Before long, we’ll all be watching the Web on TV.
At least that’s what they tell us. The days of simply vegging out in front of the tube will be all but forgotten as we chat, surf and click our way to new heights of home entertainment. The digerati used to call this arranged marriage of TV and the ‘Net “convergence.” Now they just call it inevitable.
America Online pounded this point home earlier this month by cutting deals to deliver something called AOL TV to homes across the country through satellite TV hookups. That move came on the heels of AT & T;’s decision to install a Microsoft operating system on new television set-top boxes designed to route the ‘Net through cable TV systems.
Business analysts say these deals make perfect sense. And from a business point of view, they’re probably right. But in the rush to transform television sets into high-bandwidth ‘Net terminals, I wonder if anyone has bothered to ask one seemingly important question: Do people actually want interactive TV?
Television doesn’t exactly invite interaction. You turn it on, usually from across the room, and sit back to watch the show. If you don’t like what’s on, you can change the channel. And that’s pretty much it same as it’s been for the past 50 years.
This might seem old-fashioned compared to the ‘Net, which demands interactivity and encourages personal expression. But television taps into a deep human need for passive experiences, one that isn’t going away anytime soon. We watch television because we like to watch. After spending most of our time doing stuff, it’s nice to sit back and observe others doing something else, particularly if they’re doing it in some sort of sudden-death playoff.
The convergence crowd thinks we’d be happier if TV were more like the Internet. AOL TV is being built around the assumption that we want to “chat” with our fellow TV viewers, choose our own camera angles or purchase items displayed on the sets of our favorite shows. “We can supplement a passive experience with something that is a little bit more engaging, interactive,” AOL Chief Executive Steve Case told The Washington Post.
But if I felt like interacting, I wouldn’t have planted myself in front of the TV in the first place. When I watch “The Simpsons,” I don’t yearn to debate the finer points of Homer’s foibles with the world; I just want to laugh.
Perhaps I’m behind the times. AOL says chat rooms devoted to soap operas and cult favorites like “South Park” are filled with messages posted while the shows are on the air. And I admit that while watching football or baseball, I sometimes check the ‘Net for scores and stats from other games.
Still, this proves only that people can use a TV and a computer at the same time. Whether we’d want to merge those machines is another matter.
But common-sense objections won’t slow the rush to convergence. After all, media companies aren’t pushing interactive TV because it’s good for consumers: It’s the advertisers they’re after.
As network revenues slip away to cable channels and the ‘Net, the entertainment industry is anxious to get families huddled around a single box that can track their interests and target them with personalized ads. While direct marketers are honing their skills online, television is their Holy Grail, and convergence gets them there.
So you might as well sit back, relax and let your TV and your PC gang up on your attention span. Whoever wins the race to convergence AOL, Microsoft, AT & T;, NBC or all of the above will be more than happy to deliver exactly what you want to the biggest screen in the house.
You’ll still be able to watch TV, of course. Just don’t be surprised when your TV starts watching you.
Regulation effort won’t work
All babies’ first steps end the same way with a fall.
We should expect the same from the federal government’s first real attempt to regulate the Internet. While Congress and the Federal Trade Commission are taking steps toward safeguarding privacy, they seem destined to stumble over some tricky realities of online life.
The FTC proposed rules recently designed to protect children’s identities as they surf the Web. The rules would enforce the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, Congress’ only unchallenged bid to restrict online content.
While federal lawmakers have tried to stop unwanted e-mail, Internet gambling and online pornography, their bills either have failed to pass or were held up in court. The FTC’s privacy rules, then, will test how well the government can handle the Internet, a medium that resists regulation like Bill Clinton resists a straight answer.
The bill aims to ban commercial Web sites from collecting personal information from young children without parental consent. This is a fine idea, particularly when you see how low some companies will stoop to push products to preteens.
The problem, though, is that the bill doesn’t give the FTC any hint about how this should be done which is, after all, the hard part. It says only that the consent must be “verifiable,” an adjective that describes online communication about as well as “healthy” describes a fast-food burger and fries.
The FTC hasn’t settled on any one method just yet. Instead, it has proposed four processes, each of which comes preloaded with its own problems.
Young Web surfers will decide for themselves whether the FTC’s restrictions are overly burdensome, too complex or just plain stupid. If so, they’ll do something that even the most well-meaning Webmasters are powerless to prevent: lie.
Web sites simply cannot determine whether kids tell the truth about their age.
The FTC will accept comments on its proposed rules until June 11, after which time its commissioners are expected to settle on final regulations. Whatever rules they choose, though, cannot ensure that children won’t share too much information about themselves on the Web.
That task is best left to parents, who shouldn’t wait for a permission slip to get involved in their kids’ online adventures. Parents have far more experience than either the federal government or Webmasters in making sure their kids stay out of trouble.
Joe Salkowski is a syndicated columnist specializing in computers. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].
