MOAR EPISODES PLZ (Photo: Melinda Sue Gordon/Netflix)

Remember when catching up on a TV show required numerous trips to Blockbuster in a single weekend? Us neither. For years we've been mainlining our television shows entire seasons at a time, thanks to the glories of video streaming. How else would anyone have made it through the dismal nadir of season three of "Lost"? What do you think got Americans addicted to "Downton Abbey"?

So when I sat down to watch the first episode of "House of Cards" on Saturday, as a way of killing laundry time, I didn't expect I'd stretch the show out over the next 13 weeks, like I was watching "Dallas" circa 1982. But I also wasn't planning to find myself awake at 2 a.m. last night, polishing off the last episode and frantically googling "house of cards season 2 please oh please tell me it's coming soon." 

If this Wired poll of its readers is any indication, we’re not alone: 10.6 percent of viewers stopped after the first episode (what, you don't like it when they break the fourth wall?), but a substantial number, 32.4 percent, had already polished off episode 13. Variety estimates a quarter of those who watched the first episode have already powered through the whole season.

But was the show any good? Good question. The chilly vibe makes it ideal viewing for a frigid winter weekend holed up inside your apartment. Kevin Spacey is smugly chummy enough that even his syrupy, fake-as-hell Southern accent is entertaining. A lot of the journalism is B.S. (free food at a newspaper? reporter, please), but “Grey’s Anatomy” isn’t reknowned for its medical accuracy either.

But “House of Cards” doesn’t have to be the most brilliant thing you’ve ever seen. It’s just got to be good enough to keep you clicking, then leave you wanting more, evangelizing to your friends (when you explain why you can't make drinks after all), liking it on Facebook to silence the haters, and waking up late for work.

If I hadn’t crammed the whole show into just 72 hours--roughly the amount of time the Underwoods spend standing around their Restoration Hardware catalog of a home--it might have gotten laughable real quick. Bonus: no snarky recaps to make you question just what their big plan actually is.

More importantly, the show is on par with whatever you'd find on cable. There's no whiff of direct-to-video/YouTube original content about "House of Cards." No budget backdrops, no cheapskate score. In fact, its bona fides are better than a lot of what you'd see trotted out for the upfronts: Netflix got David goddamn Fincher to help make it, and Oscar winner Kevin Spacey heads up a cast where even the B-listers are good. The price tag, all told, was something like $100 million.

And as Tim Wu points out at the New Yorker, that makes all the difference. If Netflix can make the numbers work on cable-quality television, it means we're "across a psychological line":

But this year or next, cable companies will have to accept that they are no longer the gatekeepers for the best content. It means, eventually, that the industry will probably have to embrace the idea of simply carrying the content of others (which was its original business model), and essentially function as what used to be called an “Internet-service provider.”

According to this month's GQ, Netflix ultimately hopes to be making five original series a year. It won't be cheap or easy to pull off, but think of the money you cough up for premium cable, versus the number of shows you actually watch. Paying Netflix and Hulu $10 a month for a regularly-scheduled weekend timesuck starts sound pretty appealing--and that's how the ground beneath the cable business crumbles.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, season one of Homeland isn't going to watch itself.

Soon, he'll be able to hear YOU. (Photo: Fonesea)

When last we checked in on creepy technologies that wholly encroach on your sense of personal privacy, Microsoft had registered a patent that would allow the Kinect to detect how many people are in a room and stop playback on a movie if it sensed more people than the copyright allowed. But a new patent filed by Verizon takes that concept a step further by allowing a set-top box to observe what's going on in your house and serve you ads based on what it hears.

According to the patent, the device will detect "an ambient action performed by a user during the presentation of the media content program" and during the commercial break run ads based on whatever action you're performing. The patent provides the helpful example of the Verizon box detecting that people are "cuddling" and serving up "a commercial for a romantic getaway vacation, a commercial for a contraceptive, a commercial for flowers, a commercial including a trailer for an upcoming romantic comedy movie, etc." Because nothing says romance like one of those awkward Trojan Fire and Ice commercials.

Ars Technica points out that Verizon is far from the first cable provider to patent such technologies; in 2008, Comcast patented a technology that would target programming based on how many people are in a room.

If this is the future, we kind of want off the ride.

(Photo: Maximum PC)

When not pissing off the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Time Warner Cable execs apparently take to their evil lair to devise new schemes to wring every last penny out of their hapless customers. The latest pocket gouger? A monthly modem fee.

The New York Times reports that Time Warner is planning to charge a monthly fee of $3.95 to rent a modem from them. If you want to avoid paying the monthly fee, you can purchase a Time Warner-approved modem for $50-$137. Time Warner will then promise to set the modem up during the Harvest Moon but then not show up until the spring thaw.

The Times predicts that many users won't want to opt to change their plan and purchase their own modem, so the move could be a major cash cow for a company that has fewer Yelp stars than cannibal murderer Jeffrey Dahmer.

To be fair, many Internet companies (like Comcast) charge a modem rental fee, but other Internet companies did not have the gall to offend Sir Patrick Stewart. Might we suggest seeing if your building is eligible for Verizon Fios?

(Photo: Twitter)

Stars, they're just like us! When confronted with the monumental annoyance of having to install Time Warner cable in their apartment, they, too, resort to nihilistic thinking. Thus is the case with Sir Patrick Stewart, famed Shakespearean actor and Star Trek star, who recently moved to Park Slope.

We assume he doesn't live in a building equipped with Verizon Fios, because the actor has signed up for that dreaded, monstrous monopoly Time Warner Cable, notorious for having fewer stars on Yelp than cannibal murderer Jeffrey Dahmer.

Last night, Mr. Stewart tweeted the following lament, which demands to be read aloud in his deep British timber:

So far, over 600 people have retweeted it, so clearly Mr. Stewart's frustration with the cable service has struck a chord. The support arm of Time Warner reached out to Mr. Stewart, but by then it was simply too late:

We like to imagine Mr. Stewart shouting at his computer, "This installation ends here!"

Engaging in a public Twitter spat with one of the city's most hated companies? Congratulations, Mr. Stewart, you're officially a New Yorker.

Update: Apparently Mr. Stewart isn't the only Star Trek star to experience problems with Time Warner:

Update 2: Time Warner has provided Betabeat with the following (pretty amazing) statement:

“Our Care and Social Media teams are fully engaged to make sure he's well tended to. On behalf of the many Trekkers and Sir Patrick Stewart fans across our company, I can assure you, we will make it so.”

Oh, and thanks to the Redditor who made this:

(Photo: Quickmeme)

Mr. Diller

Looks like even big money and a mob-like grip can't keep one New York startup down. A cluster of broadcast companies filed an injunction against online TV startup Aereo back in May, claiming that its very existence threatened their big, bad business.

Today, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan threw out the injunction, siding with Aereo's argument that its business would also be harmed if the injunction went through.

According to Reuters, "Nathan concluded that the so-called 'balance of hardships' did not tip 'decidedly' in the broadcasters' favor."

Broadcast companies like News Corp. and NBC have good reason to be nervous about Aereo. Betabeat saw Aereo demo at a New York Tech Meetup a few months back and we were certainly not the only ones floored--the presentation was greeted with hearty applause.

The power the broadcast companies wield will undoubtedly be one of the biggest hurdles Aereo faces as they continue to iterate. Lucky for them, Barry Diller--who has a background in network television working for Fox--is on their side.

UPDATE:

Aereo emailed the following statement to Betabeat:

“Today’s decision shows that when you are on the right side of the law, you can stand up, fight the Goliath and win,” said Aereo CEO and Founder Chet Kanojia. “This isn’t just a win for Aereo, it’s also a significant win for consumers who are demanding more choice and flexibility in the way they watch television."

Time Warner will even have some options for non-subscribers, though the last thing most of us want is the crushing disappointment of looking for free Wifi and finding a paid service.

Of course, their motives aren't exactly mysterious. Says the Journal:

The roaming partnership comes as the cable industry is seeking to differentiate its offerings from rival phone and satellite companies—and when the entire pay-TV industry is trying to keep up with consumers watching greater amounts of video on mobile devices.

How I Live-Streamed Your Mother

A magical thing happened at IAC's headquarters this morning. A startup called Aereo displayed the most compelling argument for cord-cutting we've heard in awhile. It came in the form of a thumbnail-sized HD antenna. Sign up with Aereo and users get the right to license their own antenna, which are stored in a local warehouse. Then, log on via any web-enabled device (smartphones, iPads, even AppleTV) and ta-da, members can access major networks like CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, CW, and PBS, as well as other local channels. Better yet, you also have the ability store up to 40 hours of programming on their remote DVR.

"No cords or cable required," the company's press release says pointedly. The service is limited to New York City right now, but only costs $12 a month. Throw in a Netflix account, Hulu, and you're probably good to go. Happy Valentine's Day, Dying Cable Industry!

Aereo (formerly called Bamboom Labs) also anounced a $20.5 million series A round led by IAC.

The startup previously raised $4.5 million. Existing investors, including FirstMark Capital, First Round Capital, High Line Venture Partners, Highland Capital Partners and individual investors also participated in the series A. Along with the funding,  IAC chairman and Fox network creator Barry Diller joined Aereo's board.

As Mr. Diller told Media Decoder, Aereo's device represents a significant step in wrenching content from the “closed cable-broadcast-satellite circle.”:

“Anyone will tell you, whether it’s Amazon or Hulu or Apple, that they can’t get enough programming that people want to see to –so to speak, ‘break the chain’ — because all of the programming is controlled within the circle,” Mr. Diller said in a telephone interview.

Aereo founder and CEO Chet Kanojia, formerly of Navic Networks, seems up to the task. In addition to selling Navic to Microsoft in 2008, he also completed "doctoral-level work on the commercial applications of artificial intelligence." (Hmm, perhaps that DVR could use a recommendation engine?)

The company says membership is subject to availability, but beginning March 14th, members will be eligible for a 30-day free trial. For now, it's just working on iOS devices, but Aereo says in the next six weeks "anything that's web-enabled" will work. Please excuse us, we have to go sign up and see whether this new toy actually works in the bowels of Brooklyn.

Can you hear that? The sound of a thousand cords cut.

About a week ago, a GigaOm writer Janko Roettgers stumbled across something big: an integration that would allow anyone who owns a Boxee Box to watch live broadcast TV over the device without having to switch back-and-forth between inputs.

Now, Boxee is finally prepared to speak about the feature. In January, the company will start selling a USB dongle that transforms the antenna on the Boxee Box into a tuner to capture free over-the-air HD TV signals from channels like ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. The dongle is a one-time cost of $49 and the company is currently taking pre-orders.

So that's a little more expensive than your typical digital converter box, which also lets you get free live broadcast TV. But you get some special social juice with Boxee, plus everything in one unit with one remote control.

Betabeat spoke to Boxee founder and CEO Avner Ronen yesterday about why he thinks this could be a tipping point in getting consumers to cut--or at least shave--the cord.

We were talking to David Tisch, one of your angel investors about it, and he thinks it will increase the value to the user exponentially. In an email he called it a “true cable alternative,” when combined with the content that’s already available on Boxee.

The way we see it, for many people, over-the-top video services like Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, VUDU and YouTube are filling a bigger role in the way people consume video. But there’s still a big piece missing. You want to watch local news or a football game or the Oscars or the Olympics or the Presidential address—whatever it is that’s delivered in live broadcast. But if you want to do that today over the Internet, over-the-top is sometimes impossible and other times very hard. So if somebody considers cutting the cord, it will be a big missing piece for him.

Are there people who won’t be appeased with this add-on?

If you live by ESPN and you have to watch every game of the Knicks and the Yankees then, you know, Boxee Live TV would not be sufficient. But if you’re a casual sports fan—you watch the Superbowl and you watch the World Series and you watch the Olympics and you watch the U.S. Open—all of those things are on broadcast. 89 of the top 100 shows—all in broadcast. So there’s a critical mass of content that we believe will provide an alternative to—not 100 percent of households—but we hope we can make something that is attractive to maybe half of the U.S. households.

You consider this a turning point for Boxee?

For us it’s the first time I think that we can talk with users about Boxee as an alternative to cable and being able to answer their most basic questions, which are: Can I watch this game? How do I watch the news? That’s where most people are saying, I don’t think I’m ready yet. If we can get people to make a list of the stuff they watch and then see what’s available for free over the air, and then what’s available for them over-the-top, and then see what’s left on that list and then ask themselves if what’s left is worth $85 a month? I think many people that go through that exercise of making that list come to the conclusion that they are ready to cut the cord.

With a live TV component, do you see yourself going up against Google TV?

No, Google TV has said many times that they don’t see themselves as an alternative to cable, but rather something that compliments cable. If you look at the [Google TV] box and what it does if you want to access live TV, you actually have to connect the cable box. They’re taking a different approach. We think that users just live a different life right now when it comes to the way they watch TV and that cable has lost touch with the way they consume TV. When they sit down to watch something, they don’t just open the TV and start to channel surf. I think that behavior is gone.

So it seems out-of-touch to tether your product to cable?

Like users revolted when they had to pay for 15 songs if they wanted to get two songs—the way music was delivered—I think that the same sentiment is now happening with cable TV. You don’t want to pay $80 a month for hundreds of channels that you don’t really watch. It’s not that you’re not willing to pay for the stuff you want to watch. That’s exactly it. You want to have more control over what you’re paying for.

Do you expect pushback from networks? Have you been in discussions with them?

We’re talking with media companies all the time. I think by now most of them know we’re coming up with Boxee Live TV. On its own, it’s not something new. Broadcast TV has been around before cable TV was there. It’s kind of a forgotten history. People don’t know that they can get this stuff on the air and they can get it on HD and for free. We’d like to remind people that it exists. The media companies, definitely those that own those broadcast channels and cable channels, they’ve been working really hard to generate dual revenue streams. Both advertising and subscription.

So it won’t be the Hulu scenario, where it shut itself off from Boxee. They can’t make it so that the dongle won’t work?

No, they’re required by law to make it available.

Where do see the networks finding additional revenue?

There’s an opportunity media companies have beyond the advertising revenue to start generating new types of subscription services, which I think that the initial phase of it you can see with Glenn Beck doing his own subscription show and Louis C.K. doing a pay-per-view event. Those are shows and content that’s more on the margins. When you talk about 89 of the top 100 shows that are broadcast, you have to imagine that if media companies would start offering premium services around that content that there’s gonna be some traction for it with consumers. If you look at over-the-top, that’s not an environment where people are not paying. Between iTunes and Xbox Live and PS3 and services such as Boxee all of whom have credit cards on file and can make a very quick decision to purchase one time payment or a subscription. The users dissatisfaction is not with content, it’s with the cable companies.

That’s why it makes sense for Boxee to separate working with the broadcast networks versus the cable companies, who are going to fight this until they die. But how do you know the tuner will work?

We tested it in different places. During December we’re going to get it into the hands of early users as well. So we’ll get feedback from consumers. We’re very optimistic. If you don’t have a great reception where you live, you can actually call your cable company and ask for what’s called basic cable. It’s the unencrypted channels—CBS, Fox, NBC, the same channels—you can get them over the coaxial cable and connect that to the Boxee Live TV tuner, so we support that as well. It may be a bit difficult for the consumer, because you’ll get pushed to buy a higher tier package or get some sort of bundle. They don’t really advertise that you can get those channels for a low fee.  You can shave the cord rather than cut the cord.

Have you envisioned something like this for awhile?

Yeah, it’s been in the works since the beginning of the year. I cut the cord—stopped paying for cable—about five years ago. That’s what actually prompted me to start Boxee, was when I decided I’m not watching cable enough to justify paying for it. Three years ago, I started playing with different antennae and that has been my set up at home for awhile. I’m using Boxee for over-the-top. I have a 7-year-old kid and we watch football together and we watch tennis together and we do it over the antenna. But we had to switch inputs every time we did it. That just didn’t make sense. That’s what pushed us to bring those two together. Even for myself, the first time I didn’t have to switch inputs, it immediately made a big difference.

What about social features with the Live TV add-on?

We’re adding a little Boxee-ness to it. You’ll be able to see how many people are watching a channel right now. And you’ll be able to see if your friends are watching a show right now. We’ll do more of that. We’ll integrate social and we’ll integrate additional data to enhance the viewing experience.

Can you use it like TV and store something from network TV?

Not in the initial release. The driver for us was live broadcast. We were watching stuff on Netflix and VUDU and Hulu. But if we hear the feedback from users that they really want us to do DVR, we have another USB port, people are using it to connect storage space already, I guess we can do a software upgrade and enable them to record.

What did you make of Logitech talking about the money they had lost with Google TV? Do you think set back web TV?

At this time, it’s not gonna be a big revelation that the initial version of Google TV did not live up to either their expectation, or more importantly user expectations. It’s a tough problem to solve for the consumer. Logitech made a bet on Google and took a big financial risk in terms of manufacturing, inventory, and then a big advertising campaign around it. A very big presence in retail stores trying to explain Google TV to consumers that are walking into the stores. But all that effort eventually didn’t pan out, obviously. There was no viral effect. Same goes for Apple TV, by the way, the initial version didn’t do extremely well, even though it’s Apple. Second generation Boxee is doing, I think, much better and is more attractively priced.

I think we’re all still working at it and solving the problem for the user and trying to find the right mix in terms of features and simplicity and price point and content. I don’t think anybody has completely nailed it. Until now.

You think explaining this to people is the biggest barrier?

I think as an industry we need to a better job simplifying the product. The cable TV experience is not broken. They love the content. They may be upset with how much they pay compared with how much they watch. This is something we’re trying to address, but the experience for many people works. To be able to turn on the TV, to watch something, record something, that works. So for you to come and replace it, you have to come up with something that provides the users with the content and then the experience is still, I think, a challenge for us all.

Some of the luxurious accomodations at Google's CoHo

In the parlance of the data-center crowd, 111 Eighth Avenue is New York's premier "CoHo", or "Carrier Hotel".

The building's enormous size and position directly over an important fiber optic line make it one of the "world's choicest pieces of Internet real estate."

Wall Street caught on to this early, moving electronic trading units in back in 2001 to gain millisecond speed advantages in high-frequency trading.

But with the major exchanges transfering their computers out to Jersey, the building is more attractive to Internet firms like Google, which want fast net access, not proximity to NYSE servers.

Google will certainly be adding humans to the building as well — probably sales and marketing staff — as they go head to head in the booming business for local ads with firms like Facebook and Groupon. But don't be surprised to see more floors of this massive property dedicated to data centers.

bpopper [at] observer.com | @benpopper