![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
The discourse surrounding convergence of mass media content and infrastructures has been fraught with extravagant expectations and rhetoric. This article utilizes a cross‐national perspective and focuses on regulatory aspects of the media convergence issue in order to explore the disconnect between the hype and realities of convergence. Three research questions characterize the relevant existing policy initiatives, identify obstacles to convergence and in comparativist terms ascertain which policy models have been relatively more effective. This paper adopts a case study structure integrating convergence policy models in the US, South Africa, Japan and India.
Notes
1. A version of this paper was presented as the 2005 Oxford Internet Institute’s (OII’s) Summer Doctoral Program. I would like to thank William H. Dutton, Director of the OII, for his thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
2. S. G. Verhulst, ‘About scarcities and intermediaries: the regulatory paradigm shift of digital content reviewed’, in L. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (eds), The Handbook of New Media, Sage Publications, London, 2002, pp. 432–47; L. Hitchens, ‘Introduction to the special feature on communication regulation—new patterns and problems’, The Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 3, 1997; C. Marsden, ‘The European digital convergence paradigm: from structural pluralism to behavioral competition law’, The Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 3, 1997, available at: http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/commsreg/97_3mars/; M. Feintuck, ‘Regulating the media revolution: in search of the public interest’, The Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 3, 1997, available at: http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/commsreg/97_3fein/.
3. Some have suggested that convergence has failed to materialize due to fundamental incontrovertible differences in the media formats. See W. J. Drake and E. M. Noam, ‘The WTO deal on basic telecommunications: big bang or little whimper?’, Telecommunications Policy, 21, 9/10, 1997, pp. 799–818; S. Menon, ‘The influence of US foreign DBS policy on Indian DBS TV: a case study of policy transfer’, Telecommunications Policy, 25, 8/9, 2001, pp. 543–64. In addition, differences in the corporate cultures in the discrete media lead to inter‐corporate rivalry and detract from the transparencies and economies of scale, scope and distribution that could potentially arise from mergers and acquisitions that consolidate corporate entities in traditionally different media sectors. Examples of this include the corporate instability and lack of true vertical integration at Bertelsmann, AOL–Time Warner, Vivendi–Universal and AT&T–TCI among others.
4. Verhulst, op. cit.
5. Jan Van Dijk, The Network Society, Sage Publications, London, 1999.
6. One prominent manifestation of integration that bears mentioning is integrated networks which are designed from the start to exchange several communication and information facilities, traffic patterns and types of data simultaneously and seamlessly. Integrated broadband networks, such as those affiliated with ISDN systems, serve as prime examples that fit the operational definition of integration used here.
7. Van Dijk, op. cit.
8. Ibid.
9. The process of digitalization is furthered with the market adoption of services such as ISDN, the proliferation of Internet hosts and the increase in market demand for PCs, which is a prime example of a digitized consumer electronics artifact. Moreover, digitalization of audiovisual mass communication enables the development of links between the world of television and that of computers. The concepts behind this definition are reinforced in the empirical component of the ensuing sections of this paper.
10. At the outset it is important to offer at least two clarifications on key assumptions resident in this study. First, with regard to the relation between policy measures (legislative, reform, regulation) and convergence, the discussion here does not assume that policy reform is a necessary precondition for convergence to occur and no a priori causal relationship should be assumed. For example, many forms of convergence occur at the level of terminal equipment, which is almost fully deregulated. The regulation of the production of tele‐ and data communication equipment has been reduced more and more to matters of standardization. Secondly, it would be too simplistic to assume that policy initiatives are the only factors or variables that impact progress towards convergence. The analysis here recognizes that there are a host of technological, political and economic variables or considerations which play a role in the process, aside from policy initiatives. However, this paper is focused on regulatory instruments.
11. Verhulst, op. cit.; C. Scott, ‘The proceduralization of telecommunications law: adapting to convergence’, The Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 3, 1997, available at: http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/commsreg/97_3scot/.
12. R. C. Rist, ‘Influencing the policy process with qualitative research’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000, pp. 1001–17.
13. Ithiel Sola de Pool, Technologies of Freedom, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.
14. Ibid.
15. Daniel Chandler, Technological or Media Determinism, Aberystwyth, London, 1995.
16. J. C. Thomas, ‘The long‐term social implications of new information technology’, in R. R. Dholakia, N. Mundorf and N. Dholakia (eds), New Infotainment Technologies in the Home, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1996, pp. 255–75.
17. Verhulst, op. cit.
18. R. Williams and D. Edge, ‘The social shaping of technology’, in W. H. Dutton (ed.), Information and Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996, pp. 53–67.
19. Langdon Winner, Autonomous Technology: Technics‐Out‐Of‐Control as a Theme in Political Thought, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977; L. Winner, ‘Do artifacts have politics?’, Daedalus, 109, 1985, pp. 121–36.
20. N. Garnham, ‘Constraints on multimedia convergence’, in Dutton (ed.), op. cit., pp. 103–19.
21. Williams and Edge, op. cit.
22. Ibid.
23. Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator Got its Hum, Open University Press, Philadelphia, 1985; Wiebe Bijker and John Law, Shaping Technology/Building Societies: Studies in Socio‐technical Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
24. Edward Herman and Robert McChesney, The Global Media, Cassell, London, 1997.
25. Ibid.
26. Robert McChesney, Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy, Seven Stories Press, New York, 1997.
27. R. W. McChesney, ‘The political economy of global communication’, in R. W. McChesney, E. M. Wood and J. B. Foster (eds), Capitalism and the Information Age, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1998, pp. 1–27.
28. E. M. Noam, ‘Will Internet TV be American?’, in E. M. Noam, J. Groebel and D. Gerbarg (eds), Internet Television, Lawrence Erlbaum Press, Mahwah, NJ, 2004, pp. 235–42; D. Waterman, ‘Business models and program content’, in Noam et al. (eds), op. cit.; Benjamin Compaine and Douglas Gomery, Who Owns the Media?: Competition and Concentration in the Mass Media Industry, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2000.
29. Moreover the US has attained the level of socio‐economic development, particularly in its mass media sector, to pose significant advantages relative to the other countries covered in this study, to capitalize on pursuing convergence.
30. This resistance to intervene manifests, as an impediment to convergence when there are structural barriers to convergence that non‐intrusive policy initiatives cannot resolve.
31. In fact the government has placed its policy initiatives regarding convergence on‐line and has sought comment on them from the public and industry.
32. Federal Communication Commission, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2003.
33. Federal Communication Commission, ‘Plug and Play’ Rules, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2003.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and Broadcasting, Green Paper on Telecommunication Policy, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and Broadcasting, South Africa, Capetown, 1995.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Department of Communications, White Paper on Broadcasting Policy, Independent Broadcast Authority, South Africa, Capetown, 1998.
40. Ibid.
41. K. Kobayashi, ‘The development of media convergence in Japan: a historical perspective’, in M. Hukill, R. Ono and C. Vallath (eds), Electronic Communication Convergence: Policy Challenges in Asia, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2000, pp. 216–31.
42. Office of the Prime Minister, E‐Japan Priority Policy Program, Office of the Prime Minister, Japan, Tokyo, 2001.
43. Office of the Prime Minister, Outline of the First Follow‐up of the Action Plan of the Basic Guidelines Toward the Promotion of an Advanced Information and Telecommunication Society, Office of the Prime Minister, Japan, Tokyo, 2000.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Policy initiatives, in themselves, cannot dictate the level of convergence within each case. However, in the Japanese context, the Outline lacks an appropriate timetable or even loosely defined accountability measures, mechanisms or policy instruments that would bind industry to deliver services that it has committed to in a timely fashion. These mechanisms should not be designed as an albatross for industry but should merely serve as an effective tool to ensure that at least some progress is made in terms of converged services on a fairly easily accessible basis to the average Japanese citizen.
47. Menon, 2001, op. cit.; S. Menon, ‘India’s convergence policy within its communication sector: a long road ahead’, Government Information Quarterly, 21, 2004, pp. 319–36.
48. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Summary of the Indian Broadcast Bill, 1997, Resource Center of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi, 1997.
49. Ibid.
50. According to the New Telecommunications Policy 1999–2000 Details Report released by the DoT (Department of Telecommunications), the strategic objectives of the NTP99 include creating modern and efficient telecommunications taking into account the convergence of IT, media, telecommunications and consumer electronics. Another policy goal involves transforming in a time bound manner, the telecommunications sector to a greater competitive environment in both rural and urban areas, providing equal opportunities and a level playing field for service providers.
51. L. Srivastava and S. Sinha, ‘Case study—TP case study: fixed‐mobile interconnection in India’, Telecommunications Policy, 25, 1/2, 2001, pp. 21–38.
52. Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India, New Telecommunications Policy, 1999 (NTP 1999), Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India, New Delhi, 1999.
53. J. P. Singh, ‘The institutional environment and effects of telecommunication privatization and market liberalization in Asia’, Telecommunications Policy, 24, 2000, pp. 885–906.
54. Most recently the government passed a Communication Convergence Bill in 2001 which was intended to restructure its broadcast and telecommunication administrative bodies under a single regulatory structure, namely the Communication Commission of India. While the legislation and the establishment of a new administrative body may seemingly imply that the government is taking an interventionist role in forging convergence, this is actually not the case. The substance of the 2001 Bill invests the new CCI with too ill defined power and little authority to make significant strides towards convergence. Moreover, the new legislation fails to offer critical specifics on how it would operate to make convergence a reality in the marketplace and instead relies too heavily on rhetoric. This lack of specificity and interventionism is due to the bifurcated approach that had dominated the nation’s regulatory approach in the past.
55. See Pippa Norris, Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.
56. International Telecommunication Union, World Telecommunication Development Report 2003: Access Indicators for the Information Society, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, 2003; United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report 2003: Millennium Development Goals: A Compact Among Nations to End Human Poverty, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003.
57. International Telecommunication Union, op. cit.
58. Ibid.
59. N. Garnham and G. Mulgan, ‘Broadband and the barriers to convergence in the European community’, Telecommunications Policy, 15, 3, 1991, pp. 182–95; Garnham, op. cit.
60. S. D. Krasner, ‘Sovereignty: an institutional perspective’, in J. A. Caporaso (ed.), The Elusive State: International and Comparative Perspectives, Sage Publications, New York, 1989, pp. 69–96; D. C. North, ‘Toward a theory of institutional change’, in W. Barnett, M. Hinich and N. Schofield (eds), Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993, pp. 61–9; Peter Cowhey and Mathew McCubbins (eds), Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995.
61. J. G. March and J. P. Olsen, ‘The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life’, American Political Science Review, 78, 1984, pp. 734–49.
62. Douglas North, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990.
63. H. Galperin, ‘Beyond interests, ideas, and technology: an institutional approach to communication and information policy’, The Information Society, 20, 3, 2004, pp. 159–68.
64. Bert‐Jaap Koops, Corien Prins and Hielke Hijmans (eds), ICT Law and Internalization: A Survey of Government Views, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2000; Kathleen Hatten, Cable Challenges: Convergence and Competition, ICMA, Washington, DC, 2001; David Goldberg, Tony Prosser and Stefaan Verhulst (eds), Regulating the Changing Media: A Comparative Study, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998; Thomas Baldwin, D. Stevens McVoy and Charles Steinfeld, Convergence: Integrating Media, Information and Communication, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996; Susan Drucker and Gary Gumpert (eds), Real Law@Virtual Space: Communication Regulation in Cyberspace, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, 1999; Klaus Grewlich, Governance in “Cyberspace”: Access and Public Interest in Global Communications, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1999; Sharon Gillett and Ingo Vogelsang (eds), Competition, Regulation, and Convergence: Current Trends in Telecommunications Policy Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1999.