A machine-like new medium - theoretical examination of interactive TV

http://mcs.sagepub.com/Media, Culture & Society

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/24/2/217The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/016344370202400204

2002 24: 217Media Culture SocietyPyungho Kim and Harmeet Sawhney

A machine-like new medium - theoretical examination of interactive TV

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Media, Culture & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://mcs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/24/2/217.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 1, 2002Version of Record >>

at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 26, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 26, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://mcs.sagepub.com/

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/24/2/217

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://mcs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/24/2/217.refs.html

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/24/2/217.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



A machine-like new medium – theoreticalexamination of interactive TV

Pyungho KimSOGANG UNIVERSITY, KOREA

Harmeet SawhneyINDIANA UNIVERSITY

Introduction

Despite the persistence of the ‘vision’ over three decades, interactivetelevision (TV) is under-studied in many respects. A large number ofarticles about interactive TV have been published since the 1970s in thepopular press and trade and academic journals. Nonetheless, these articlesare in general confined to interactive TV’s business, commercial andtechnical dimensions. Furthermore, they frame interactive TV mainly interms of its ‘failure vs success’ or ‘reality vs hype’. So far, in-depth criticalstudies on interactive TV have been rare (Bryant and Love, 1996; Kim,1999). In light of this conceptual poverty, this article examines the meaningof interactivity or interactive communication and the theoretical issuesrelated to interactive TV.

There is no widespread agreement on the definition of interactive TV(Carey, 1997; Durlak, 1987; Rada, 1995; Rafaeli, 1988; Steur, 1995). Fromthe 1970s to the mid 1990s, telecommunications firms in the USAdeveloped interactive TV to offer audience feedback, electronic transac-tions (e.g. home banking), video-on-demand (VOD), telephony and in-formation retrieval services. Towards the end of the 1990s, they began toincorporate Web access into their interactive TV systems (Booth, 1999;Haley, 1999). But interactive TV is not solely a US phenomenon. Back inthe 1970s and 1980s, there were two major interactive TV projects in Japanand France (Dutton et al., 1987). In the early 1990s, Canada and many

Media, Culture & Society © 2002 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaksand New Delhi), Vol. 24: 217–233[0163-4437(200203)24:2;217–233;022450]

at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 26, 2014mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http:\\www.sagepublications.com


European countries such as the UK, Germany, Sweden, France and Italy,experimented with limited versions of interactive TV centered on video-on-demand (Carey, 1997). Even today, many interactive TV trials similar tothose in the USA are currently under way in Europe (Goldman, 1999;Kavanagh, 2000).

The variations among different interactive TV projects make it difficultto define a prototypical interactive TV system. In general, however,interactive TV has been presented and understood in two ways: ‘InteractiveTV writ small’ and ‘Interactive TV writ large’. While the former indicatesa micro-level understanding of interactive TV, the latter indicates a macro-level one.

‘Interactive TV writ small’ frames interactive TV in terms of technolo-gies, media projects, markets and regulations. On the other hand, ‘Inter-active TV writ large’ understands interactive TV as one particular model oforganizing information and communication technologies (ICTs) withintheir broader historical context. From the micro-perspective, interactive TVis a medium utilizing TV as an information and communication platform thatprovides broadcasting channels, VOD, home communication services suchas telephony, home-shopping and banking, information retrieval services,interaction between the users, and so on. From the macro-perspective, inter-active TV represents the physical manifestation of a vision to build acomprehensive domestic communication system for the high-tech home ofthe future (Booth, 1999; Hurley, 1978; Martino, 1979; Thomas, 1998). Thiselectronic vision of the future looks beyond technological potentials andeconomic possibilities of the medium to a different socio-cultural forma-tion.

In short, interactive TV is a variant of television. However, it is far morethan conventional TV. It is a seed-version of a comprehensive homecommunication system designed and propagated by telecommunicationsindustries. In many ways, interactive TV can be considered a corporateresponse to ‘telecom convergence’, a new conceptual paradigm ushered inby the development of digital technologies.

We begin our theoretical discussion of interactive TV with the conceptof interactivity. Thereafter we discuss the incorporation of interactivity intothe TV model and examine the technical structure of interactive TVnetworks. Finally, we analyze the cultural and ideological character ofinteractive TV.

The concept of interactivity

At the most fundamental level, as Duncan (1989) points out, the ultimateform of interactivity or interactive communication is face-to-face dialogue.Bretz (1983) and Rafaeli (1988) agree that the ideal type of interactivity is

218 Media, Culture & Society 24(2)



face-to-face communication. Pearce states, ‘interactivity is at least as old ashuman communication’ (Pearce, 1997: xix). But the meaning of inter-activity or interactive communication becomes complicated when it isincorporated in media technologies. Not only is its definitional range wide,but also the context of interactivity varies with media characteristics.Newhagen et al. write that ‘looking for interactivity in communication canbe treacherous, because, however widely used the term might be, it israrely clearly conceptualized’ (1995: 165).

One of the main reasons why interactivity is rarely clearly con-ceptualized is that media technologies have historically been structuredalong a one-way transmission model (e.g. broadcasting, newspaper, andother mass media). The traditional mass communications systems do notallow ‘a timely and functional feedback circuit’ (Newhagen et al., 1995:166). Thus interactive communication had until recently received scarceattention in communication studies. Nonetheless, feedback via letters to theeditor, call-in talk shows and other types of audience participationprograms has had an important role in traditional media. Rafaeli (1988)characterizes this reciprocal communication as being interactive. In thisrespect, interactivity is not necessarily, as commonly assumed, a peculiarproperty limited to new electronic media.

However, the rapid convergence of telecommunications and computertechnologies has expanded the scope and scale of the electronic media. Ithas enabled them to overcome the constraints of mass media by allowingtwo-way communication. Traditional communication media pale in com-parison to interactive media in terms of technically sophisticated hardware,software and communication tools.

Broadly, there are two approaches to understanding interactivity orinteractive communication within the context of new media technologies:the communication approach (Bretz, 1983; Rafaeli, 1988; Williams et al.,1988) and the media environment approach (Steur, 1995). While the formeremphasizes ‘communication’, the latter emphasizes ‘mediated environ-ment’. According to Rafaeli, interactivity means ‘feedback that relates bothto previous messages and to the way previous messages related to thosepreceding them’ (Rafaeli, 1988: 120). Williams et al. define interactivity as‘the degree to which participants . . . have control over, and can exchangeroles in’ communication processes (1988: 10). This communication ap-proach conceptualizes interactivity in relation to communicators andmessage exchanges. In this sense, not only new electronic media but alsoletters to the editor, call-in shows, and audience participation programs onTV are interactive.

From this perspective, interactive media are the media that ‘simulate aninterpersonal exchange’ via communication channels (Carey, 1989: 328). Inother words, they emulate an interpersonal-type communication within amachine-mediated communication environment. Markus adds that ‘an

219Kim & Sawhney, A machine-like new medium



interactive medium is a vehicle that enables and constrains multidirectionalcommunication flows among the members of a social unit with two ormore members: examples are telephone, paper mail, electronic mail, voicemessaging, and computer conferencing’ (1987: 492). Rada (1995) includescomputer-mediated information sharing systems such as groupware, multi-media and hypertext in the category of interactive media. As such, thiscommunication approach considers information sharing and exchange asthe key elements in interactivity or interactive communication.

In contrast to this approach, Steur defines interactivity as a mediaexperience offered by technologies in which ‘users can participate inmodifying the form and content of the mediated environment in real time’(1995: 46). Each medium provides the users with a different level ofinteractive environment. For instance, the audience can turn on or off TV;search, start and stop VCR; get random access jumps on laser-disc or CD-ROM; and interact more fully with the computer (Steur, 1995). In otherwords, the technological structure of the medium determines the nature andscope of interactivity it offers. Thus he argues, ‘the greater number ofparameters that can be modified, the greater the range of interactivity of agiven medium’ (Steur, 1995: 48).

According to this approach, interactivity refers to the mediated commu-nicative experience via communication technology systems rather thancommunication itself. What is emphasized in this approach is ‘both thesensory breadth and depth of mediated experience’ (Steur, 1995: 45). Thusthe ‘telepresence’ and ‘vividness’ become crucial ingredients of inter-activity as opposed to information transmission routes. Defined in thismanner, latency, real-time interaction and the immediacy of response,which are vital for creating vivid interactive mediated environments,become critical issues.

However, in both ‘interpersonal-type communication’ and ‘mediatedenvironment’ approaches, interactivity seems to be narrowly understood.Actually, these two approaches are centered on the technical capacity ofinteractive media – capacity to simulate interpersonal-type communicationand to maximize the ‘breadth and depth’ of sensory experience. Bothapproaches equate the question of interactivity with technical functionalitybuilt into the media. But no matter how many interactive features areincorporated in a technology, it cannot capture the richness of spontaneousface-to-face communication because natural interactivity is irreducible intocomputable elements (Wegner, 1997). As Brouwer-Janes points out, ‘it isimpossible to determine user needs and requirements in advance. . . . Whenuser populations are becoming heterogeneous and the applications areaiming at general use, the complexity of defining the user needs andrequirements increases dramatically’ (Brouwer-Janes, 1996: 155). Both thecommunication approach and mediated environment approach to ‘inter-




activity’ miss this point. Due to their application-oriented conception, bothapproaches rarely go beyond ergonomic design concepts and criteria formeasuring the level and content of interactivity.1

Instead of approaching ‘interactivity’ in such functional terms, thisarticle locates it within the power relationships that structure communica-tion. According to Habermas, ‘the hierarchical structure of modern masscommunication imposes a “don’t talk back” format on audiences’ (Haber-mas in Schultz, 1999: 1). In contrast to mass media, new interactive mediaprovide a communication platform on which users can become listenersand speakers or consumers and producers. In this context, interactivity isclosely related to the shift of power balance in the communication processas electronic media are reorganized into two-way communication systems.

By way of interactive communication, interactivity shifts the locus ofcontrol of information production and distribution from the center to theperiphery. Thus ‘interactivity is inherently subversive’ (Pearce, 1997: 244).As Rafaeli points out, ‘one of the distinguishing dimensions [of inter-activity] is the level of control the consumer has over the informationsystem’ (Rafaeli, 1988: 115). ‘Interactivity’ then means more than commu-nication and environment as defined in the above-mentioned approaches. Itinvolves an ‘empowerment of the users’. And, fundamentally, empower-ment signifies more than the mere provision of particular applications andtools.

According to Cherry, the impact of a new technology depends onwhether the new invention ‘has offered [people] new liberties of action,[whether] old constraints have been removed . . ., and [whether people] canact in new ways’ using the invention (1977: 112, emphasis added). In thecase of interactive media, obviously a new liberty of action for the users is‘interactivity’ or ‘interactive communication’. New interactive media offera communication platform the users can appropriate for various purposes –from entertainment to knowledge sharing. They thus empower users inways that are hardly imaginable in broadcasting and other mass media.

Within this conceptual frame, interactivity, a new liberty of actionoffered by new interactive media, consists of the following four elements:(1) communicability – various forms of communication available over themedium (e.g. one-to-many; many-to-many; many-to-one communication);(2) malleability – the flexible use of the medium for voice-data-videocommunication by an individual or group; (3) programmability – the use ofthe medium as an information processing and production platform; and (4)creativity – the potential to create one’s own message. In this respect,interactive media are more than channels for providing prepackagedprogramming. They offer a communicative platform with various layers ofcommunication tools which the users can use to control the production andexchange of information.




Incorporation of interactivity into the TV model

In a narrow sense, television is a one-way electronic medium fortransmitting visual information to large audiences. More broadly, itsignifies a complex communication system that is intertwined with culture,institutions and technologies. Culturally, it is a mass medium for deliveryof information in the form of news, entertainment and advertisements. Theflow of information is structured from-one-to-many and from-center-to-periphery without a meaningful feedback route. Within this system, theaudience is merely a passive media receptacle.

Institutionally, TV encompasses a complex combination of network andindependent broadcasting firms (cable, satellite and over-the-air), syndi-cated program producers and providers, advertising agencies, home elec-tronics and equipment manufacturers. Furthermore, it involves regulatorybodies and other government agencies. Technologically, TV as customerpremises equipment is a dumb terminal with minimal intelligence. Theintelligence in the TV set is basically limited to ‘on–off’ and ‘channeltuning’ functions. Although HDTV looms large at the moment, the onlysignificant change over TV’s 60-plus-year history has been the introductionof color TV in the 1960s. In terms of a network typology, TV has aninformation-generating center and information-receiving periphery. Nofeedback circuit is instituted in TV. Pre-determined routes of programparticipation and access structure the TV experience. In this manner, theTV network maintains a centralized hierarchical architecture. In sum, theTV system acts as a closed and rigid special purpose machine. It operatesto deliver information produced within an industrial production regimenfrom the center to the periphery (see Figure 1). The TV model survives onthis capability of controlling the production and exchange of information.

FIGURE 1Structure of TV model

Source: adapted from McQuail and Windahl (1993: 217)2 © 1993 Longman




To institute interactivity in TV, one needs to resolve two essentialcontradictions: 1) the contradiction between the structure of TV commu-nication and that of interactive communication; and 2) the contradictionbetween the economic model of TV and that of interactive media. First, aspointed out earlier, while the control resides in the center in the traditionalTV system, it moves towards the periphery in the case of interactive media.The television system cannot accommodate such a control shift. It issimply incompatible with interactive communication or interactivity (seeFigure 2).

No wonder television has been characterized as an idiot box and theaudiences as couch potatoes. As such, providing interactive, participatory,talkback channels to the audience through television requires a change inthe traditional structure of communication between the audience and theprogram producers. To organize interactive TV then means to build a new,different media complex from that of conventional television. Simply pilingnew technical components on top of the existing media structure does notautomatically lead to the institutional and cultural changes which arerequired to construct new interactive media. Different systems demanddifferent attitudes and patterns of social behaviors, not only from the usersbut also from the system providers.

Secondly, the business model of traditional TV depends on the inter-mediary firms for mass delivery of content from the control center to theaudience in the periphery. In a nutshell, the basic goal of these inter-mediary firms is ‘control’: control of production, control of distribution andcontrol of consumption. Interactive communication, however, is able toeliminate the intermediaries as it can bypass the center to constitutecommunication channels. Thus the role of the center becomes weakened.Because of its uncontrollable, fragmented, open and diverse nature, inter-activity is elusive in economic terms. It is little wonder that corporationsare finding it difficult to make money from interactivity. Hence the contra-diction between the economic model of interactive media and that of TV.

FIGURE 2Conceptual diagrams of TV and interactive media

Source: adapted from McQuail and Windahl (1993:206–7)3 © 1993 Longman




For the firms, television is a familiar and successful economic model andsocial control mechanism. Furthermore, it needs minimal additional invest-ment since it is already ubiquitous. Therefore TV is an attractive option forthem as a platform for interactive TV.4 As the firms utilize TV as anorganizing platform for interactive TV, interactivity is limited to narrowand repetitive ‘VCR-control-type’ interactivity or mechanical ‘push-button’switching. No wonder the main service features of interactive TV are the‘video juke box’ service; data services such as weather, sports, and news-related information; home shopping; video games; audience participationprograms like game shows; video conferencing for business applications;and a simple information reference system. Even electronic politics ininteractive TV takes the form of opinion polls. Overall, the audienceremains passive in keeping with the TV model. In this respect, interactiveTV is ‘reactive TV’ (Williams, 1974).

As mentioned earlier, the fundamental tension underlying interactive TVis a cultural contradiction between interactivity as a communication formand television as an organizing model. It is a paradigmatic clash.Interactive TV requires an institutionally, culturally and technologicallydifferent enterprise from conventional TV because it is not a traditionaltop-down delivery medium any more. It is supposed to be a very newproject as the name ‘interactive’ suggests. In other words, interactive TVrequires television to change its historically and culturally built-in cen-tralized character. Due to this built-in bias, the TV communication modellimits interactivity to mechanical transactions, while the center retainscontrol. In interactive TV, ‘interactivity’ is artificially grafted onto TVwithout taking into consideration the contradiction between interactivityand TV.

Technical structure of interactive TV

The interactive TV system is constructed as a sophisticated cable (e.g.Warner Amex’s Qube)/switched video network (e.g. Time Warner’s FullService Network, Bell Atlantic’s Video-Dial-Tone) in which computer,television and telephone technologies are combined.5 It consists of threemain technical sections: 1) the user control section; 2) the network section;and 3) the central control section (see Figure 3). Although the structure ofeach interactive TV system is different in its technical detail, the funda-mental design scheme is quite consistent. Figure 3, albeit a simplified one,represents the overall technical structure of the interactive TV system. Overthis network platform, the service providers can transport various formatsof information – video, audio and text – utilizing storage, transmission,switching, and other technologies.




First, the user control section functions as an interface between the userand the system. Interactive TV’s customer premises equipment (CPE)consists of a terminal (the television set), a signal converter (the set-topbox), and an interface device (numeric keypad/remote control). The TV setworks as a display unit for programs and features such as menus. The set-top box receives and decodes incoming signals – applications, programs,and data – and transfers outgoing signals – on-demand requests/multiple-choice responses – to the central computer. The set-top box functions as avideo decoder, analog channel tuner, audio control, network interface, basicnavigation and service selection mechanism, timer and security encryptiondevice. In effect, it is a computer which enables the users to communicatewith the system and where possible with other users. The numeric keypad/remote control is a navigation tool for locating, browsing, and retrievinginformation stored in the central computer.

The network section consists of transmission technologies such ascopper wire, coaxial cable and optical fiber. The system operators employdifferent network architectures and transport technologies such as hybridfiber coaxial (HFC), fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC) and Asymmetric DigitalSubscriber Line (ADSL) depending upon their strategic considerations andservice plans. HFC employs optical fiber as a high-speed, broad bandwidthbackbone trunk line and coaxial cable or copper wire for the last mile,while FTTC extends optical fiber closer to the curbside of the users.ADSL, on the other hand, uses the existing copper wire by increasing itsbandwidth via digital conversion devices at both ends of the network – thecentral switch and home terminal.

The central control section contains a data storage system, media/videoserver and switching equipment to handle data storage, continuous data

FIGURE 3Interactive TV system structure

Source: Natarajan (1995: 67)6 © 1995 IEEE




streams, real-time switching and communication. It performs varioussystem control functions such as video signal compression and storage,distribution control and signal switching, performance check and errordetection, and billing. In other words, the central section controls the wholenetwork in terms of management, communication protocols, and switchingmechanisms so that the system and subscribers can interact (e.g. interactiveprograms and services, and video-on-demand) and subscribers can establishpoint-to-point connections among themselves (e.g. telephony).

The whole system is configured asymmetrically with an information-producing-and-distributing center and information-receiving periphery. Thesystem operator plays the role of gatekeeper rather than that of gateway.Communication activities in the interactive TV system are limited to asimple on-demand interface and the information generated by the users isin effect requests or responses. User engagement with the system isminimal and not particularly meaningful. Thus the interactive TV systembasically operates as an instant query-response/request-delivery conduitoffering mechanical interactions over the system. It is in short a hierarchi-cal, centralized and closed network system.

The machine-nature of interactive TV

Mumford defines the machine as an ‘organism, designed to perform asingle set of functions’ (Mumford, 1963: 10).7 According to him, themachine was developed to reduce the complex processes of life to ‘ameasurable order and regularity’ (Mumford, 1963: 10). Its genius lies in itspower to regulate and thus to enforce order. In effect, it converts ‘organicbehavior into a mechanical process’ (Mumford, 1970: 73). In this respect,the machine symbolizes a materialized form of control. The more themachine ‘limits motion and action to a specifically designated set ofactivities’, the more the ‘machine becomes . . . perfect’ (Hirschhorn, 1988:12). Paradoxically, the more perfect the machine becomes, the less itfunctions properly within the environment where ‘the multiplication ofconnections makes for greater uncertainty and speed of change, whichrequires adaptability rather than only efficiency’ (Mulgan, 1997: 151). Themachine operates according to highly structured pre-defined rules. AsMulgan points out,

The machine model assumed that communication is costly and must thereforebe limited to the transmission of commands downwards and feedback upwards.Only those in charge of the machine need to be bothered about externalrelationships . . . This was true of many factory assembly lines, as it is of thehousehold washing machine or television. None of these is built to communicatehorizontally, or to change itself. (Mulgan, 1997: 151)




Interactive communication, on the other hand, involves organic, sponta-neous, open, communicative human behaviors, which are essentiallyunprogrammable. ‘Interactive systems are grounded in an external realityboth more demanding and richer in behavior than the rule-based worldof non-interactive algorithms’ (Wegner, 1997: 85). Thus interactivity issomething the machine system cannot easily accommodate. In contrast tothe machine system, interactive media is ‘the intelligent system’ based onthe notions of flexibility and contingency. It assumes that ‘everything canbe redesigned and every structure is temporary. Each element of the systemis capable of thinking rather than only doing. Each element can beconnected differently to the world outside’ (Mulgan, 1997: 151).

Nonetheless, interactive TV, contrary to its name, is not an intelligentsystem in terms of its structure and organizing model. It does not want anyinput beyond the predefined options it offers. Basically, it transmits‘commands downwards and feedback upwards’. Interactive TV is aregressive machine-like entity because by design it inculcates ‘a rigidrepertoire of behaviors . . . [which] consists of a set of fixed “circuits” thatrespond in predetermined ways to incoming messages and stimuli’ (Hirsch-horn, 1988: 26). In many ways, ‘interactivity’ in interactive TV is not evenclose to true ‘feedback’. According to Hirschhorn (1988), the aim offeedback circuits is to detect, adjust and control sequences to achieve aspecific goal. Through this process, ‘the feedback loop produces flexibility’(Hirschhorn, 1988: 30). However, the feedback circuit installed in theinteractive TV system is a mere switch whereby degrees of sensitivity,social texture or variable demands cannot be detected and fed into thesystem. In this respect, interactive TV is a machine designed and organizedfor a strictly predetermined end. It is ‘single-purpose in character anddesign and hard to modify’ (Hirschhorn, 1988: 18). It eliminates spontane-ity and channels behavior along narrow paths so as to facilitate its ownoperation.

To summarize, interactive TV is similar to conventional TV in twoways: its system structure and its ideological basis. First, as mentionedearlier, the conventional TV system is a special purpose machine which isclosed and rigid. It is organized for the transmission of information to largeaudiences simultaneously. It allows no other option than its predeterminedroutes of participation and access. Interactive TV is not very far fromconventional TV with regard to how it is organized. It is a modified TVmachine with a little more intelligence in the form of yes–no polls,multiple-choice responses, and other such options which offer limitedinteractivity. Thus it maintains an asymmetric structure and works as amechanical, reactive system. The level, intensity, content and quality ofinteractivity available in interactive TV are shallow and thereby dubious.To put it differently, interactive TV is a hybrid product which artificiallygrafts interactivity onto the TV model.




The machine-nature of interactive TV is in fact an extension of theideological foundation of conventional TV. In other words, interactiveTV’s ideological basis remains within ‘the zone of influence’ of conven-tional TV (Sawhney, 1996). Hirschhorn points out three design principlesof the industrial machine system: ‘rigidity, constraint, and specificity’(Hirschhorn, 1988: 41). These principles apply not just to the design ofindustrial machines but also the cultural regulation of the industrial system.In order for the industrial system to operate smoothly, the system requiressimultaneously ‘the standardization of demand and a long-term plan forcoordinating buyers’ wishes with sellers’ capacities’ (Hirschhorn, 1988:13). In doing so, the industrial machine system corresponds to ‘a consumerculture in which the technologies of production impose larger and largeruniformities on social life’ (1988: 13). Accordingly, the development ofmass communication has co-evolved with the industrial system. It goeswithout saying that TV has served as a means of cultural regulation ‘for theeffective control and coordination of production, distribution and consump-tion’ (Murdock, 1993: 528).

Zuboff points out ‘the duality of information technology’: to informateand to automate (Zuboff, 1988: 390). While ‘informate’ means to activelyengage information technology with human intellective capacity, ‘auto-mate’ means to utilize information technology to ‘fulfil a dream of perfectcontrol’ (Zuboff, 1988: 390). One essential characteristic that differentiatesthe intelligent system from the machine system is the power to ‘informate’.While interactive TV may have been successful to ‘automate’ interactivityor interactive communication, it has failed to ‘informate’ the users or tofacilitate interactive communication among them. Indeed, the users are stillconfigured as a reactive, homogenized, consuming mass in the interactiveTV system. As such, interactive TV not only inherits traditional TV’snature and structure but also its cultural and mass consumerism-orientedideological basis.

Conclusion

The TV model is not an arbitrary contrivance. It is a materialized form of aparticular organizing ideology of ICT. This ideology is fundamentallyrelated to the ideology of control: control of information production, distribu-tion and consumption. Interactive communication, on the other hand, is acatalyst for a power shift away from the center as the media are reorganizedinto two-way communication systems. It is here that interactivity as a commu-nication model and TV as an organizing platform clash.

The firms, however, organize interactive TV following the TV modelbecause it is a historically familiar and successful economic model and anexemplary control mechanism for the production, distribution, and con-




sumption of information. Therefore the interactive TV system retains anasymmetrical structure and limits interactivity to mechanical activities suchas on–off requests in order to avoid the introduction of uncontrollablecommunication activities into the system. In effect, interactivity or inter-active communication in interactive TV becomes pseudo-interactive orquasi-interactive. Since interactive TV does not unleash the new liberties ofaction offered by new technologies, the new medium is not really a newmedium.

The theoretical examination of interactive TV suggests that the develop-ment of a new communication technology goes beyond a mechanicalcombination of technical components. Computer, TV and network technol-ogies are critical components in the design of interactive TV systems. Butnone of these technological components dictates the way in whichinteractive TV is actually organized.8 The fact that the TV model has beenused as an organizing model for interactive TV shows that socio-economicforces rather than technical considerations alone shape a new technology.

System builders launch technologies – physical artifacts – with particularsocio-cultural visions, and organize them following particular ideologies ormodels. These organizing ideologies and socio-cultural visions are asessential elements as physical artifacts in the shaping of technology. Theyare constricted or enhanced by the corporate imperative and historicalprecedents relevant to that technology. A technology system is shaped bythe historical interaction of different elements such as cultural practices,politics, regulations, and economic circumstances within prevailing socialconditions. Ultimately, the structure of a new technology system embodiesthis historical interaction.

Notes

1. There are a few studies that encompass both approaches. For instance,Downes and McMillan (2000) understand interactivity in terms of multipledimensions including communication and its environment. Ha and James (1998)also approach interactivity with five dimensions: playfulness, choice, connected-ness, information collection, and reciprocal communication. However, these studiesdo not rise above the functional level since their operationalization of interactivityseeks to measure the degree and content of interactivity in various media.

2. Although McQuail and Windahl use this diagram to explain the internationalflow of information, it is also useful for explaining the structure of TVcommunication.

3. McQuail and Windahl employ these diagrams to explicate the ‘changingbalance of information traffic’ in the new electronic media. They call the diagramon the left ‘the allocution pattern’. The diagram on the right is our adaptationwhich combines two of their diagrams – the conversation and consultation patterns.

4. There are two competing perspectives regarding the interactive multimediaplatform. While the computer-based multimedia perspective emphasizes technical




versatility, the television-based multimedia perspective credits TV’s ease of useand pervasiveness (Burstein and Kline, 1995; Suits, 1994).

5. Warner Amex operated an interactive TV system called Qube in Columbus,Ohio and other cities from 1977 to 1984. Time Warner experimented with the FullService Network (FSN) in Orlando, Florida from 1994 to 1997. Bell Atlanticoperated Video-Dial-Tone system (VDT) from 1993 to 1999 in New Jersey.

6. We have added the names of each section – user control section, networksection, and central control section – in Natarajan’s diagram in order to makeexplicit their functional relationships in the overall system.

7. According to Mumford, ‘the tool lends itself to manipulation, the machine toautomatic actions’ (Mumford, 1963: 10). In other words, the machine is rigid,while the tool is flexible.

8. For instance, the TV set is no more than a display unit in the interactive TVsystem. In other words, even if the firms had employed the computer instead ofTV, the system would remain problematic in communicative terms unless it wasdesigned following a different organizing model like that of the Internet. Indeed,the structure of the interactive TV system is similar to that of the computer systemin the days of the mainframe – a centralized computer and dumb terminals.

References

Black, J. (1978) ‘Brave New World of Television’, New Times 24 July: 41–52.Booth, S. (1999) ‘Talk TV’, Popular Science 255(5): 72–6.Bretz, R. (1983) Media for Interactive Communication. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.Brinkley, J. (2000) ‘Do Viewers want to Interact with TV?’ New York Times 7

February: C5.Brouwer-Janse, M. (1996) ‘User-centered Design: Interaction between People and

Applications’, pp. 149–59 in N. Jankowski et al. (eds) The Contours ofMultimedia. Luton: University of Luton Press.

Bryant, J. and C. Love (1996) ‘Entertainment as the Driver of New InformationTechnology’, pp. 91–114 in N. Dholakia et al. (eds) New InfortainmentTechnologies in the Home: Demand Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Burstein, D. and D. Kline (1995) Road Warriors: Dreams and Nightmares alongthe Information Highway. New York: Dutton.

Calabrese, A. and M. Borchert (1996) ‘Prospects for Electronic Democracy in theUnited States: Rethinking Communication and Social Policy’, Media, Cultureand Society 18(2): 249–68.

Cantwell, R. (2000) ‘A Comeback for Interactive TV?’, Inter@ctive Week 24 May.Online. Accessed May 24, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.zdnet.com/intweek.

Carey, James (1989) Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society.Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

Carey, John (1989) ‘Interactive Media’, pp. 328–30 in E. Barnouw et al. (eds)International Encyclopedia of Communications. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Carey, John (1997) ‘Interactive Television Trials and Marketplace Experiences’,Multimedia Tools and Applications 5: 207–16.

Cherry, C. (1977) ‘The Telephone System: Creator of Mobility and SocialChange’, pp. 112–26 in I. de Sola Pool (ed.) The Social Impact of Telephone.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.




Cowan, R. (1977) ‘The “Industrial Revolution” in the Home’, Technology andCulture 17:1–23.

Douglas, S. (1986) ‘Amateur Operators and American Broadcasting: Shaping theFuture of Radio’, pp. 35–57 in J. Corn (ed.) Imagining Tomorrow. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Douglas, S. (1987) Inventing American Broadcasting 1899–1922. Baltimore, MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Duncan, S. (1989) ‘Interaction, Face-to-face’, pp. 325–8 in E. Barnouw et al. (eds)International Encyclopedia of Communications. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Dutton, W. et al. (eds) (1987) Wired Cities: Shaping the Future of Communica-tions. Boston, MA: G.K. Hall.

Economist (1996) ‘Technology Brief: The Telephone’s Second Change’, 13 July:88.

Feenburg, A. (1995) ‘Subversive Rationalization: Technology, Power, and Demo-cracy’, pp. 3–22 in A. Feenburg and A. Hannay (eds) Technology and thePolitics of Knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Goldman, D. (1999) ‘Interactive TV: The UK Perspective’, Intermedia 27(3):11–13.

Haley, K. (1999) ‘New Direction: Forget the Superhighway, Many Roads Lead toInteractive TV’, Broadcasting & Cable 6 September: 18–36.

Hirschhorn, L. (1988) Beyond Mechanization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Hurley, N. (1978) ‘The Wired Home, An Information Utility’, America 139(18):

402–4.Kahin, B. (1997) ‘The US National Information Infrastructure Initiative: The

Market, the Net, and the Virtual Project’, pp. 150–89 in B. Kahin and E. WilsonIII (eds) National Information Infrastructure Initiatives: Vision and PolicyDesign. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kavanagh, M. (2000) ‘Interactive Race is On’, Electronic Media 10 April: 46–54.Kim, P. (1999) ‘Deconstructing Interactive TV Networks’, the public-javnost 6(3):

87–100.Levy, S. (1999) ‘The New Digital Galaxy’, Newsweek 31 May: 57–62.McChesney, R. (1993) Telecommunications, Mass Media and Democracy. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.McQuail, D. and S. Windahl (1993) Communication Models. London: Longman.Marchand, R. (1985) Advertising the American Dream: Making Way for Modernity

1920–1940. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Markus, M. (1987) ‘Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media’,

Communication Research 14(5): 491–511.Martino, J. (1979) ‘Telecommunications in the Year’, The Futurist 13(2): 96–103.Moch, C. (1999) ‘Interactive TV Carries On’, Telephony 13 December: 16.Mulgan, G. (1997) Connexity – How to Live in a Connected World. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.Mumford, L. (1963) Technics and Civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.Mumford, L. (1970) The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Murdock, G. (1993) ‘Communications and the Constitution of Modernity’, Media,

Culture & Society 15: 521–39.Natarajan, K. (1995) ‘Video Servers Take Root’, IEEE Spectrum 32(4): 66–9.National Research Council (1996) The Unpredictable Certainty: Information Infra-

structure through 2000. Washington: National Academy Press.




National Research Council (1994) Realizing Information Future: The Internet andBeyond. Washington: National Academy Press.

Newhagen et al. (1995) ‘[email protected]: Audience Scope and the Perception ofInteractivity in Viewer Mail on the Internet’, Journal of Communication 45(3):164–75.

Noam, E. (1987) ‘The Public Telecommunications Network: A Concept inTransition’, Journal of Communication 37(1): 30–48.

Noam, E. (1989) ‘The Future of the Public Network’, pp. 3–16 in J. Alleman andT. Emmerson (eds) Perspectives on the Telephone Industry: The Challenge forthe Future. New York: Harper and Row.

Nye, D. (1997) ‘Shaping Communication Networks: Telegraph, Telephone, Com-puter’, Social Research 64(3): 1067–91.

Okrent, D. (2000) ‘Happily Ever After . . .’, Time 24 January: 39–43.Pearce, C. (1997) The Interactive Book. Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan Publishing.Post, T. (1999) ‘The Convergence Gamble’, Forbes 22 February: 112–17.Rada, R. (1995) Interactive Media. New York: Springer-Verlag.Rafaeli, S. (1988) ‘Interactivity From New Media to Communication’, pp. 110–34

in R. Hawkins et al. (eds) Advancing Communication Science: Merging Massand Interpersonal Processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Robins, K. and F. Webster (1986) ‘Broadcasting Politics: Consumer and Consump-tion’, Screen 27(3–4): 30–45.

Salmans, S. (1983) ‘A Limping Warner Amex’, New York Times 13 September: D1,D5.

Sawhney, H. (1996) ‘Information Superhighway: Metaphors as Midwives’, Media,Culture & Society 18(2): 291–314.

Smith, R. (1972) The Wired Nation: Cable TV – The Electronic CommunicationsHighway. New York: Harper and Row.

Spigel, L. (1992) Make Room for TV. Chicago, IL: The Chicago University Press.Steur, J. (1995) ‘Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence’,

pp. 33–56 in F. Biocca and M. Levy (eds) Communication in the Age of VirtualReality. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Streeter, T. (1987) ‘Cable Fable Revisited: Discourse, Policy, and the Making ofCable Television’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4(2): 174–200.

Streeter, T. (1996) Selling the Air: A Critique of the Policy of CommercialBroadcasting in the US. Chicago, IL: The Chicago University Press.

Suits, L. (1994) ‘Conference Report “Just Do It”’, Telecommunications Policy18(8): 668–9.

Thomas, S. (1998) ‘Home Network’, US News & World Report 10 August: 57–9.Tichi, C. (1991) Electronic Hearth: Creating an American Television Culture. New

York: Oxford University Press.Waters, H. (1981) ‘Cable TV: Coming of Age’, Newsweek 24 August: 44–9.Wegner, P. (1997) ‘Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms?’, Commu-

nication of the ACM 40(5): 80–91.Williams, F. et al. (1988) Research Methods and the New Media. New York: The

Free Press.Williams, R. (1974) Television: Technology and Cultural Form. Hanover: Wesleyan

University Press.Wilson, C. (1999) ‘US West Revisits Interactive TV’, Inter@ctive Week 29

November. Online. Accessed 5th May 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek.

Yang, C. (2000) ‘Turn On, Tune In, Interact’, Business Week 29 May: 90–4.




Zoglin, R. (1993) ‘When the Revolution Comes, What Will Happen to . . .’, Time12 April: 56–8.

Zuboff, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine; The Future of Work and Power.New York: Basic Books.

Pyungho Kim is Research Professor in the Department of Film and DigitalMedia, Sogang University, Seoul, Korea. His academic background in-cludes: BA, Western European History, Korea University; MA, Develop-ment Communication, King Alfred’s College, Winchester, UK; PhDTelecommunications, Indiana University, USA. His research interests focuson the history of information and communications technologies and thetelecommunications industry in the United States and Korea.Address: Department of Film and Digital Media, Graduate School ofMedia Communications, Sogang University, Mapo Sinsu 1, Seoul 121–742,Korea. [email: [email protected]]

Harmeet Sawhney is Associate Professor in the Department of Tele-communications, Indiana University, Bloomington. His academic back-ground includes: BS Electrical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology,Ranchi, India; MBA Marketing, XLRI, Jamshepur, India; MA Communica-tion, State University of New York at Buffalo; PhD Communication, TheUniversity of Texas at Austin. His research interests focus on areas relatedto telecommunications infrastructure planning and policy. He is currentlyserving as Deputy Editor of The Information Society.Address: Department of Telecommunications, Radio-TV Center, 1229 East7th Street, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. [email:[email protected]]




Documents

A machine-like new medium - theoretical examination of interactive TV