Correspondents:
Martin Greenberger, IBM Professor of Information and Analysis, Anderson
Graduate School of Management, UCLA, Los Angeles
Shumpei Kumon, Director, Center for Global Communications, Internat-
ional University of Japan, Tokyo
May 30, 1994
To: Martin Greenberger
From: Shumpei Kumon
Subject: Electronic dialogue
Dear Martin,
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the future of
multimedia in both Japan and the United States. In my understanding,
multimedia is simply another word for computer-mediated communications
and information processing that converts all modes of human expression
into an integrated digital form. In this sense the future of multimedia
is determined by the future of computer networks.
In retrospect, the year 1992 was critical in that a consensus formed in
the United States with respect to three key issues:
1. All the fields of telecommunications will be digitized.
2. The National Information Infrastructure (NII) is good and must be
constructed as soon as possible.
3. Multimedia will be the leading industry of the future, even though
opinions varied about when actual digitalization of, say, TV will take
place, what the NII really is, or where the most promising application
of multimedia will be.
The year 1993 was the year of a new gold rush, when so-called
information gridlock suddenly vanished and explicit understanding was
reached that the NII should be built in a competitive environment mainly
by the private sector. Thus, three alternative architectures for the NII
were proposed:
1. Extension of cable TV networks toward mutual connection,
interactivity, and, finally, a full-service network;
2. Extension of switched telco networks to incorporate video-dialtone;
3. Further development of wireless computer networks, to which a fourth
one was added:
4. Wireless, broadband, low-earth- orbit, satellite-based networks.
Also, these promising areas for multimedia applications emerged:
1. Mass-media-oriented infotainment such as movies on demand;
2. Education, health care, and welfare services;
3. Business use by private firms and government.
Now we are in the middle of 1994, and it is breathtaking to observe both
the rapid disappearance of last year's enthusiasm for cable TV-oriented
NII construction and the continued or even accelerated explosion of the
Internet. Commercialization and business use of the Internet are
spreading very fast, and telcos now seem to be trying to absorb the
Internet into their domain of switched networks by changing the rate
system from its original flat rates to variable rates. I am afraid that
if this attempt succeeds, it will surely crush all the possibilities
this new form of telecommunications has opened for civil society.
Martin, how accurate do you think my observations of your country are,
and how do you see the situation in Japan? I look forward to hearing
from you.
Shumpei
May 31, 1994
To: Shumpei Kumon
From: Martin Greenberger
Subject: Electronic dialogue
Dear Shumpei,
You began our teledialogue on the future of multimedia very
appropriately with a definition of multimedia that emphasizes the key
importance to multimedia of computers and, in particular, of
communication networks and digital integration.
From my perspective, computers were clearly instrumental to multimedia
from the start, but the central role to be played by telecommunications
only gradually came into focus. In the glossary to the book for the
First Roundtable in Multimedia in 1990, we defined multimedia in the
narrow sense, as "control of sound and video by means of computer--
usually, but not necessarily, at the desktop." Our more general
definition was "the computer integration of sound, video, and animation
with text and graphics."
Note the absence of any mention of either digital or communications in
these definitions. Even the concept of merging or converging media did
not appear in full bloom until the following year, when it became a
theme at the Second Roundtable.
In commenting on multimedia in the United States, you cited the year
1992 as critical to forming a consensus on three issues: digitization,
the information superhighway, and the bright future of multimedia. It
did indeed have the appearance of a consensus, and it is amazing how
quickly this consensus developed. We know that the technology was
advancing at a very rapid pace, but people and institutions are supposed
to be inertial. I believe what we witnessed was a watershed being
reached in public awareness and acceptance.
Credit also goes to the resounding success of the Internet, CD-ROMs,
laptop computers, and, slowly but surely, multimedia itself. In
addition, the computer has definitely taken on a much friendlier and
more accessible aspect. Resistance is crumbling across the board at all
levels. People who wanted nothing to do with the computer in years past
are having fun with it today and finding it unexpectedly useful.
I like your reference to "a new gold rush." The metaphor has the right
tone. It conveys the hurry of the multitude to get to wherever veins of
the yellow metal are said to have been discovered. It also points out
the elusive nature of the quest and the inevitable disappointments and
redirections ahead. What the metaphor does not capture, though, is the
unlimited and expanding nature of this new treasure. I think we can
expect many surprises in our lifetime.
I see the four architectures you mention for the future information
superhighway more as complementary possibilities than as alternative
designs. These architectures all have something to offer, and they will
help to spur the competition that is essential to the U.S. economy.
Consumers will want options, and so will content providers. Their
demands could result in the establishment of at least two conduits into
each home and office. The long-distance carriers, the regional telephone
companies, and the cable companies all wish to compete in each other's
markets and with each other's businesses. Fostering this competition,
rather than stifling it, will produce an invigorated economy and make it
easier for the Federal Communications Commission to relax current
restrictive controls. So will effective standards and cross-industry
agreements. Establishing coherence for the consumer is absolutely
essential to making rapid progress.
I share your pleasure as well as your concern about what is happening
with the Internet. I, too, am worried that commercialization and mass
use of this uncommon resource could despoil it. What our planners need
to do is be very explicit in enumerating the benefits and special
characteristics of the Internet and then frame a set of requirements
that must be satisfied and features that must be preserved in future
versions. It is sad to contemplate the explosion of junk e-mail on the
Internet and the growing incidence of electronic smut. I hope we can
find better ways than unlisted numbers to deal with these problems.
You mention the possible creative uses of the Internet in business. I
would add to this the very exciting and socially valuable potential uses
in education. A give-and-take over the Internet between fertile young
minds in our respective cultures could go a long way toward promoting
increased understanding and friendship as we--fellow pilots and
protagonists on planet Earth--journey to the 21st century together.
You ask me how I view the situation in Japan. Well, I'm not sure.
Japanese industry is clearly playing and will continue to play a central
role in producing and providing the technology to help drive future
developments. What I would ask is, How do you see the Japanese people
behaving as users and consumers? In the United States, more than 90
percent of homes have both telephone and cable wires running past them.
We're not sure yet whether the computer or the television set-top box
will provide the primary user interface for the information
superhighway. Huge bets are being placed on each of these devices, and
opinions are strong.
The situation is noticeably different in Japan. Few homes have cable,
for example. In addition, Japan is a remarkably homogeneous nation. In
the United States, the population becomes more diverse all the time. The
great challenge for Americans is to turn into a strength what many see
as a serious problem of increasing diversity. Our nation has been very
successful doing this in the past, and I believe it can be successful
again. Information networks may be able to help more than we know in
bringing this about.
I sincerely believe that multimedia and digital communications can help
the cause of peace and understanding--of education and tolerance--for
all people. What do you think we must do to achieve such lofty goals? I
would propose as a first step that we begin the difficult task of
identifying the right questions to ask. I am interested to know your
views.
Martin
June 2, 1994
To: Martin Greenberger
From: Shumpei Kumon
Subject: Electronic dialogue
Dear Martin,
How wonderful it is to have your thoughtful and elucidating remarks so
quickly! I find particularly useful your summary of early periods of
multimedia development, namely, in the days of package orientation and
predigital integration. Maybe I can say, figuratively, that yes, the
gold mine of multimedia is doubtless buried somewhere there, but we are
still behind not only in the technology to locate it and dig it up but
even more so in the technology to refine and process the gold. I totally
agree with you, Martin, in predicting that this new treasure is of
unlimited and expanding nature. Multimedia will surely continue to lead
economic and social developments for many decades to come.
It is interesting to note that you support the so-called two-wire
solution in the United States to foster competition. As far as the
United States is concerned, I think you are quite right. With respect to
the Japanese, however, it is highly unlikely for them to have at least
two conduits into each home and office. First of all, Japan does not
have, as you know, any developed cable TV networks. Second, the idea of
fostering competition on the basis of diversity is still foreign to this
nation, whose central value focuses on achieving the harmony of supply
and demand to provide universal services. Thus Japan most probably will
end up with just one wire (I mean, fiber) complemented by wireless
networks.
Also relevant in this context is NTT's new plan to build, in a
complementary fashion, three different types of telecom networks to
homes and offices, each at an affordable price: (1) a switched telephone
network, (2) a wireless Internet-type data network of 6-10 mps, and (3)
a high-speed interactive video network of 156 mps, all integrated into a
single fiber-optic backbone system to exploit economies of scale. NTT
says it is ready to begin providing services sometime late this year. If
we have at least one competitor of comparable clout, NTT's plan may be
called a Japanese model at least for the next decade.
Martin, I fully agree with your enthusiasm for using the Internet in
education. Some people here worry that the Internet's decentralized and
almost anarchistic nature may have a subversive effect on education,
particularly in the primary and secondary grades, which tend to have
authoritarian and/or unilateral characteristics. I must confess that I
was shocked, and interested, too, to read about the conflicts between
the Internauts' community and the educators' community, learning that
education tends to be authoritarian even in such a democratic and free
society as that of the United States.
Incidentally, the other day I happened to hear a Japanese professor of
information science saying he banned his students from using the
Internet because they can reach a wide variety of literature too
"effortlessly." He added further that he is even considering forbidding
the use of computers themselves! This seems to be one of the curious
secondary effects of the information revolution.
You asked how I see the Japanese people behaving as users and consumers.
One conspicuous fact is that the Japanese, as both users and producers,
seem to be inclined to give priorities to stand-alone equipment and
activities. In fact, one American observer, Bruce Hahne, of the recent
Business Show '94 in Tokyo, reports, "I saw gobs of personal computers,
plenty of portables, and a lot of Unix workstations. I also saw lots of
fax machines, printers, fancy telephones, pagers, and quite a few PDAs
[personal digital assistants]. . . . The big question I have is, Where
was all of the routing equipment? The show suggested to me, at least,
that right now Japan is big on selling computers to businesspeople but
not nearly so big on connecting computers together. . . ."
I think, alas, this is an accurate picture of where we are at present.
Granted that there was recently published a report by the Council on
Telecommunication to the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunication
emphasizing the need to build an NII in Japan. The MITI's council on
industrial structure also recently published a program for enhanced
informatization in which it placed a high priority on computer networks.
But our business community and governments are still a long way from
implementing them into their everyday work. Are we just behind, I
wonder, or are we moving along a different route leading to a different
type of information society?
Shumpei
June 9, 1994
To: Shumpei Kumon
From: Martin Greenberger
Subject: Electronic dialogue
Dear Shumpei,
I have postponed sending this response to see if any of the students in
my seminar wished to offer additions. One student, Dylan Charles, rose
to the occasion. His comments are included below.
Your description of NTT's plan to build three integrated telecom
networks to homes and offices in Japan may indeed be the best way to
exploit economies of scale and most certainly should promote consistency
of design and coherence for the consumer, but will it provide for a
variety of evolving user interfaces? I'm trying to imagine how I would
use those three "complementary" networks in our electronic dialogue, or
in organizing a meeting, or in conducting a class. As I sit here at the
computer, the television is five feet away in an adjoining room and the
telephone is 10 feet away at the other side of this room. Both are
within easy reach, yet I would not think to use them in what I am now
doing, nor could I do so without leaving the computer and interrupting
my train of thought.
I can envision a much more powerful interface than I now have bringing
video, telephone, and computer together in a natural way. Will NTT's
design make that possible? If so, will NTT develop and provide such an
innovative interface itself, or will there be an opportunity for other
parties to advance and market their own ideas and solutions?
You mention the possibility of having at least one competitor to NTT--or
a contester of comparable clout. Could you be more specific about what
form this might take? I would like to see you sketch out in some detail
this idea of a "Japanese model" for the next decade. It would be very
instructive to have a Japanese model, an American model (of the several
possible), and a few other models to put side by side and compare.
Moving on to education, two people who welcome the subversive effects of
computers in education are Seymour Papert of MIT and Alan Kay of Apple.
They are on the far left in current debate over reform and
restructuring. They deplore the formal curriculum, the emphasis on
tests, cutting knowledge up into little pieces, and the teacher at the
front of the class. With the new technology, they would have children
taking charge of their own education and deciding for themselves what
they will learn, unconstrained by disciplinary boundaries or
administrative decree.
I have no doubt that the Japanese professor of information science who
banned his students from using the Internet would take the opposite
side. Do you think he objects to effortless access because of all the
trouble he had when he was a student? It reminds me of the very
bothered woman who told Robert Winter that his Beethoven disc made
learning music too easy. She recalled her travails as a music major.
"That's just not fair," she complained.
I am intrigued by your observation that the Japanese people seem to
prefer stand-alone operation to networking. This would appear to
contradict the expectation that the Japanese are likely to be active
users of groupware and computer systems for doing cooperative work. Are
the extensive effort and time spent by your compatriots in peer
discussion and consensus building necessarily face-to-face? Why aren't
computer networks being used for this purpose? Do you think video
networking might make a difference in the use of computers for
collaborative effort?
Perhaps Dylan Charles has the answer. He apologizes for making
generalizations, but you may find his thoughtful analysis of interest:
"In the United States, we are creative and competitive innovators. Our
creativity stems in part from the chaos, diversity, and lack of
structure in our culture. At the same time, our often individual and
self-absorbed outlook impedes our ability to work in group and
cooperative settings. Groupware allows disparate individuals to act in
coordination without stifling spontaneous creativity. In a sense,
groupware encourages the development of a virtual group identity, an
identity that at the same time allows each individual in the group
absolute freedom.
"Japan already has a unified, coordinated, and efficient corporate
culture. Individuals cooperate well, and do not face the chaotic
environment one finds in the States. The trend in Japan is toward
consensus, rather than toward the strange, the untried, and the unusual.
Will the coordinating aspects of groupware offer enhancing benefits to
Japan? Or, perhaps, should Japan seek the opposite in multimedia, to
enhance disorder? Is there benefit to 'virtual disorder,' an arena where
chaos and diversity can be encouraged with the goal of enhancing
spontaneity?"
I want to think further about the very meaningful question you suggest.
What if Japan, the United States, and other countries are on their way
to developing different types of information societies? This may well be
the most important question of all for us to consider. How would these
different societies be different, and what would be the impact of these
differences on the world order? Should we be addressing such issues now
rather than later? Could doing so help to elevate the level of planning
and bring an international dimension to the discussion? Might it even
improve the quality of coverage and treatment of the subject by the
press?
Martin
June 13, 1994
To: Martin Greenberger
From: Shumpei Kumon
Subject: Electronic dialogue
Dear Martin,
With regard to a powerful competitor to NTT, I think it desirable that
Japanese and foreign firms form a joint venture in this effort. Of
course, the prerequisite for that is to abolish certain clauses in the
incumbent Telecom Business Act, such as the separation of domestic and
international businesses and the separation of the local exchange
business from the long-distance business.
I feel totally depressed about the educational system in Japan. Japanese
higher education has obviously achieved its historical role: to take
relatively capable people and, after allowing them to enjoy a moratorium
period while making as many friends as possible, send them out into the
business world, with minds almost blank to be filled up later by the
corporations that hire them. As Finan and Fry argue in The Crisis of
Japanese Technology, the Japanese higher education system needs to
transform itself into an organization that can achieve real "educational
function." As to elementary and secondary education, though they have
admitted that traditional conformism should be avoided in favor of
students' personality or creativity, I cannot even imagine how they can
make it happen.
Many Japanese take for granted living a group-oriented working life, but
on the other hand, they have been looking for freedom from constraints
imposed by the group. Therefore, the Japanese may be instinctively
afraid of the spread of networking because it may intensify the
constraints by the group. In my opinion, however, collaboration
supported by computer networks has the potential to superimpose a
private space onto group activities. If this is understood, the spread
of electronic networking will proliferate in this country, too.
So, Martin, in conclusion, I agree with your vision that Japan and the
United States may be moving along different routes to the same
information society. Though it is impossible for both countries to
realize exactly the same information society, differences between the
two naturally will be far less than what is suggested by the huge
difference between their cultures, particularly if we are now acting in
essentially identical social environments with fundamentally the same
technical basis.
Shumpei
This article was adapted from Human Studies #13, September 1994. Human
Studies is a semiannual publication of the Dentsu Institute for Human
Studies, Tokyo.
Call toll-free 800-254-4770 to order a subscription to Educom Review.