Page 196 - Communication Commerce and Power The Political Economy of America and the Direct Broadcast Satellite

186 Communication, Commerce and Power

in the 1960s and 1970s- decades in which behavioral regulation was
dominant - the 1980s and 1990s - (a period in which structural
regulation reached its apogee) large-scale communications and infor-
mation commodity corporations have sought growth and dominance
with 'competition' as only the means to an end. The more essential
forces compelling market liberalization in this sector have involved
capitalists seeking better services at lower prices in order to accom-
modate more expansive and diversified global production, distribu-
tion and consumption activities. Together, this bloc of interests has
emerged with the not unproblematic (but essential) assistance of the
American state. The cultural imperialism paradigm, because it lacks a
developed theory of such inter-corporate dynamics and their relation-
ship to the more general structures involved in historical change, lacks
the capacity to 'make sense' of the complexities of contemporary
developments and the role of the United States.
At this juncture in history - one involving dynamic, technology-
based developments and their disruptive implications - the disparate
character of the American state has provided US-based capital with
unanticipated advantages. The inability of a single communication
policy agent to take on a leadership position enabled the USTR to
emerge as the de facto coordinator of US free flow efforts under the
auspices of free trade. HDTV developments, because of the recent
confluence of digitalization, DBS, and an enforceable free trade· in
services regime, constitute one concrete illustration of the distinct
advantage held by US-based interests in the emerging information
economy. Unlike European and Japanese efforts to challenge Amer-
ican interests, US-based companies resisted making significant HDTV
commitments until industry leaders - especially AT&T and IBM -
began to commit themselves to an integrated digital technology
future. Quite unlike American state agencies, both the EC and
Japan attempted to orchestrate a HDTV head-start without the com-
pliance of key US interests. Beyond the obvious point about the
economic dominance of US corporations in information-based com-
modity activities in toto (probably the key consideration from a per-
spective of cultural imperialism), what is significant is the fact that
attempts by some foreign states and corporations to avoid an emula-
tion of US HDTV developments for the most part have failed. Core
international policy developments and key technological practices are
being generated in or mediated through the United States. Information
economy developments thus are not 'globally driven.' Nor an~ they
reducible to the somehow coordinated orchestrations of US interests.