Television & New Media
http://tvn.sagepub.com Internet Protocol TV in Perspective: A Matrix of Continuity and Innovation
Pyungho Kim Television New Media 2009; 10; 536 originally published online Aug 19, 2009; DOI: 10.1177/1527476409340908 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/6/536

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Television & New Media can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/10/6/536
Downloaded from http://tvn.sagepub.com by Nurudin UMM on October 26, 2009
Internet Protocol TV in Perspective
A Matrix of Continuity and Innovation

Pyungho Kim

Dankook University, Seoul, Korea
Television & New Media Volume 10 Number 6 November 2009 536-Sage Publications 10.1177/1527476409340908 http://tvnm.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com
The telecommunications firms have continually attempted to introduce a new intelligent television system for the past thirty-plus years by making the best use of ever-developing information and communication technologies, changes in media consumption patterns, collapse of regulatory barriers, and so on. Internet protocol TV (IPTV) is the most recent version of such corporate attempts. This article contextualizes IPTV in terms of its history, identity, and challenges. Despite the rhetoric of newness, IPTV is a replica of the interactive TV of the past, which has a turbulent genealogy of its own. Even with the interactive services based upon advanced IP technology, it is not structurally different from conventional television as the medium is organized following the TV model. In addition to competition, a contradiction between the open internet and walled-garden IPTV will pose critical challenges to the medium. However, IPTV is still evolving, and its future is not yet fully determined. Keywords: corporate imperative; historical discipline; interactive TV; internet; IPTV; new media; TV model
nternet protocol TV (IPTV) is emerging under the name of new media. Large as well as small landline telephone companies (telcos) in Europe, Asia, and the United States have introduced the medium since the early 2000s as part of bundled triple- or quad-play services (Engebretson 2005; Tynan 2006; Wilson 2006). Although it generally indicates the video service system offered by telcos, there are many different versions of IPTV in terms of service (e.g., video, video-plus interactive service), technology (e.g., full IP , hybrid of IP and radio frequency [RF], streaming over IP networks)1 and delivery medium (e.g., landline, mobile). Due to these variations, it is implausible to treat IPTV as a single homogeneous medium. In this article, IPTV refers to the delivery of video and interactive information and communication services over landline networks by the telcos. IPTV services available today differ from operator to operator and from market to market depending upon the service providers business plans, investment decisions, and network logistics in each area (Barthold 2007; Reedy 2008). Currently,
Authors Note: The author appreciates the Foundation for Broadcast Culture in Seoul, Korea, for its support for this research. Comments from anonymous reviewers were greatly helpful in editing the article. 536
Kim / Internet Protocol TV in Perspective 537
most telcos focus on the provision of video service such as high definition (HD) and video on demand (VOD) not unlike the existing pay-TV platforms like cable and satellite. But AT&T and Verizon in the United States and some European operators have developed and introduced a more sophisticated version of IPTV that offers various interactive services in addition to video delivery (Cable & Satellite Europe 2008; Sullivan and Spring 2007). Beginning from 2006, AT&T has provided an IPTV service called U-verse2 through which users can access video and various data services like stock, weather, sports, and traffic information (AT&T 2008). Users can also enjoy a number of video games (e.g., chess, Sudoku) and search the Yellow Pages directory on the TV monitor. Including online photo browsing and sharing inclusive of slideshows, users can watch multiscreen display of a program while performing program and VOD library searches. They can also schedule DVR recording via the internet or wireless devices. Verizon by the name of FiOS-TV (fiber optic service TV) has offered customers almost the same service features as AT&T since 2005 (Sullivan and Spring 2007). As mentioned earlier, these services are not readily available in all markets; rather, the telcos introduce these services in stages following their strategic deployment time frame. The goal of this article is to put IPTV in perspective to draw a contextual understanding of the medium. Given that IPTV is still in its infancy, concerns naturally converge on its business and technology case. A great deal of market research, trade press reports, and technology studies offer marketing strategies, business recommendations, service scenarios, engineering solutions, and more. Indeed, reports and studies of IPTV as a commercial media project and technical artifact are numerous, while those putting it in perspective are scant. Besides, not much academic attention has been paid to the medium, with the exception of a handful of research articles dealing with issues such as consumer expectations, business models, and service franchise regulations (Bouwman et al. 2008; Crandall, Sidak, and Singer 2007; Robbins 2006; Shin 2007a, 2007b). IPTV is significant because it is a new intelligent television system that symbolizes television after TV (Spigel and Olsson 2004). It is also important because it illustrates the persistence of a particular organizing model of information and communication technologies (ICTs) despite the constantly changing media environment.

Contextualizing IPTV

Context in its dynamic sense indicates the larger networks of relationships into which. objects and practices are inserted (Slack 1989, 339). To contextualize an object then means to produce a thick understanding about the object situated within the relationship networks. Since the networks can be infinitely established, there is no predetermined way to contextualize a medium. Depending upon the purpose
538 Television & New Media
of study, different factors can be explored to draw a large picture where the medium is located. This study will focus upon three contextual elements of IPTV that are not adequately addressed by the existing studies. First, it presents a brief history of IPTV that is essential to appreciate the development of the medium. Second, it analyzes IPTVs structural identity and organizing model that reveal its characteristic nature as a medium. Third, the study delves into critical challenges arising from the broadband internet environment that IPTV needs to resolve for its future.

A Genealogy of IPTV

IPTV did not emerge in a vacuum. For the past thirty-plus years, the telecommunications firms have continually attempted to introduce an intelligent television system equipped with information processing capacity to provide not only video but also a variety of information and communication services. The genealogy of intelligent television, particularly in the U.S. context, can be divided into three chronological stages. Its first generation was called interactive TV (ITV). A number of cable companies (cablecos) such as Warner, Cablevision, Cox Cable, Rogers, and Times-Mirror swarmed in to provide ITV services beginning from the late 1970s (Jesuale and Smith 1982). For instance, Warners Qube provided subscribers not only with TV channels and pay-per-view programs but also with interactive services such as opinion polling, various in-home information services (e.g., home banking and shopping), video games, electronic mail, and news services (Meadows 1980). The Cable Act did not allow the telcos until 1993 to enter into the video market (and for that matter, the information service market). Central to this aggressive move on the part of the cable industry was a business strategy in which they sought to expand into the lucrative urban market by offering two-way, interactive information and communication services over the system, including of course multiple video channels (Pepper 1987). In addition, a new, innovative set of ICTs (e.g., digital switching, optical fibre, and microprocessor) emerged that elevated public as well as corporate expectations to the extent of signalling a new information technology revolution (Castells 1996). Thanks to its huge information carrying capacity, cable was perceived as an agent of the information revolution that encouraged the cable industry to embrace the idea of a new, intelligent TV service called ITV. Contrary to high expectations, all these ITV projects including Qube, the most famous one, were shut down in the early eighties due to negative factors such as lukewarm reaction from subscribers, burdensome capital investment in system building, a thin revenue source, and so on (Carey 1997; Kim 2001). Entering the 1990s, another set of ITV projects mushroomed across the nation. This time the major players were the telcos, although a few cable multiple system operators (MSOs) tried their own version of ITV (e.g., Time Warners Full Service Network [FSN]). No sooner had the line of business restrictions was cleared in 1993

Kim / Internet Protocol TV in Perspective 539
than almost thirty video service applications were filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by the telcos (Stern 1994). Independent telcos like GTE started offering ITV services of TV channel retransmission and VOD widely, as did all regional bell operating companies (RBOCs) (Elmer-Dewitt 1994). Indeed, second-generation ITV was the media mantra of the moment (The Economist 1988, 88) driven by the development of ICTs, deregulation, and competition. On the other side of this mantra was a sense of urgency that compelled the telcos to develop an advanced network. both in order to defend their own turf as well as to be able to mount assaults on the lucrative territory of others (Burstein and Kline 1995, 157). Despite the mantra, most second-generation ITV projects were short-lived, lasting for less than a couple of years due to almost the same reasons that sank first-generation ITV. Their final stage came to an end when the two most aggressive of these projects, the ones pursued by Bell Atlantic and Time Warner, were closed in 1999 (Kim 1999). Yet again, in the early 2000s, the telcos resumed offering TV/VOD plus interactive services by the name of IPTV, which is the beginning of third-generation intelligent TV. The cablecos in response have developed a technology that they call tru2way to provide multimedia interactive services over their networks (National Cable Television Association 2008). Considering factors such as versatile IP technologies, attractiveness of bundling services, and the deregulatory telecommunications regime, IPTV may be well positioned to be a competitive, affordable, and convenient alternative for the customers to other media incumbents. However, its overall market performance has been weak thus far, though there is some evidence of positive consumer reactions (Broadcas t Engineering 2008a). According to recent reports, hardly any service operators outside of France, Italy, and Hong Kong have secured a substantial consumer base and revenues (Berendt 2008; Clark 2008). Furthermore, market reports generally predict a moderate growth of subscribership in the midterm future of IPTV (Gartner Report 2005, 2007; Meyer, Elliot, and Foqq 2008). It is still too early to tell how IPTV will fare against the backdrop of these uncertainties. But a more fundamental question than its commercial future is the nature of IPTV as a medium.

IPTV as a Medium

Many factors can be examined to understand IPTV as a medium like service features, technologies, communication structure, and system architecture. As mentioned earlier, IPTV provides various forms and contents of communication and information services. For technologies, it utilizes IP and/or RF depending upon the operators strategic assessment of IPTV business.3 Needless to say, there are differences between ITV and IPTV in terms of service features (e.g., no audience

540 Television & New Media
participation in IPTV) and technologies (e.g., no IP for ITV). Then the question is whether these differences really distinguish IPTV from ITV in terms of communication structure and system architecture.
From the communication and system perspective, ITV is essentially identical to conventional television as it; is configured asymmetrically with an information producing-and-distributing center and information-receiving periphery. Communication activities in the interactive TV system are limited to a simple on-demand interface and the information generated by the users is in effect requests or responses. User engagement with the system is minimal and not particularly meaningful. Thus the interactive TV system basically operates as an instant query-response/request-delivery conduit offering mechanical interactions over the system. (Kim and Sawhney 2002, 226)
Indeed, conventional television is designed to convey a set of information from one to many. The service providers essentially control the medium in terms of information production, distribution, and consumption. Architecturally, it consists of an intelligent center where information is generated and processed and a dumb periphery where information is received and consumed. In this respect, ITV is a walled garden service in which the providers control the users in terms of media use including access to content and services. The structure of IPTV replicates the same design schema as ITV. First, the IPTV service providers stream-down video from a centralized server. That the operators act as redistributors of existing broadcast services (Berendt 2008, 6) effectively reduces the medium to a telco version of conventional cable TV. Architecturally, they have a lot of control in the network, [while] they like the client to be thinner and dumber (Vittore 2005, 14). Second, consumer choice offered by IPTVs interactive services like VOD and information retrieval is constrained within a predesigned set of applications. Interactivity connotes malleability and programmability of the medium that enhances communicability and creativity of the users (Kim and Sawhney 2002). But in IPTV, the service providers already prescribe the perimeter of users interactivity. In short, IPTV is also a walled garden service modeled after ITV, which was in turn modeled after conventional television. No IPTV projects of the telcos, not only in the United States but also in any other country, have so far been designed outside the framework of this organizing modelthe TV model. The persistence of this TV model is not an arbitrary contrivance. It is argued that two factors are instrumental in shaping the TV model: (1) historical discipline and (2) corporate imperative (Kim 2001; Meehan 1989). First, from a broad perspective, television is a historically constructed social, cultural, industrial, and technological institution. It is a hegemonic media system that has long been established as a major conduit of information and entertainment in society. Its top-down structural template was already formed in the early days of broadcasting. This historical tenacity of the model of television provides the telecommunication firms with a design paradigm for the construction of intelligent TVa frame of reference for. how

Kim / Internet Protocol TV in Perspective 541
[intelligent TV] should be structured (Sawhney 1996, 297). Persistently operating as a powerful force, structure, and technological order, the TV model dictates the firms in the building of ITV or IPTV. Second, at the core of any new media projects are corporate efforts to seek profit and power, a goal referred to as the corporate imperative. The corporate imperative drives the telecommunications firms to build cutting-edge communication systems that out-communicate othersother networks (e.g., copper vs. coaxial vs. fiber-optic vs. radio), other providers (e.g., telcos vs. cablecos vs. wireless companies), and even the users (e.g., asymmetric network configuration) (Kim 1999, 96). Then the question for the firms is what model to follow, or to invent, to out-communicate others and thus secure profit and power. As a time-tested success formula, the TV model is readily available of which the core idea is: the more the service is centralized, closed, and proprietary, the more profit and power are guaranteed. The current IPTV operators, like their predecessors, adopt the model as it ensures control over delivery, access, and use of information so that they can protect their investment, defeat the competition, and ensure profits. In doing so, the telcos can maintain system integrity, security, and reliability. Admittedly, IPTV is still evolving, and its service features could be far more diverse than the preceding ITV projects. Some even envision social networking TV in IPTV where people use it for a medium of social networking like Facebook and instant messaging (ABI Report 2008; Scherf 2009). And IPTV is more decentralized than ITV in the sense that some functionality is delegated to local caches and processors instituted at the periphery of the network closer to customer premises (Pfeffer 2006; Sullivan and Spring 2007; Vasudevan, Liu, and Kollmansberger 2008). But at the level of overall structural schema, IPTV in its current form is essentially identical to ITV, and as such it still resides within the zone of conventional TV.

Challenges to IPTV

The rationale for the telcos to venture into IPTV is well documented (Barthold 2007; Berendt 2008; House et al. 2007; OECD 2006). In addition to competition in the new converged media environment, a decline in revenues, and the subscriber base for voice and data services, ICT development and deregulation are the most pressing factors in the pursuit of IPTV. Besides competition in the video market with already entrenched cable and satellite services, IPTV operators face several challenges coming from the broadband environment. For instance, a variety of internet-streamed or downloadable TV/video options are available to users on video-sharing sites (e.g., YouTube) and broadband TV (e.g., Netflix). A number of players take their gloves off in the online video market to offer services to the residential customers (e.g., Apple TV, Yahoo, and Intel) (BroadcastEngineering 2008b; Karpinski 2007). On the other hand, interactive

542 Television & New Media
services are so limited and brand new that they remain largely an unknown territory. If history is any guide, these services have hardly been a contributing factor for the business case of ITV (Carey 1997; Kim 2001). The challenge of online video takes the form of bypassing that would crosscut IPTV projects. Content and data service providers can bypass aggregators or distributors to establish direct relationships with consumers via broadband networks (Wilson 2006). The fact that the telcos broadband networks carry other service providers products (e.g., Internet video) may threaten to relegate their role. to that of bit-shifting. It is a cruel irony that the telcos broadband networks are enabling services that could undermine their own fledgling IPTV businesses (House et al. 2007, 9). The issue of bypassing is immediately entangled with the regulatory issue of network neutrality because the telcos want to exercise traffic discrimination for a biased, walled garden access to video and Internet content of their own choosing (Frieden 2008, 15). That explains why AT&T made explicit its commitment in the 2006 merger with Bell South to have the option not to apply network neutrality principles for its Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) service (Marsden 2007, 411). During the regulatory review of this merger, the network neutrality issue of IPTV was cleared by the FCC on two grounds: IPTV (1) runs on the private infrastructure and (2) serves the public interest through competition with the cablecos (e.g., affordable price) (Cooper 2006). The neutrality-free telcos now maintain hegemonic power over the IPTV system like gatekeepers. In the context of the open internet environment, IPTV with a limited scope of interactive services is contradictory as well as anachronistic. Some suggest that the telcos need to change todays walled-garden IPTV to a more open, distributed system (Berendt 2008; Wilson 2007). Then the question is to what extent walled-garden IPTV can accommodate the open internet. From the communication perspective, the centrifugal internet is in conflict with centripetal TV so that no one can predict with certainty how the integration of the internet and television will play out in the future. It is not implausible however to argue that the Internet on TV is. about enhancing the way you watch TV (Boddy 2004, 118) within the controlled environment constructed upon the TV model. Moreover, as far as customers are concerned, [IPTV is] more about the TV than the IP (Reedy 2008, 6). And since IPTV would constrain the free-flowing internet over the medium, it may become more an internet-consuming site than an engaging communication site. Unless these challenges and contradictions are properly addressed, much touted IPTV might then end up another TV provided by relatively new video market entrantsthe telcos.

Conclusion

More often than not, commercial, engineering, and legalistic concerns take precedence in new media discussions. That may not necessarily be a problem
Kim / Internet Protocol TV in Perspective 543
because such practical concerns make up a crucial part of a holistic picture of the media. However, to fully appreciate the importance of new media, it is necessary to contextualize them within the matrix of technological innovations and historical continuities whereby the media are developed and structured. For more than the past three decades, the telecommunications firms have worked hard to develop and deploy new, intelligent television services to the market. What IPTV signifies is the most recent version of such corporate attempts by making the best use of advanced ICTs, changes in media consumption patterns, the collapse of regulatory barriers, and so on. IPTV is a physically different television system, but it is not qualitatively different from conventional television even with the interactive services. Responsible for this outcome is not technology, but the organizing model. While IP technologies provide the firms with an innovating impetus to develop IPTV, the TV model that has long been established through the dynamic interaction between the corporate imperative and the historical discipline ultimately determines the final shape of the medium. The model operates as a powerful structural paradigm in the design and building of IPTV; thus, the medium still retains a hierarchical power structure of communication. The illuminating contrast to this model is the internet, a completely opposite model of organizing ICTs that has emerged and thrived when freed from the corporate and historical straitjacket. From a short-term perspective, telcos IPTV is an extension of ITV and of conventional television for that matter. But it is still evolving, and its future is not yet fully determined. A host of efforts are under way to construct multiservice broadband networks based on IP technologies for the combined provision of fixed, mobile, TV, and internet services. IPTV is viewed as a node in this IP-based, converged media system. It is also envisioned as a hub platform in the multiservice communication infrastructure where every medium is seamlessly connected. In due course, IPTV could be transformed into a different medium than the current one as ICT development tends to produce unintended consequences. In addition, the issue of network neutrality might return in the future when IPTV really picks up and competition gets fierce. Furthermore, the community of users, techno-savvy and interactive-prone, might appropriate and reinvent the medium and take it in an unexpected direction.

1. For example, AT&Ts internet protocol TV (IPTV) service is full IP-based one. Verizons service adopts a hybrid approach, utilizing cable radio frequency (RF) for TV and IP for video on demand (VOD) and other data services. Online video is an example of IPTV that streams over IP networks. However, some argue that FiOS-TV and online video are not IPTV in a strict sense because both are not full IP-based services (Pfeffer 2006). 2. U-verse is originally a brand of Southwestern Bells IPTVa former regional bell operating company (RBOC) company that merged with AT&T in 2005. 3. IP, a digital packet technology, is comparatively more efficient and versatile for network management and service applications than RF technology. However, technical superiority is not necessarily a determining factor for system construction.
544 Television & New Media

References

ABI Report. 2008. Social network TV: Analysis of consumer perceptions of social media on TV. New York: ABI Research. AT&T. 2008. AT&T U-verse features. http://www.att.com/Common/merger/files/pdf/U-verse_Features.pdf. Barthold, J. 2007. US telcos bet on video quality. Telecommunications, August, pp. 29-31. Berendt, A. 2008. IPTV: Old ambitions, new realities. Intermedia, March, pp. 4-9. Boddy, W. 2004. Interactive television and advertising form in contemporary US television. In Television after TV: Essays on a medium in transition, ed. L. Spigel and J. Olsson. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bouwman, H., M. Zhengjia, P. Duin, and S. Limonard. 2008. A business model for IPTV service: A dynamic framework. Info 10 (3): 22-38. BroadcasEngineering. 2008a. AT&T U-verse, Verizon FIOS top regional customer satisfaction rankings. October 14. http://broadcastengineering.com/news/att-uverse-verizon-fios-regional-rankings-1014. 2008b. Intel, Yahoo! aim to bring internet to living room TV. August 26. http://broadcastengineering.com/news/intel-yahoo-internet-living-roo-0826. Burstein, D., and D. Kline. 1995. Road warriors: Dreams and nightmares along the information highway. New York: Dutton. Cable & Satellite Europe. 2008. IPTV@IBC08. Informa telecoms & media. London. Cable & Satellite Europe. Carey, J. 1997. Interactive TV trials and marketplace experiences. Multimedia Tools and Applications 5:207-16. Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society. Blackwell, UK: Oxford University Press. Clark, R. 2008. IPTVs fuzzy signal. Telecom Asia, August, pp. 18-21. Cooper, C. 2006. FCC approves AT&T-Bell South merger. ZDNet News, December 29. http://news.zdnet. com/2100-1035_22=150722.html. Crandall, R., J. Sidak, and H. Singer. 2007. Does video delivered over a telephone network require a cable franchise? Federal Communications Law Journal 59 (2): 251-94. The Economist. 1988. Technology brief: The telephones second chance. (July 13). Elmer-Dewitt, P. 1994. Play, fastforward, rewind, pause. Time, May 23, pp. 44-46. Engebretson, J. 2005. Network convergence brought to you by IPTV. Americas Network, June, pp. 33-41. Frieden, R. 2008. A primer on network neutrality. Intereconomics, January/February, pp. 8-15. Gartner Report. 2005. An introduction to IPTV. Stamford, CT. Gartner Research. 2007. Forecast: IPTV subscribers and service revenue, North America 2005-2011. Stamford, CT. Gartner Research. House, B., J. Rowan, M. Dargue, and S. Hawkins. 2007. IPTV: The telco catch-22? London: CSMG. Jesuale, N., and R. Smith. 1982. The community medium. Arlington, VA: Cable Television Information Center. Karpinski, R. 2007. IPTV meets web services. Telephony, October, pp. 16-21. Kim, P. 1999. Deconstructing interactive TV networks. The Public-Javnost 6 (3): 87-100. 2001. Persistence of failureThe case of interactive TV, 1977 to 1999. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Kim, P., and H. Sawhney. 2002. A machine-like new mediumtheoretical examination of interactive TV. Media, Culture & Society 24 (2): 217-33. Marsden, C. 2007. Net neutrality and consumer access to content. Script-ed 4 (4): 407-35. Meadows, E. 1980. Why TV sets do more in Columbus, Ohio? Fortune, October 6, pp. 67-73. Meehan, E. 1989. Technical capability versus corporate imperatives: Toward a political economy of cable television and information delivery. In The political economy of information, ed. V. Mosco and J. Wasko. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Meyer, L., N. Elliot, and I. Foqq. 2008. IPTV strategies: Applying lessons from Europes successful IPTV operators. New York. Jupiterresearch Report.

Kim / Internet Protocol TV in Perspective 545
National Cable Television Association. 2008. NCTA industry overview 2008. October 15. http://i.ncta. com/ncta_com/PDFs/NCTA_Annual_Report_05.15.08.pdf. OECD. 2006. IPTV: Market developments and regulatory treatment. Paris: OECD. Pepper, R. 1987. Competitive realities in the telecommunications web. In Wired cities: Shaping the future of communications, ed. W. Dutton, J. Blumler, and K. Kraemer. Boston: G.K. Hall. Pfeffer, P. 2006. IPTV: Technology and development predictions. Fiber and Integrated Optics 25 (5): 325-46. Reedy, S. 2008. The view from the living room couch. Telephony, March, pp. 6-9. Robbins, J. 2006. The 1996 telecommunications act. Federal Communications Law Journal 58 (3): 559-69. Sawhney, H. 1996. Information superhighway: Metaphors as midwives. Media, Culture & Society 18 (2): 291-314. Scherf, K. 2009. From boob tube to YouTube: Consumers and TV. Dallas, TX: Parks Associates. Shin, D. 2007a. Potential user factors driving adoption of IPTV: What are customers expecting from IPTV? Technological Forecasting & Social Change 74:1446-64. 2007b. Socio-technical analysis of IPTV: A case study of Korean IPTV. Info 9 (1): 65-79. Slack, J. 1989. Contextualizing technology. In Management of information and communication technologiesEmerging patters of control, ed. B. Dervin et al. London: Aslib. Stern, C. 1994. Telco close in on cable. Broadcasting & Cable 6 (October 24, p. 18). Sullivan, M., and T. Spring. 2007. Early IPTV uses only a little of its fat pipe. PC World, September, pp. 26-28. Tynan, D. 2006. TV your way. PC World, May, pp. 18-20. Vasudevan, S., S. Liu, and K. Kollmansberger. 2008. IPTV architecture for cable systems: An evolutionary approach. IEEE Communications Magazine, May, pp. 102-9. Vittore, V. 2005. Multiple choice. Telephony, October, pp. 7-17. Wilson, C. 2006. What will TV over IP do to IPTV? Telephony, October, pp. 5-10. 2007. Dancing with dilemmas. Telephony, June, pp. 44-51.
Pyungho Kim is an associate professor at the Department of Broadcasting and Multimedia in Dankook University, Seoul, Korea. He is interested in the history of telecommunications media and the relationships between media, technology, and society. He has written a number of articles concerning new media such as interactive TV, the internet, the mobile phone, and media convergence with respect to their social and cultural implications.