Final Year Project

In the following project I investigate interactivity on Digital television. I begin with the “Introduction” where I lay the foundations that will support my following investigation. In the “Background” chapter I identify interactivity, and possible interactive services for Digital television. Under the “Methodology” chapter, I discuss my resources and my questionnaire design, how it was piloted, what changed, its limitations, and its final structure.

The “Data Presentation/Analysis”, is the chapter that makes use of the data collected by the questionnaire. I discuss that results, and the issues involved at the same time, and I use the results to either support my views or form some new ones.

In the chapter “options for financing interactivity in Digital TV” I intend to see whether interactivity in Digital television can be commercially exploited, as this might make interactive services a reality.

The Conclusion is the last chapter, where I discuss my final thoughts.

Introduction.

Digital television promises to introduce major changes in the way we perceive television today[1]. These promises extend from being able to receive Video On Demand (VOD), to use television as an interactive medium to communicate with other people and/or organisations. At the same time, people are being asked to invest and re-invest in the centrepiece of their home entertainment system. The aim of my investigation is not to examine whether digital television can enhance our entertainment, but if television can be used as an interactive medium, and if there is social willingness for such a service.

I want to investigate interactivity on television, because I believe it can prove to be the turning point of communications. I want to see what is behind it, the issues concealed. Channel Four claims that “interactivity refers both to the technology that allows greater screen activity by viewers, and the implications for broadcasting, democracy and our sense of community[2]” (Holland, 1997, p258). Referring to interactive cable an ex-Channel Four News and currently manager of interactive TV for Videotron, says, “the desire is not choice, nor shopping, but connectedness…Cable allows a direct discourse which bypasses public discourse and allows some authentic voice” (ibid. p259).

In order for my aim to be investigated I must first set down some assumptions. First of all, we must have a “convergence of modes of media consumption - between one-way and interactive, switched (like the telephone system) and non-switched (like satellite broadcasting)” (Nicholas Garnham in Dutton 1996, p106). Secondly, this convergence must be followed by a scenario explained by Garnham in Dutton 1996 p109, that will create the necessary conditions for interactive services to take place[3]. Thirdly there must be a social willingness to follow this scenario. Without such a willingness, my argument will be driven by technological determinism[4].

My investigation is in the first part to unveil the possibilities that can occur if, or when, such a scenario takes place, and in the second part, to discover from my questionnaire, if there is a desire for such possibilities in television[5].

There is also one more thing that needs some more clarification before I proceed. Hughes[6] speaks about how interactivity in television as part of the information society can bring many social changes in the way we work and we live. This view presupposes the integration of Personal Computers and television. However I point out Levinson’s (1997) view on why television is not and cannot be a PC[7]. My view, is that interactivity on television at this stage cannot substitute computer networks, nor take the place that a Personal Computer occupies. It can enhance communications but cannot, and will not, allow people to work from their homes. This view is based on the fact that this is the work of a computer, which is a personal medium, instead of the television, which is a family medium.

Background

So far television has been a one-way communication medium. Analogue transmission could not support a bi-directional communication tool available to everyone[8]. In the digital world however this is about to change.

The convergence of communication technologies with popular media and the information industry is characteristic of the digital age. Telephone providers are moving into broadcasting and broadcasters are moving into telephone services[9]. This convergence of technologies and skills that so far were specialised in different fields, is changing the scenery of communications as we know it.

But what is interactivity? The Oxford English Dictionary as a second definition on interactive, has the following:

“Pertaining to or being a computer or other electronic device that allows a two-way flow of information between it and a user, responding immediately to the latter’s input.” (Oxford English Dictionary)

Thus, the only communication mediums that can be considered interactive, are mediums that allow a two-way communication model. This includes the telegraph, telephone, CB, wireless telegraph/telephone, mobile phones, computer networks, and the internet. By no means could radio or television be considered interactive. Audiences have the potential to contact broadcasters but the only way to do that is either by phone, or by mail, thus not using the medium itself as a way to initiate bi-directional communication.

The development of computer networks and the advance of ‘laser disc’ initially introduced interactivity in modern communication technologies[10]. The laser disc (also known as video disk) unlike videotapes allows the viewer to have some sort of control over the playback of the disk, going instantly from one place to another, and even being available to collect various information on demand. Thus the laser disk even though it is an analogue medium[11], is nonetheless the starting point for modern interactive multimedia development. After that, the CD-ROM took over with its digital potential that allowed even more interactivity to the user at a smaller price. Still though, interactivity was pre-programmed, thus it contained only the options supported by the manufacturer. Video games allow the user to make some significant choices that affect the outcome of the story, but the user is never in control, as the programs do not support many choices[12].

As far as computer networks are concerned, we have a different kind of interactivity. Users instead of interacting with a specific program (thus interacting only with the computer), they interact with each other through various programs (thus interacting with real people)[13]. I will not go on to examine the evolution and development of computer networks[14]; I will however point to the fact that computer networks were a revolution on their own. They introduced a different way of communication between individuals and between organisations that allows the exchange of data (information, pictures, sound, and anything else that can be digitally transferred) at high speeds, and at almost zero cost. Computer networks took off with the development of the World Wide Web in 1991-2[15] that allowed different networks to communicate with each other.

With the introduction of digital technology in television and the convergence of various communication & information industries, television can unleash its potential and eventually become an interactive medium.

But what form of interactivity are we talking about? Will audiences be able to interact with one another? Will they be able to interact with the programmes that they watch, or be able to receive information and/or programmes on demand? Interactivity is multi-faceted and as such it should be analysed.

There has been some analysis on interactive television. Baldwin et al (1996) indicate that Friedman sees three stages in television’s evolution[16]. “The first, ‘pointcast’, will be services such as video on demand, delivering a service to an individual household on order. The second stage, “passive entertainment”, moves into non-linear entertainment as in games of plot direction. The third is “social interactivity”, in which people talk to each other and participate in shared activities” (Baldwin et al, 1996, p134).

It is a very good analysis but I prefer to distinguish two aspects of interactivity in television, where the distinction point has to do with whether the viewer interacts with the machine, or if s/he interacts with another person. The first aspect is interactivity that does not differ from the way we perceive television today, while the second one is interactivity that transforms television into a different communications medium[17].

The distinctions can be also understood as person-to-TV interactivity, and person-to-person interactivity.

In the first aspect I identify three options. They are part of what Silverstone calls ‘Me-TV’[18], and Baldwin et al 1996 also identifies some of them.

· Audiences receiving information about the programme they watch.

· Audiences stating their views about the programme they watch, and home shopping.

· Audiences manipulating the programme they watch, and Video On Demand.

Audiences receiving information about the programme they watch.

This point can be understood as a kind of super teletext. Audiences will be able at the flick of a button to receive information about characters and the plot. Computer-like menus can be introduced, that would allow the reception of information by audiences[19]^-[20]. This information can vary from who is who and what is happening[21], to where can someone find the earring that the TV character wears[22].

Audiences stating their views about the programme they watch-home shopping.

So far if someone wants to contact a station has to resort to traditional ways, which are both by telephone, post, fax, and recently by e-mail[23]. With this kind of interactivity though, viewers will be able to instantly contact the programme that they are watching and state their views. One can understand it as some form of e-mail integrated in television. With some kind of voice recognition software it will become easy to use even by people not so familiar with computers. This option can also allow the possibility to the viewer to know what other people think about the show[24]^-[25].

Home shopping could also support this option, where people could ‘spontaneously’ buy what they see, without having to go to the telephone in order to purchase the product. The immediacy that this option offers could actually make people buy products, that they would have been reluctant to buy if they had to use the phone, or the post to make the order[26].

Audiences manipulating the programme they watch-Video on Demand.

This form of interactivity is the one that begins to open the potentials of digital television. It can find applications from quiz shows, where people would be able to play from home, to movies where viewers would be able to have different camera angles, and maybe be able to change the plot. Possibilities are endless, since we encounter hypothetical scenarios as to allow the viewer to select a zoom degree and/or a different camera angle[27], or to allow the viewer to focus on a football player throughout the whole match and have instant replays on request[28].

The most possible application of course on this form of interactivity, is Video On Demand. VOD is probably going to be the economic driver behind interactive features in Digital TV. I include it in this aspect of interactivity because in order to achieve VOD narrowcasting, the technological requirements are similar to the ones required for receiving different camera angles[29]. VOD in a sense is manipulation to individual programmes, as one would be able to rewind the movie of jump from one scene to another. VOD can also be seen as manipulation to the programming, or to the ‘flow’. That will happen because the viewer will be the one to select what s/he will see during the day and in what order.

The second aspect of interactivity is the one that virtually transforms television. It is person-to-person interactivity[30], and I identify three different options.

· Television becoming a tool for network video games, accessible by many players at the same time.

· Audiences using television as a ‘videophone’.

· Creation of virtual public places accessible by television.

Television becoming a tool for network video games, accessible by many players at the same time.

Television can be transformed to a video-game device, only that instead of supporting video games in consoles, it could support network games. Already in the internet there are many games accessible by many players at the same time, and if internet is to become the model of tomorrow’s digital networks[31], such an impact on TV is highly likely.

Audiences using television as a ‘videophone’.

Videophone is a long dreamed device. With upstream transmission and switching technology incorporated in television, it can be a reality. People will be able to use television as a communication device that will change the nature of the medium. This tendency is supported by the desire of Phone companies to enter the television market. Phone companies have the skills and the infrastructure to provide point-to-point communications[32] that will be required for such services. The only problem at the time is the limited bandwidth that telephone infrastructure currently has, but it can be solved by fibber technology[33].

Creation of virtual public places accessible by television.

This is one of the main issues concerning interactivity on television. So far various experiments have taken place concerning virtual city halls, and digital cities[34]. The outcome in some of the cases was very encouraging for more implementation. One main drawback though was the case of accessibility, since those virtual halls were accessible by either computers or public terminals. If television could support accessibility to virtual places, turnout would have been much greater since television is not a personal device (like PC) but instead it is a family medium used by all and throughout the day.

All the above options I have mentioned of course raise many issues. From accessibility and information poor/rich, to aggressive advertising and surveillance. Due to the nature of the project though, I had no option than confine myself to the above discussion. I know that I have only scratched the surface, but I hope I raised some questions for the reader to explore at a further level. Some further analysis of the issues will be provided in the following chapter of Data Presentation/Analysis.

Methodology.

In order to complete my project I used the following methods.

· Bibliography supplied by my specialist tutor (Jonathan Hardy) and relevant titles.

· Internet sources that provided a plethora of information on digital TV. The sites were either by TV providers (BskyB, PBS), manufacturers (CEMA), or pressure groups (Digital Television Group, Digital Video Broadcasting).

· A questionnaire that is comprised by 28 questions. It was distributed to students in the University of East London, in the 7^th week of the 2^nd semester of the 1998/99 academic year.

The first two methods are easily understood. I read the information and I used it accordingly. In this chapter I will discuss my questionnaire, its design, how it began, what changed during its piloting, what do I try to take out of it.

Questionnaire analysis.

First of all I want to discuss why I chose the sample that I did. Initially I wanted to make a report in my area, take the demographics from my local council, and accordingly to structure my sample. This view however nice as it sounds, would have taken an enormous amount of time and resources that were not available at my disposal. Instead, I chose to have a sample of students that I could easily approach.

One other reason for having students as my subjects, is that they are already familiar with modern technology (through computer use at least in the university), and as Baldwin states, the ones that go for hi-tech gadgets are usually single, young and with high income[35]. Many students after graduation find themselves in similar positions, and what I thought, is that the students of today are the consumers of tomorrow.

Through my research I ran across a report on a survey that was conducted through the CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association) Consumer Research Service. It is a professional report regarding digital television, and titled ‘ A Consumer Perspective of the Transition to Digital TV’. I acknowledge it as a source for many questions on my questionnaire, and as an influence for formulating the rest of them. I thought of using the questionnaire that they used, but their type was a telephone questionnaire, while mine is a questionnaire that was handed out to be completed. Thus I had to make some modifications initially for this. The second reason is that their aim was to find out if people would by digital television, and if yes, what are their social trends, and what do they go for (e.g. sports, movies, sitcoms). My aim is to investigate interactivity on television, and whether people are worried over surveillance over the system.

My first questionnaire was of 44 questions. It was piloted the 6^th week of the 2^nd semester of the 1998/99 academic year[36]. I piloted the questionnaire using a sample of 19 students. Five of them are personal friends of mine not studying Communication studies[37]. One is studying Civil Engineering, two are studying Business Administration, one is studying Economics, and the final is studying Biology but not in the University of East London. Six are people in my year in Communication studies, and the rest eight are people that I met in the library and offered to help me when I asked them to.

The main sentiment on the initial questionnaire was that it was too long, thus too boring. My first reaction was to see if all of the questions are relevant and decide which ones are useful and which ones are not. In this process I took notice on leaving some questions in the beginning in order to make the questioned subject familiar, plus draw its attention to the rest of the questionnaire, however most of the questions that intended initially to increase participator’s familiarity were dismissed.

Minor alterations took place in a couple of questions, for example in Q1 (how many colour TVs, if any, does your household own?) I omitted the word colour from it after I was pointed out that many people still have black and white sets in their houses as second or third TV sets.

Discussing over my project and questionnaire from people of my discipline, I was pointed out to include one more question concerning people’s use of the internet. It is question 19 in the final version of the questionnaire that intends to examine how people use internet.

The structure of the final questionnaire is as follows[38].

· Questions 1 to 4. General questions, intending to increase the interest of the respondents.

· Questions 5 to 15. Questions relating directly to digital television.

· Questions 16 to 21. Questions concerning computers.

· Questions 22 to 28. Classification questions.

Limitations of the questionnaire.

I have to admit that my questionnaire is not perfect. Many of its limitations became apparent after I had it distributed and collected. While I was trying to do the analysis I identified many things that I could have done better and/or more coherent. However, having distributed it, I can do nothing more than acknowledge my awareness of its limitations, and proceed with the best analysis that I can.

Data Presentation / Analysis[39].

In this chapter I will present and analyse the data collected by the questionnaire. On Tuesday the 23^rd of March I distributed my questionnaire to first year communication students. I took back 61 completed questionnaires. Out of them 49 were valid, the rest 12 had to be voided since people either left questions blank, or they did not follow the obvious instruction in question 6 which clearly says ‘Please tick one answer only’. During my piloting such a problem never occurred, nor did any of the people that helped me said that the instructions were unclear.

What am I confronted with.

By distributing my questionnaire to University students I cannot claim that I have a sample for a general research. There are limits concerning age, income, and other demographic data that can be considered distorted. For example from the people that answered, 67% were women, 31% were men, while a 2% did not answer. Such a sample is impossible to be considered as representative of the population, or even as a general student sample.

However by having in mind that the sample is not as objective as we would like it to be, and considering it as such, a good analysis can take place.

First I want to introduce my sample.

Having introduced the demographics of the sample, I will go on to do my data analysis. I will refer to questionnaire results as needed and I will be analysing them at the same time, so the reader will not have to jump forwards and backwards in order to follow my argument.

Computer Users’ relation to Digital TV.

From the sample analysed 90% are computer users. This indicates a large familiarity with modern technology. Out of that sample[40] 77% are familiar with digital television, in contrast with the general sample where the familiarity is at 69%[41]. Even though the difference is not a huge one, this could signify that people who are already familiar with certain technologies are easier to adapt to new ones. This view is also supported by CEMA’s report on the transition to digital television. They point out that PC users are significantly more knowledgeable on digital television than non-users, and even though they are not as heavy TV users (i.e. PC users don’t watch as much TV as non PC users), they are more likely to turn to digital television in the short-term future. This could indicate that computer users are looking forward to buy digital televisions not for their better sound and picture, but for their interactive features[42].

Another issue that could rise from this fact is the concept of information rich and poor. People that use computers, and might have internet access at home, are the ones likely to go for the interactive features on digital TV according to CEMA. However the ones that could find interactivity most useful is the people that is not familiar with computers and the internet and want to find a better way to communicate. I want to point out that if interactive services get designed in order to satisfy people familiar with internet and technology, this might prevent others from being able to enjoy, or even use such services.

People’s reaction to the coming of Digital TV.

People’s reaction to the coming of Digital television is not pointed to a particular direction. 38% would describe the stories they heard about Digital TV as very or mostly positive, and 41% would view the arrival of Digital TV as very or mostly positive. 63% of those who describe the stories about Digital TV as very or mostly positive, have become familiar with Digital TV by television. The corresponding figure for the ones that view the arrival of Digital TV as very or mostly positive is 70%. Thus, there can be an argument that television is the one that is promoting itself. I will come back to this argument later on, when I will discuss on the fact that the services that people mostly want from Digital television are the ones that are not so diverse from the current way we use TV.

People’s fear about the coming of Digital TV.

People’s greatest concern or fear about the coming of Digital TV as derives from question 9 of the questionnaire, is cost (50%). Here is where a design fault in my questionnaire became apparent. As Mr Jonathan Hardy pointed it out to me, I should have structure the question is such a way as to allow multiple answers from the respondents. Had I done so I would have been able to get more answers about people’s fears in relation to surveillance over the system, or on how they feel about “upgrade technology[43]” (i.e. if they are afraid that like PCs, television will be needing upgrading every once and a while).

However, such as the case is, I did had some responses concerning other fears about the coming of Digital TV. 14% of people still answered that their greatest fear is that Digital TV is too confusing. Let us not forget that in the United Kingdom at the present time most people are accustomed with having only five channels. Terms as ‘a la carte’, or ‘Video On Demand’, or even the concept of having 50+ channels on our television, might be confusing for some. However my questionnaire results contradict this opinion. Apparently 57% of the people that thought that Digital TV is too confusing, already have cable and/or satellite in their homes, something that signifies that they should have some knowledge of the terms that I mentioned above. There is though another explanation for such results. These people already pay for their television signals, thus they do not feel that cost is of a high concern to them. This is getting back to my designing fault of this question.

8% of respondents answered that their greatest fear about the coming of Digital TV is that like PCs it will be in need of upgrade every once and a while. I can connect those answers to the fact that 75% of these respondents are computer users, and 50% are using a computer in their household, thus they probably are aware of how computers need upgrading every now and then[44].

There were another 8% of respondents that identified their greatest fear as the fear of surveillance over the system. Going back to my questionnaire design, eventhough there was no problem with this option when I piloted the questionnaire, I now have some doubts on how people understood it. The concept under which I devised that option is the one described by Mosco and Wasko (1988) of how technologies can be used for surveillance. Still, such as the question is, I do have an 8% which answer this option. Again, linking those people with computer usage I find out that all of them are computer users (75% of them have a computer at home), thus they may be familiar on how digital communications can be used for surveillance.

People’s relation to interactivity on Digital TV.

When it comes to age groups in relation to interactivity on television, I saw than in the 18-24 age group, a 48% thought of television as a bi-directional medium, and the rest 52% did not. However, when the age increases the positive percentage increases as well. In the 25-35 age group a 69% thought of television as a bi-directional medium and only 31% hasn’t. In the 36-45 age group I encounter a 50-50 dissemination of the answers while in the 46-55 group I had only one respondent in that group and she answered positively, that ‘yes’ she thought of television as a bi-directional medium.

These are encouraging results in a sense that even older people can shift their perception of a medium that they have been using for years, and think that it can perform new applications. In fact, if interactive television will be taken up, and television is to be used as a “videophone” as I described in the background chapter, they are the ones most likely to benefit from it, as it will enhance their communication abilities and help them socialise easier.

Comparing people that thought of television as a bi-directional medium (question 14), with responses to question 15 that identifies the likeliness whether they would take-up an interactive service, the results are very encouraging. 30% are very likely to consider buying a digital TV because of interactivity, 31% are somewhat likely, 27% are somewhat unlikely and only 12% are very unlikely to consider such a possibility[45]. Breaking these results into age groups, I see that in the age group 18-24, 31% are very likely to consider buying a digital television because of interactivity. The percentage rises in the 25-35 group to a 44%.

However in general the results are not very encouraging for interactivity in television. 78% of the general sample would consider very likely or somewhat likely to buy a Digital TV because of movies (53% answered the same thing about sitcoms, while for sports and interactivity the according results are 41% for each). This indicates a tendency to keep on using the television for its traditional use. This tendency can be justified by the fact that from the people who answered that they are familiar with Digital TV, 79% of them became educated by television. Television in the time that I distributed the questionnaire, was promoting the plethora of movies that one can get by taking up a digital service[46]. Technologically this is because those two services (Sky and ON digital) are broadcasting through the ether, thus they cannot provide an upstream transmission that is essential for interactive services[47]. On the contrary one respondent who got educated about Digital television by the internet, would consider somewhat likely to buy a Digital television because of interactivity[48].

Options for financing interactivity in Digital TV.

In this chapter, I want to look at how can interactivity in television be financed. In the background I introduced 6 aspects of interactivity. I said that probably the main economic drive behind interactivity is probably going to be Video On Demand. I base that on the fact that Digital TV providers, will try to take the market of video stores, by creating a film release window for VOD between the theatre release of a particular movie, and its video tape release[49].

However there are also other aspects that might be able to finance interactivity on TV. The Sega Channel began a market test in 1994 that intended to investigate whether networked games on TV would be desired, and if the public would accept to pay for them[50]. Apparently, a $14.95 price per game seemed to be acceptable.

As far as the “videophone” aspect is concern, the popularity of Microsoft’s ‘NetMeeting’ that offers two-way video and audio communication through the internet might be the drive to bring this aspect into existence for TV. I want to point out that ‘NetMeeting’, as many programmes designed for internet use, is probably going to be confusing for the general public. However if something similar is introduced for television use, with user-friendly software, it might prove to be a commercial success.

Advertising also, promises to be a driving force for interactivity. Digital TV could improve targeting for advertisers, which are going to be able to direct their messages to a pre-selected audience (e.g. if one’s product aims to be sold to young people, one could order a target of households that have persons 18-24)[51].

Home shopping is a promising source of revenue. Viewers will be able to both watch a home-shopping channel, and order instantly the product that they watch, or in an improved version, viewers will be able to buy almost anything they see on TV. The drawback is that this could in fact lead to a deterioration of the programmes, as they will only intend to sell product. The outcome remains to be seen.

As far as the other aspects are concerned, the ones that could improve people’s democratic participation (see the above mentioned option of public places accessible by television), I could not find a commercial way that could help their finance. I hope that such services, will either be promoted by legislation (something like ‘must carry’ rules imposed to providers), or either central or local governments will sponsor them.

Conclusion.

Interactivity is a possible feature in Digital TV. As I discussed, it can take many forms, and have many functions. Of course I will not claim that I have covered everything. Even an attempt to do so would have been over ambitious, especially with a 6000-word limit. I hoped however that I have scratched the surface, and at least brought some light from underneath.

I am aware of the missing discussions in my project. I consciously left out arguments like how Digital TV might be used as a surveillance tool. However the title of the project is about interactivity in Digital TV, not about surveillance, or anything else.

As a final word, I wish to say that Digital television is a medium that is just being born. How it turns out is something that will be decided by governments and/or market forces. I point out at radio that was invented to be used as a bi-directional communications tool, and instead got to be a broadcasting device. Likewise, Digital TV is bound to follow an evolution of its own[52]

Dimitrios Paraskevas,

©May 1999.

Bibliography.

Baldwin Tomas, Mc Voy Stevens, Steinfield Charles, Convergence, Integrating Media Information & Communication, 1996, Sage, London.

Blumler Jay G, The New Television Marketplace: Imperatives, Implications, Issues, in, Curran James, Gurevitch Michael (eds), Mass Media and Society, 1991, Edward Arnold, Kent.

Castells Manuel, The Rise of the Network Society, 1996, Blackwell, Oxford.

Collins Richard, Murroni Christina, New Media, New Policies: Media and Communication Strategies for the Future, 1996, Blackwell, Oxford.

Downing John, Mohammadi Ali, Sreberny-Mohammadi Annabelle (eds), Questioning the Media: A critical Introduction, 1995, Sage, London.

Dutton H William (ed), Information and Communication Technologies: Vision and Realities, 1996, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Feldman Tony, An Introduction to Digital Media, 1997, Routledge, London.

Holland Patricia, The Television Handbook, 1997, Routledge, London.

Hughes Patric, Today’s Television, Tomorrow’s World, in Goodwin & Whannel Understanding Television, 1990, Routledge, London.

Johnson Fred, Cyberpunks in the White House, in Dovey Jon (ed). Fractal Dreams - New Media in Social Context, 1996, Lawrence & Wishart, London.

Lamizet Bernard, Weymouth Antony, Markets and Myths: Forces for Change in the European Press, 1996, Longman, Harlow Essex.

Leiss William, The myth of the Information Society, in Angus/Jhally, Cultural Politics in Contemporary America, 1989, Routledge, London.

Levinson Paul, The Soft Edge, 1997, Routledge, London.

Mosco Vincent, The Political Economy of Communication: Rethinking and Renewal, 1996, Sage, London.

Mosco Vincent, Wasko Janet (eds), The Political Economy of Information, 1988, University of Winsconsin Press, London.

Negroponte Nicholas, Being Digital, 1995, Alfred A. Knopf, London.

Siune Karen, Truetzschler Wolfgang, Dynamics of Media Politics - Broadcast and Electronic Media in Western Europe, 1992, Sage, London.

Sussman Gerald, Communication Technology and Politics in the Information Age, 1997, Sage, London.

Williams Raymond, Television Technology and Cultural Form, 1990, Routledge, London.

Internet Resources.

Since the first television broadcast in March 1935 in Berlin[53] broadcasters have been using analogue transmission systems. Analogue transmission is achieved by converting sound and pictures into electrical signals and then transmit them through various methods[54]. The first German television service achieved a scanning capability of 180 lines/frame, and was transmitting 25 frames/second using mechanical technology. The first all electronic system was introduced in England in 1937 producing 405 lines/frame, in the same year France introduced a system capable of 455 lines/frame[55]. The first US system started in New York in 1939 producing 340 lines/frame operating at 30 frames/second[56].

As we can easily see there were many incompatibilities in the early days of television. Each of the major countries of the Western World was trying to achieve its own television system. Sequentially three systems have been adopted world-wide. NTSC (National Television Systems Committee) is the system used in America and Japan, was developed in the 1940s capable of 525 lines/frame and 60 frames per second[57]. This standard balanced the quality of the picture with the amount of spectrum required

for its transmission and 6 MHz were selected as the compromise bandwidth[58]. In Europe in 1952 a single standard of 625 line/frame at 50 frames/second was adopted[59].

With the development of colour television we had the emergence of yet different systems. NTSC was developed to colour transmission system and it was launched in the United States in 1954.

Europe refused to follow this system and in the 1960s we had the emergence of two similar systems. SECAM (Sequential Couleur Avec Memoire) system was introduced in France in 1961 by Henri de France, and PAL (Phase Alternating Line) which is used throughout Europe and was introduced in Germany by Dr Waiter Burch in 1963. Both systems were launched in 1967 successfully[60], transmitting at 625 lines/frame at 50 frames/second (or 25 complete frames/second)[61] and occupying 7 MHz[62]-[63]. There is an argument however supporting the view that Europe developed its own systems in order to protect the local manufacturers as few manufacturers were supplies with PAL and SECAM patents, for further discussion see Siune & Truetzschler, 1992.

As television started developing, Hollywood was worried from the evolving competition and it developed the widescreen format which gave the theatre audience the feeling that they were in the movie[64]. While all television formats were supporting the 4:3 ratio (width : height), widescreen is supporting 16:9 giving extra picture.

Since the 50s and 60s major technological advances have been made that exposed the problems of the previous systems. The need for a better broadcasting system became obvious in the 80s. HDTV (High Definition Television) can, with current technology, be achieved but the main problem lies not in the equipment but in the spectrum. Baldwin says that in order to transmit HDTV consisting of 1100 lines of vertical and 700 lines of horizontal resolution we would require over 30 MHz bandwidth, which equals to 5 NTSC channels[65]. One proposal to overcome this problem came from Nicholas Negroponte and thereafter has been known as the ‘Negroponte Switch’. Negroponte suggested that in the future all information that is coming from the ground will come from the ether and visa-versa[66]. This means that telephony can go all around mobile and television to become fully cable. That would resolve the bandwidth problem because in cable situations when we run out of spectrum we can simply add some more.

However this proposal poses major difficulties, as it requires a tremendous infrastructure to cable all households, especially in Europe where we don’t have the cable history that Americans do. In fact cable connection in Europe is anything but homogeneous; varying from 91.6% penetration in Belgium and 87.9% in Netherlands to Nil in Greece, Italy and Portugal. In the UK also, we have low figures of just 3.8%[67] cable penetration. So, the infrastructure that is required to wire Europe is enormous. Thus, in order to achieve a better television service, governments and companies turned to a different broadcasting system which is digital.

Digital (also known as binary) code is the language of computers. It is nothing more than the symbolic representation of ‘on’ and ‘off’. It is represented by a series of 0s’ and 1s’ which are known as bits[68], and it’s the language used by all digital devices. The first digital device built, was the general purpose digital calculator in 1944[69]. Since then a rapid growth in technology followed bringing prices down and computing power up[70]. This computing power with its affordable price is the one to create the new digital system of transmission.

Negroponte argues that television is the most ‘dumbest’ domestic device. He says that a microwave is likely to have more microprocessors that the television[71]. In a way, this is because there was never a need to put processing power in the TV set. Processing power was kept for the personal computers, executing all the functions that were required to, while television was left as the traditional medium that it still is[72]. Digital transmission though is about to change that.

In order to achieve digital transmission, we first have to convert the analogue picture to digital. However, one major problem is that one second of television (at 25 frames/second) requires about 20 megabytes[73]. This means a tremendous amount of information that is proving impossible to transmit. A solution that came forward is to compress the information, thus to decrease the amount of data required. Feldman provides a very good analysis on how is this compression achievable.

“For example, imagine a television picture, one-third of which is showing a uniformly blue sky. In digital terms, the sky would require about 0.4 megabytes of data. However, a massive compression can be achieved by creating a relatively short code of just a few bytes which effectively tells the computer that ‘the next 400,000 bytes will be blue’. The short code would then be acted on just before display to produce the appropriate number of blue pixels to represent the sky” (Feldman, 1997, p28).

This way, the amount of data required for transmission are being significantly reduced. This way of compression is called MPEG and stands for Motion Picture Experts Group. MPEG-1 was first published in 1993 and it principally supports video coding at bit-rates up to about 1.5 Mbit/s giving quality similar to VHS, and virtually transparent stereo audio quality at 192 kbits/sec. and is optimised for a non-interlaced video signals[74]. However soon after a need for a second system developed which led to MPEG-2 standard which is capable of coding standard definition television at bit-rates from about 1.5Mb/s to some 15 Mbit/s. MPEG-2 also adds the option of multi-channel surround sound coding. MPEG-2 is backwards compatible with MPEG-1 (i.e. MPEG-2 decoders will decode MPEG-1 pictures and sound). It is interesting to note that, for video signals coded at bitrates below about 3 Mbit/s, MPEG-1 may be more efficient than MPEG-2[75].

However a problem rises when we have a transmission which requires a lot of movement. A lot of movement means that we cannot use the static compression that I introduced before. This will lead to a ‘digital congestion’ that will affect the picture quality. For this reason ‘multiplexes’ were introduced.

What is a multiplex though? It is a UHF channel used to carry digital signals. By means of compression, several services can be carried in the same channel[76]. A multiplex gives the ability to a particular channel to surpass its bandwidth by extending it to other channels[77].

This means that whenever difficult scenes are encountered, we can avoid digital congestion by extending the transmission to another channel that has available bandwidth at that time. As the DVB site better explains:

“Using MPEG-2 as a stream of "data containers" labelled with full addressing and processing instructions (in the form of DVB Service Information - SI) DVB provides the receiver at the other end of the "pipe" with the location, network, broadcast and programme information it needs to jump from one element of the multiplex to another and between multiplexes without missing a beat, shifting gear to decode HDTV, SDTV, data, and automatically setting the optimum system parameters” (http://www.dvb.org/dvb_framer.htm)

But how can digital television also enhance our viewing experience? Broadcasting is affected by various parameters. However when it comes to analogue, by loosing even the slightest of the signal we lose quality. In digital broadcasting the signal has to be totally lost in order to have reduced quality.

Another problem that rises is that if digital broadcasting will support 16:9 ratio, what will happen to all the viewers having the traditional 4:3 set, or what will happen to all the hours of programming that TV-stations have recorded at the 4:3 ratio. The solution came with the name ‘Active Format Descriptor’. The Active Formal Descriptor (AFD) is a signal that broadcasters will transmit with the picture to enable television sets to display the picture to best effect[78]. What are the best settings of course will depend on the viewer’s preferences as some want to see a ‘screenful’ while others prefer to have the normal picture even if that means having the ‘letterbox’ effect. There are five options supported by widescreen televisions when 4:3 ratio programming is concerned. They are the following:

“The latter three modes need some explanation. Zoom will keep the correct shape but crops the top and bottom of a 4x3 picture quite considerably. Smart / panorama avoids the cropping by stretching the picture horizontally to fill the screen but makes everyone look as though they need to go on a diet. Neither of these modes is entirely satisfactory. What we need is a signal from the broadcaster to say, for example, "This picture can be zoomed in and cropped as far as 14x9 (because we have shot it with this compromise in mind)" or "this picture is actually letterbox so, even if you normally prefer to watch in 4x3, you can zoom it in to 14x9." This is where the AFD come in. It is a way of giving the TV set more information so that it can adjust the zoom for best effect taking account of viewers preferences”( http://www.dtg.org.uk/tutorial/AFD_expl.htm).

There is also the case of 4:3 TV sets receiving 16:9 programming. In this case there are 3 options. Either the picture will be vertically stretched, or the letterbox effect will take place with either 14:9 ratio which will mean a small loss at the sides of the picture, or the 16:9 ratio which will show the whole picture but quite big black lines over and under the picture.

4. In the next 12 months, do you or anyone in your household plan to buy a TV? Would you say…?

6. If ‘Yes’ then how did you become familiar with Digital TV? Was the source mostly…? (Please tick one answer only)

8. If ‘Yes’ then how would you describe the stories you’ve seen or heard about Digital TV? Would you say the stories about Digital TV were…?