DRM-free for $5 (while pocketing most of that amount). Sure, the big bands will want an overpriced producer, record in an overpriced studio, and market their albums on huge billboards. But small bands don't need that. I LOVE spending $5 on a small band's album, as an incentive to them. I rarely buy big band albums, except when there are on sale or that there's a huge production and added value (like a making-of or some sort of documentary for instance).
The problem is not pirating. The problem is that music is overpriced, so people pirate it. Or, like me, people don't like, as a principle, spending money when I know that most of it will NOT go to the band. And they also need to remember that every single DRM to date has been defeated. Stop pissing against the wind.
Not doing fracking won't get us the data we need
But what if doing the fracking causes irreversible damage? Maybe we need to make the mistake to realize it's one, but then it might be too late. Some countries apply the "Principle of precaution", that is, "if you're not sure of the effects of what you're doing, don't fucking do it."
I won't have escaped you that the market is less and less regulated because, as the means of growth grow thin, you need to be more "open." Sure, let's make house loans a financial product - then you get the subprimes crisis and people lose their homes AND their retirement money. Pharmaceuticals don't do research on diseases that are not, literally, worth it. The meat sector you mention? Sure, let's shoot the cows with antibiotics and GMO crops. That'll make more meat per cow, better margins. Etc.
The problem with the free market isn't the free market. It's that it makes money the one and only goal, safety, health and logic be damned. I keep trying to make my electrical bill lower, and that's good for the environment, and I actually use less power now than 5 years ago. But I pay more to my electricity provider because they've got to keep that growth up, and by that I mean dividends. It's completely schizophrenic and it's driving me mad.
Sure, the way Russians go about nationalizing companies is not very nice or even subtle. But I wish my government did the same. Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical - shouldn't be on the free market. All that stuff should be publicly owned and the goal shouldn't to be to make money but to provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe