Page 114 - Communication Theory Media, Technology and Society
P. 114

Holmes-04.qxd  2/15/2005  1:00 PM  Page 97





                                 The Interrelation between Broadcast and Network Communication  97
                      Media of interactive communication, however, tend to be scarce in
                  advertising and rest on the time-charging of a communicative event, rent-
                  ing of telephone lines, renting of computer servers and storage space.
                  Conversely, the more broadcast media are provided ‘free-to-air’, the more
                  they feature advertising. Viewers are relatively tolerant of such advertis-
                  ing, but the same does not obtain for forms of broadcast that require pay-
                  per-view, such as cable TV and cinema. Consumers of pay-television and
                  time-charged pay-per-view media resent advertising in these contexts.
                  Cinema-goers arrive late at films in order to avoid lead advertisements,
                                                                     9
                  whilst cable TV must promote itself as advertisement-free. An example of
                  the indignation at receiving advertisements via a pay-per-use service
                  surfaced in Australia in August 2001, when the largest phone company,
                  Telstra, was investigated over charging customers for ‘spam’ messages.
                  The  Australian Consumers  Association demanded that all customers
                  should get a refund. A spokesperson for the Association, Charles Britain,
                  said: ‘I think it’s a bit rich. It’s a characteristic of spam and email that
                  people have to pay to receive what are essentially advertisements. We
                  don’t approve of that in the electronic mail domain and I don’t think it’s
                  a good idea with message bank or SMS [texting].’
                      However, as long as the commodity circuits of the two kinds of
                  medium are kept separate, consumers are generally content to participate
                  in both forms of commodification. In the context of the metro-nucleation
                  wrought by the culture industry, it is easy for Internet Service Providers
                  (ISP) to appeal to consumers concerning their interest in exploring an
                  expanded range of horizontal communication mediums. For a time-
                  charged fee, the ISP will electronically remove the cellular architecture
                  which divides individuals from others locked into the same system of
                  ‘widely dispersed consumption points’. And of course the promise is that
                  it will do so more comprehensively than a telephone company can and
                  with much greater bandwidth. It is this feature which prompted Howard
                  Rheingold (1994) to speculate as to whether the Internet would be the
                  ‘next technology commodity’ (60–1). Certainly, an inspection of those
                  dot.com stocks before the crash in the late 1990s would have had most of
                  us being readily convinced by Mr Rheingold.



                  Understanding network communication in the context of
                  broadcast communication

                  As has been argued, the distinction between first and second media age is
                  a useful one to the extent that it suggests that ‘broadcast’ and ‘interactiv-
                  ity’ carry ontologically distinct forms of social tie, differences which are to
                  a limited measure clarified by the epochal distinction. Sometimes, post-
                  broadcast theorists glimpse the fact that this distinction need not be
                  historical (see Baym, 2000; Wark, 1999). McKenzie Wark (1999) suggests,
   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119