Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[linuxguy]

I read the thread about the cancellation of Netflix' public API.  Will netflix and other streaming services (Amazon, Vudu, etc) be available in theatre mode in future versions?   Which services are planned?   Will the services be available directly accessing provider API's or is there a plan to integrate with other devices like Roku? 

I really like the idea of using jriver to provide video (streaming, ota dvr, movies), audio, and photos, but need to know the plan for streaming video.  If streaming services aren't in the plan, I'll break video off and try Tablo and Roku.

[CubicZirconia]

I think the recent net neutrality ruling should be used to force stream content providers to deliver  and maintain public API for use by 3rd party software developers for free or a nominal fee. As it is now, netflix and companies like it have monopoly over how the content is delivered and their PAID subscribers do not have the freedom to choose how to play back the content.

this will lead to seamless and robust integration of netflix, hulu, youtube into jriver, xbmc and other media center software.

This should be very similar to the way that FCC requires all cable companies to provide users with cable cards so one can receive paid cable programs without having to use the cable box the companies use. It is only through this that we can enjoy high quality live TV and DVR through JRiver and HD Homerun.

[glynor]

As it is now, netflix and companies like it have monopoly over how the content is delivered and their PAID subscribers

That's not a monopoly.  That's called a business.

A monopoly is when you can't choose another competing provider.  In this case, there are a ton of competing providers (you even stated as much in your post).  You might not like the services they provide, but the best thing for consumers to do here is to vote with their wallets (and tell the providers why).

That's quite a different situation than Internet service, at least in the US.  In my area, we really only have one decent choice: Time Warner.  They can do whatever they want, because what are you going to do?  You can quit and get cruddy DSL that can barely manage 2mbps down, and they know it.  No one else can come in and start up their own ISP to compete with Time Warner because Time Warner owns the lines to your house, and the right-of-way down your street.  So, to build a competing network, you'd have to do everything all over again.  And, of course, Time Warner has a 30 year head start (and who is going to switch since Time Warner works, even if they stink in almost every conceivable way).

Net Neutrality is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what you suggested.  It is about ensuring that all service providers like Netflix, Google, JRiver, and your web service you built yourself all have equal access to Internet customers to whom they can offer their services.  Preventing Time Warner, who does have a monopoly of a sort, from forcing Netflix to pay them to access their customers (when Netflix already pays for their own network connections and bandwidth).

Even this isn't really about protecting Netflix and Google, whom could certainly afford the fees.  It is about protecting JRiver and the service you (or someone like you) builds in the future.  It is about protecting the next Netflix.

[CubicZirconia]

I did not express any view about how ISPs should and should not behave.

In reply to the original post about the unavailability of reliable APIs, I was just saying that now there might be legal or regulational leverage to demand content providers to supply APIs. So far as I understand they have been very haphazard about it. They ll change the protocol without notice, breaking 3rd party applications for months at a time.

I use the analogy that the FCC requires cable companies to supply their subscriber with cable cards. so their subscriber can view the programs they subscribe to without being locked into the only (and very often inferior) equipments the cable company rent out. they may not tell you about it, but you can file formal complaint with FCC if you ask for a cable card and they refuse.

Now my view about the net neutrality and the availability of competition in the ISP space is: it sure will NOT help on this front. I have 1 power company, 1 gas company, 1 water company which in fact is a city agency. I do have 2 ISP + dish to choose from. my feeling is entering a municipal as an ISP used to be way easier than entering as a utility. My county actually recently changed the contractor for electricity. you can't imagine how many hearings they held and how many years went by before they made the final decision.

[JimH]

Interesting point.

[CubicZirconia]

and I might add that the standard web player by netflix leaves much to be desired in terms of picture quality. I dream of the day I can watch new episodes in House Of Card through RedOctober HQ.   

[glynor]

I have 1 power company, 1 gas company, 1 water company which in fact is a city agency. I do have 2 ISP + dish to choose from.

Each of which is regulated as a utility and has strict pricing controls, which is why there are public comment periods and the whole thing.

I don't think ISPs should be regulated as utilities, and monopolized by the state, like water and electrical power.  I do think they should be treated as common carriers, like the telephone exchanges are, and forced to unbundle the local loops, so we can get real competition.  This change from the FCC does not go nearly far enough.

We went from, in my lifetime, where long distance charges were so astronomical that you couldn't afford to call places, to where it is essentially free for all calls that most people make.  Because telcos were forced to face competition.  But in almost two decades, we haven't made anywhere near the same progress in Internet service, while the rest of the world has raced ahead.

I think competition in the ISP space is far more important than Net Neutrality regulation, which is at-best a "patch" on a flawed system.  Competition is the only way we will get real choice in content services (well, that and strict controls on the content owners and reform of copyright laws).  Competition works.  Look at broadband deployments in the countries that did treat their ISPs as common carriers in the past 15 year, versus us.  Deregulation failed.  They sucked up ever greater profits, customer service went out the window, and they've coalesced into massive conglomerates that control essentially the entire population and trade territory like politicians gerrymandering districts.

They're an oligopoly, and they're hurting our country's future.

[Awesome Donkey]

If only it was that simple to do. The only conceivable way I can think of to it is by somehow loading Chrome (not Chromium) through MC. Why not Chromium? Because Chromium can't load the required WidevineCDM plugin required for Netflix HTML5 playback - it can't load it even if you copy and paste the plugin files from a Chrome install to a Chromium install. Who knows how long Silverlight Netflix support will be around. My guess it's when Mozilla supports EME (Encrypted Media Extensions) in Firefox.

Mozilla's apparently working on open-source EME for Firefox, but not sure if it'd be any use to other browsers/MC in this case. Honestly, I think Netflix support is becoming a losing battle unless they open the API to more developers.

[glynor]

I did not express any view about how ISPs should and should not behave.

By the way, I know, I brought it up because I think it is the much more important point, and the only real solution to the net neutrality problem.  You don't have to force the ISPs to do anything as the FCC if they force competition.  The only reason they can think about being "non-neutral" is because consumers don't have any other real choice, in all but a handful of markets in the US.

I think this:

I use the analogy that the FCC requires cable companies to supply their subscriber with cable cards. so their subscriber can view the programs they subscribe to without being locked into the only (and very often inferior) equipments the cable company rent out.

Is a perfect example of why this kind of regulation is terrible.  Look at how well CableCard has worked!  It's a horrible system, designed by and for the cable companies, and further used to exclude new entrants to the market.

In other words, you can't offer pay television service in a market unless CableLabs lets you, and you have huge upfront amounts of money to pay for "compliance testing" and "certification".  You can't build systems that use their CableCards unless you invest so much money and effort and the systems they force you to build are customer hostile, that everyone (including companies as small as Microsoft) can't seem to play in the game and gave up.  Why don't we have a million brands of DVRs at every consumer electronics shop, all competing for the best features?  CableCard was basically designed to ensure this would never work.

The problem with this is what we need to get what we want is lots of competing service providers, each with good libraries of content, and competing with each other by offering new pricing and features like integration with many different platforms (hopefully, including software like MC).  We need lots of little companies like Netflix all competing to provide the best service. What forcing them to adhere to complex regulations and a government mandated "API" minimum bar would do?

It would ensure that only Apple, Google, and Netflix get to play in the game, and they can do everything in their power to subvert the system and make it cruddy, just like CableCard, so that it eventually fails and no consumers choose it anyway.  We want lower barriers to entry for service providers on the network, not higher ones.

CableCard is a great real-world example of why that idea probably wouldn't work well.