the internet is distinct in that it can facilitate the targeting of minority interest groups. the grow of the internet is based on these groups coming together, becoming internet savy and then generating their own content. from this process new idea’s of content have emerged. [arguably, much of this content is of limited capital object-value or qualitative use-value. the gaming industry being the exception on both counts.]

put simply, the internet evolves at a faster pace than TV, because the two mediums are ideologically-if not commercially, pulling in opposite directions.

but this is not new. content providers have always had to choose between the universal and the specific-consider public service broadcasters. as the means of distribution has become more prevalent (more channels), and the shift in emphasis (from the generic audience to the specific) gathers pace, revenue re advertisers has shrunk.

the question is how to maintain the quality of content with an ever shrinking revenue stream. the argument thus comes full circle: the answer hinging on distribution. once a universal distributive platform emerges and an interface (ie. flashplayer) convergence can continue apace. but this drive runs contrary to the ideology of the internet-the user as content.

what is the answer? a popular cultural dialect, with content forms filtering up through the internet onto our tv screens. tell me in 20 years time that i will be watching substancial TV content produced for the internet and i’d have to ask you how much will it cost to subscribe?