The New Networks

The Internet has grown from being a military funded communications system (the ARPA net), to an academic resource network (in the form of JANET in the United Kingdom), to the 'next mass medium', as Real Networks founder Paul Glaser describes it. He has good reason to use such terms, there being an estimated 200 million personal computers connected to the net, and around 100 million registered users of Real Player (InfoPorn: Wired 8.03). In this new mass media, independent producers are distributing their own content from the bottom up, reversing conventional information flows, but ultimately limited in their ability (or indeed intention) to appeal to mass audiences. Simultaneously at the top end traditional media organisations, threatened by the emergence of a potential challenge to their market dominance, have been caught off guard somewhat. Their cumbersome nature, and wariness of a medium where the audience talks back, has resulted in them allowing the more dynamic technology companies to lead the way.

The new networks operate in two ways: Firstly as constructors of the dominant formats for 'new media', and secondly as channels in their own right, providing the technical expertise and Internet savvy to deliver content on a mass scale across the web. This chapter will examine the competing media formats with particular focus on Real Player, the current market leader, and consider the importance of establishing a dominant media form online. Internet media channels will then be analysed, with a case study of the Digital Entertainment Network, which creates and broadcasts digital programming for the 'Generation Y' market, which it sees as being neglected by conventional media. Both of these areas of development raise certain issues for broadcasters and audiences: Is the 'democratisation of distribution' compromised by reliance upon copyrighted media formats? How will a proliferation of online broadcasters affect the media environment? If channels proliferate to the point of brand awareness becoming obsolete, then will content be king? And if that is the case, will these young Turks of the new mass media fall by the wayside as old media bring their back catalogues online?

 

Form and Format

At present there are 3 major formats for video online: Progressive Networks' RealPlayer, Apple's QuickTime and Microsoft's Windows Media Player. Conventional wisdom would expect Microsoft to be the market leader, but its relative sluggishness to embrace the Internet has left it trailing RealPlayer in the streaming media stakes. Partly this is due to RealNetworks established customer base with its popular Realaudio software, which became an accepted standard for Internet radio before the medium's entertainment potentials were fully realised. Calculating total usage by format is problematic; which is the truer measure of popularity, number of end users of quantity of content available? Calculating a definite figure for total users is complicated by necessary reinstallation of software after upgrading machines, sharing software amongst peers, and by the manufacturers' tendency to 'bundle' software together in order to inflate figures. The following table draws from a number of sources to illustrate the current market situation:

 

 

	Total registered users	Downloads per week as of 19/04.00	Launch Date
RealPlayer	90 / 115 Million	33,022	April 1995
Microsoft Media Player	40 / 100 Million	15,185	September 1996
Apple QuickTime	20 Million plus	400,000	1991

 

Source: Info Porn: Wired 8.03, unless link specified.

 

RealPlayer's position appears to be quite secure, but it is worth noting that the other two formats are 'platform native'. Media Player is now bundled with Microsoft's Windows operating system, QuickTime with Mac OS. However Microsoft is not exactly in direct competition with Real, holding a 10% non-voting stake in parent company Progressive, and now bundles Real Player with its Internet Explorer software. Calculating the dominant format for available material online, is even more difficult. Real claims that 85% of streaming media enabled websites use its software, whilst Apple boast in excess of 50,000 sales of its Open Source Streaming Server. Regardless of corporate hyperbole the figures are extremely large in any case; all three formats are well known to Internet users, who I would suggest are concerned more with media content than format at present (though this may change as broadband become more prevalent).

The continued success of RealPlayer is due in no small part to its content. It differs from QuickTime and Media Player, by coupling the viewing area to a 'channel selector' which is an integral part of the software. It's content is impressive with streaming video feeds from CNN, ABC, Fox, Discovery Channel, ZDTV and Bloomberg amongst others. Media Player and QuickTime have their own favoured sources of content, but these do not intrude upon the viewing area; the products function perfectly as 'stand alones'. On a technical level Real Player is almost certainly the inferior product, with its compression technology resulting in a lower image quality to file size ratio than Quick Time. It is a situation not dissimilar to the VHS / Betamax race in the early eighties. Betamax the technically superior product lost out to the more effectively marketed VHS. Likewise Sony Playstation has dominated the console market of the late nineties, despite threats from Sega and Nintendo, principally by accumulating a formidable software catalogue. However what is quite different about streaming video formats, to these hardware choices is the conversational nature of the Internet. Whilst RealPlayer may act as a television in the sense that one can choose a channel from its menu and receive content, it shares a feature common with all formats in that it can be used to display content from an external source. Any website wishing to produce Real Video, QuickTime or Media Player content, need not enter into any form of broadcasting agreement with the software companies unless they so desire. For the vast majority of streaming media available on the Internet, the only negotiation was the purchase of entry level construction software. For users of Real Player and indeed QuickTime and Media Player, their informational experience is as much 'show me what I want' as it is 'show me what you think best.'

At a basic level, the choice of format for online media is analogous to the adoption of NTSC or PAL as an accepted television standard. Whilst Microsoft would certainly be keen to see one common format (in which it had a stake) as the key to dominating the convergence process, the continuously evolving nature of the Internet makes this unlikely. In much the same way as Linux has emerged as a credible operating system or as Apple has claimed it's place as the aesthetes platform of choice, the Internet's dynamic nature (in that it is a product of its users as much as its original creators) hampers the adoption of one common standard (as evidenced by the continued discrepancies in browser interpretation).

Whilst there may be a consumer interest in a common media format, in as much as simplifying the transition from traditional to online broadcasting, there is a certain danger in allowing private enterprise to manage the means of distribution. If one format is to prove the 'accepted standard' then the manufacturer has a certain monopoly on information flows. Even with several competing systems, the concern still remains that the companies providing this service may refuse access to those content producers whom they feel may damage their interests. At present it would appear that the software companies do not hold such reservations (as mentioned earlier, pornographers were quick to adopt this technology, and given the proliferation of adult content on the net must be considered major customers of the streaming video companies). Furthermore, in the light of Microsoft's recent defeat in the anti-trust case brought about by the US Justice Department, it would not be unreasonable to assume that any 'media conduit' that did exercise monopolistic control could face similar sanctions. In addition to these official channels of discourse, it is important to remember that computer networks are far more 'open' than their conventional predecessors. They rely less on a universal standard than television where local markets have specified formats (in the UK transmissions and video cassettes are all in PAL for example) in order to facilitate mass production of compatible receivers. Computers are inherently more complex than simple receivers such as televisions, and when networked the complexity is exponentially increased. The simplified language of HTML allows different operating systems, browsers and media formats to co-exist (at least in theory), and is a key factor in the success of creating a global media network. The adaptive nature of the Internet is problematic for those who wish to apply Fordist principles of manufacture and commerce to it, but advantageous for those wishing to prevent its complete control by a digital oligarchy.

Online Channels

Whilst Real, QuickTime and Media Player provide the means of distributing audio-visual content online, they are principally carriers of content rather than creators. As much as Microsoft's desktop channels, or Real's content providers may offer the best of big media, much of the most exciting and interesting programming is found on websites that aim for audiences previously neglected by network television schedules. It's quite useful being able to watch CNN online, but it's hardly revolutionary considering its ubiquity on cable television the world over. Online channels that have established themselves independently of old media are becoming increasingly prominent, with sites such as DEN, EruptorTV, On2.com and ProteinTV all establishing a strong Internet presence.

In its own words the Digital Entertainment Network (DEN) is a 'privately held interactive online network that targets youth culture through original entertainment, community features and e-commerce opportunities.' It is in many ways the epitome of popular perceptions of new media: Young, alternative and interactive. What is not so clear is how DEN and its competitors differ from traditional media in terms of their aims and objectives.

DEN's Arlo Eisenberg is certainly confident that DEN will have an impact on the media environment: 'MTV revolutionised television, but this will replace TV.' It aims to do this by producing and broadcasting low budget niche shows for a Generation Y audience. It's current schedule includes 'Tales from the East Side' a drama series based around Hispanic youths struggling with life in East LA, extreme sports coverage ('AggroNation'), a SoCal Punk themed drama ('Fear of a Punk Planet') and 'ConfiDENtial' an unscripted documentary series concerning 'urgent youth issues.' The format is mindful of current bandwidth concerns; episodes are six minutes long and the display three inches square. DEN distributes its content via Windows Media Player and QuickTime, but Real Network's Paul Glaser describes perfectly why online channels like DEN may be a serious to challenge to old media:

'Aggregators who are all over sports, or all over news, or all over music, or kids stuff, or French impressionism, or cooking, or something that may not even have an economic model in the 36-channel world, but which has a deep and commited communtiy - that's who'll do great.'

It represents the triumph of the Internet in providing the unlimited range of programming that conventional television cannot. In a crowded spectrum, broadcasting is essential as the bandwidth limits the amount of siultaneous content. In an infinitely broad spectrum such as the Internet, the theme is 'narrowcasting'. Strong specialised content is likely to be the order of the day, and this as much to the old guard's advantage as the young upstarts. The BBC and CNN will continue to be world leaders in news, ESPN and Sky will still control sports. However for all the areas that were previously untapped, the new media companies will seek to serve that demand. It is their nimble nature and audience proximity that will ensure their success as they will often be initiated by those audiences who felt unsatisfied with the media content they were offered.

However DEN is a commercial operation, and its motivation is as much e-commerce as it is artistic endeavour. For access to its niche audience, big money advertisers have been willing to buy in to the DEN experience. Blockbuster, Ford and Pepsi are three of the sponsors who will enjoy 'click to buy' enabled 'cybermercials and hypermercials.' The music streamed by DEN will be sampled free of charge, but the full product made available to buy from selected suppliers. DEN may provide innovative programming, but interactivity is about more than shopping. The DEN communities allow users / audience to chat and discuss DEN content amongst themselves, and there is some mention of 'user submission areas', though it is unclear to what extent DEN will involve its membership. The MTV comparison made by Eisenberg is perhaps rather apt; DEN is a niche channel, but then again so was MTV when it began.

Though the new networks may be reaping the benefits of an unregulated and low cost means of distribution, its is important to remember they have expenses and wish to see a return on those expenses. They may represent a transition form broadcasting to narrowcasting, but they remain commercial concerns. In that sense they are not so dissimilar from their old media competitors.