Rapid developments in telecommunications, consumer electronics and high definition television show convergence of these once distinct technologies in hybrid devices able to bring interactive electronic services to consumers with an ease and transparency of operation that improves daily. Collectively classed as "multimedia," these prototype products vie for the attention of policy-makers, investors and, ultimately, consumers.

Technical standards set limits on capabilities, stabilize the marketplace and, ultimately constrain or enable innovation. Standards are the "rules of the game," often preventing market chaos, but also limiting choice. Because standards are often fully decided before consumers can exercise judgment in the marketplace, they must be developed with care and consideration of many concerns social, technical, economic and political.

The industrial convergence brought by multimedia brings a clash of standards and traditions. The focus of this paper is on identifying the major differences in standards development that are an outgrowth of the diverse industrial traditions attempting to converge on a common multimedia product.

What is the balance of stability with change? What is the locus of standards-setting: trade or industrial group, national or international? These issues underlie our examination of 5 contributing industrial sectors: computing, consumer electronics, content software, traditional content (print and broadcast) and telecommunications.

Our review shows many conflicting standards across this industrial landscape, few of which have secured industry-wide accord. Mostly, de facto standards prevail by force of a given organization in the marketplace. We show trends and possible changes in these practices, particularly being attempted by the US Federal Communications Commission, to address the unprecedented nature of multimedia/high definition television issues. Rather than its historic role as a "judge" and major analyst of standards, this organization is increasingly a benign "advisor" and test bench for competing industrial interests.

The complexity of multimedia represents a difficult challenge to creation of stable standards. To date, the result has been conflicting, partial standards, shifting alliances and, often, a confused consumer base. By tracing past standards methods and reconciling them with newer approaches, we identify techniques best able to balance market stability with the complexity of multimedia.

Introduction

From mainstream press announcements to specialized trade and industry magazine reviews, multimedia has entered the consumer arena as a promising, if confusing, new form of mass communications (Hawkins, 1989). Faced with a marketplace saturating with traditional media, manufacturers and content providers have sought new information appliances combining familiar mass media with the power of computers and telecommunications networks (Shao & Brandt, 1989; "When Worlds," 1991). The 1980s witnessed several efforts at electronic publishing to provide electronic alternatives to print media. Consumer electronics manufacturers tried differentiating and extending the home videotape market with videodisks in several formats. A fledgling effort to create a national interactive computer service appealing to middle-class families, Prodigy, was started by corporate giants Sears and IBM (Lewyn & Rothfeder, 1990). But by the end of the 1980s, a highly successful, wide departure from media-as-usual hadn't happened. Electronic publishing was too expensive and slow, videodisks didn't seem to justify their higher cost over videotapes and general-use computer information services were still too unfamiliar, costly and difficult to use for a mass audience.

More recently, fusions of television, laser disk technology, home computers and networked information have enlivened interest in a new generation of mass media technology. Systems now in the marketplace such as Philips' Television-Interactive and IBM's Ultimedia, as well as more speculative ventures such as Hewlett-Packard's TV Answer, show costly efforts by the consumer electronics, computer and broadcast industries to make this transition. Maturing technological developments such as high definition television (HDTV) and integrated system digital networks (ISDN), deep cuts in the cost of computing hardware, and liberalized rules for US common carriers have sustained these ventures with cheaper technology, new markets and the press of international competition.

However, it is increasingly apparent that this activity is based on an awkward marriage of diverse manufacturing, regulatory and policy history that promises confusion for the consumer marketplace and the sponsoring industries themselves. The theme of this research is not to provide a definitive answer to what multimedia will be - this perhaps is impossible to achieve during such a formative time - but to examine the forces at play, signal their importance, and isolate actions that might forge stable standards for new media. Particularly, our attention is toward the interplay of dissimilar industrial cultures that multimedia forces together in search of common ground. We believe that this diversity, while historically reasonable, poses formidable challenges to a successful, widely diffused new generation of media technology.

Our focus is upon industrial standards,1 for they are the end-product of long negotiation and manufacturing teamwork that enable major new technologies in the consumer marketplace. Consequently, this article considers: (1) the various ways standards are determined and the contrasts in doing so among multimedia component industries; (2) the elements of multimedia that have to be standardized before that industry can move forward in the consumer marketplace and roadblocks that dissimilarities among contributing industries pose; and (3) pressures working to bring about these standards. In doing so, we hope to bring scholarly attention to the formative and often poorly considered forces that are at play long before sellers and consumers are able to exercise their choices in the marketplace.

Defining Multimedia

To begin, it is necessary to consider the variety of definitions and capabilities anticipated for this media form. Generally, in speaking of multimedia, we refer to computer-based technologies that make possible the integration of what were formerly separate methods and traditions of communications (text, graphics, motion video, still video, animation and sound), and allow for participation or interaction by users. Increasingly, too, this term implies interconnection with a hierarchy of information resources, beginning with the user's terminal device and extending, as does the voice telephone system, into international networks where a vast information base may be accessed. The advantage of multimedia over traditional forms of communications, then, can be seen in the freedom it allows for the creative, varied expression of ideas through a single channel of transmission, and the opportunity it provides for individual response. How well multimedia is able to fulfill its potential depends in great part on the standards ultimately adopted.

But multimedia is far from being an agreed-upon term, with clear implications and limits. To industry leader, Microsoft, Inc. (1991), multimedia is a set of capabilities that serve to extend the power of today's personal computer into sound, animation, pictures and color to "create a more impactful [sic] and engaging computing experience (p. 1)." More complex definitions - ones not tied to the promotional needs of consumer electronics or personal computers - have developed from the industrial forerunners of multimedia: computers, television, publishing and telecommunications (Arnett, 1990). These views are industry-centered, based in the manufacturing groups that must merge to make workable multimedia systems. They are also capability-centered in the sense that component industries stress certain functions: computers contribute interaction and digital storage, television adds visual communication, publishing yields standard formats for indexing and browsing, and, lastly, telecommunications adds the ability to communicate or publish over long distances.

Finally, some conclude that multimedia eludes definition, both for the numerous forms it takes and its swift rate of evolution (Dvorak & Seymour, 1991; O'Malley, 1991). These critics argue that the lack of standards caused in this confusion spreads rapidly to mass consumers and businesses who hold back, fearing to make choices that may so easily go wrong. They maintain that agreement on technologies is the first task of stabilizing the marketplace. However, as William Comcowich, chairperson of the Interactive Multimedia Association has stated, the situation isn't a straight-forward matter of agreement on the multi-sensory computer technology to be used. Multimedia depends on the integration of ". . . different industries with vastly different business cultures" (Strothman, 1991). The root industries of multimedia are summarized in Table 1:

This industrial mix shows that multimedia standards must cross major industrial boundaries, requiring consensus from firms differing in products, services, market expectations, and habitual ways of accommodating change. Past introduction of new media forms in this century have been the evolutionary will of mainly single industries: television from a background of radio or electronic publishing from the traditional print-on-paper press, for example. Multimedia, however, involves a spectrum of information industries without precedent in terms of the complexity for traditional communications businesses and the public who will eventually use their products.

Standards for Multimedia

Standards presently considered for multimedia represent only a partial fusion from its foundation industries. Consequently, a full range of standards-setting methods is being used, often with little inter-industry coordination.

The Computer Industry

Easily the most complex standards activity has developed in the computer industry. Given the long tradition of de facto standards,2 they need accord to stabilize the market and encourage both end-product consumers and software developers desiring a standard for their content products. A host of standards have been reviewed and proposed by industry, each representing a major attribute of multimedia:

Table 2: Exemplar standards, sponsoring organizations and utilization of standards by multimedia attribute for U.S. computer industry.

1. Hemenway (1975) distinguishes between two types of standards: quality and uniformity. We are concerned with uniformity standards because their focus is sameness or predictability of design. As Rosen et. al. (1988) note, "They [standards] purposely reduce the variety of products."
2. De facto standards are usually created by the prominance of a major industrial provider in the marketplace. Others take-up the standards based on the strength of its industrial progenitor.
3. Some authors differentiate between de jure standards and "regulated" standards, explaining that regulated standards are not entirely voluntary since they must be sanctioned, and sometimes even imposed, by a governmental agency. That differentiation has not been made in this article because even most regulated standards demand majority approval by industry if they are to be successful.
4. In this review, we do not directly consider the extensive work in teleconferencing (typically a closed circuit, limited audience setting). Our interest is with those developments most relevant to mass circulation technologies.
5. Current general audience videotex efforts, such as the Sears and IBM-sponsored Prodigy, have tried to address earlier deficiencies, but have an unclear record so far.
6. More correctly, Internet is a backbone network into which many smaller primary wide area networks connect.

For all its complexity, Table 2 does not convey well the layers of activity needed before universal multimedia standards can be developed. To take one example - telecommunications - multimedia transmission will rely not only on hardware and software standards developed for a particular computer, but must also accommodate telephone/data network standards for electrical characteristics, signaling, routing, traffic management, and so on.

Table 2 shows that a mix of standards setting methods and organizations are involved. House or user standards evolve from the dominance of a particular organization. In the area of multimedia, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is evolving Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) for the deployment of multimedia systems throughout the federal government (Reilly, 1990). In this case, the organization has both the stature and the size to decide its own standards priorities for internal use; sometimes the standards chosen by such an influential player gain broader acceptance among other public and private groups, too.

De facto (or informal) standards come about when an organization closes out the competition in such a decisive manner that it is able to establish the design of its own system as the dominant standard in the field. Although such standards have not been approved by any standards-setting organization, they nevertheless becomes the accepted technological approach on the basis of market dominance and wide-spread use. The stature and market presence of IBM, for instance, fostered a decade of personal computers adhering to its hardware standard.

A third category is de jure (also formal or consensus ) standards. These are product specifications created through common agreement among firms, each of which may have participated in the standards development. Such outcomes are characteristic of long-established industrial negotiation or governmental oversight. Both broadcasting and telecommunications abide largely by de jure standards.3 The need for technological orderliness in both industries led to government controls early in the century in the belief that stability would help "universal service" and thus maximize their social utility. Supplementing government efforts are industrial organizations such as the Electronic Industries Association (EIA), The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the Consultative Committee on International Telephones and Telegraph (CCITT). In the past two years, the Multimedia PC Marketing Council (MPC), and the Interactive Multimedia Association (IMA) have arisen with competing multimedia standards.

Contrary to traditional media environments like broadcasting, there is not a simple, consistent, de jure base for information products that works in most transmission environments. Information products for multimedia depend tenuously upon a multitude of house and de facto standards that are themselves changing and frequently inconsistent. The Multimedia PC Marketing Council, formed largely by Microsoft to wring consistency from what was becoming a chaotic standards environment, has changed its own basic standards a year after original criteria were adopted (Sultan, 1991a, 1991b). To add to the confusion, the MPC does not enjoy universal participation. In competition, an IBM-originated consortium including Apple, Intel, Sony and Eastman Kodak founded the Interactive Multimedia Association to promulgate different, more complex standards. These would permit the handling of broadcast television images in addition to computer-based graphics (Ross, 1991; Xenakis, 1991).

In this context, it is no surprise that arch-competitors IBM and Apple have jointly formed two organizations to develop an advanced operating system able to support the stiff demands of multimedia (Taligent) and multimedia standards themselves (Kaleida) to offset Microsoft ("IBM, Apple," 1991). In the hotly competitive computer industry, moves toward standardization can swiftly imply a concentration of power that generates marketplace adversaries.

More recently, the expiration of restraints on telephone company provision of information has brought alliances between AT&T, Intel and Microsoft to develop control software for an envisioned multi-service information network linked to home televisions and computers (Windows Open Services Architecture) (Microsoft, 1993). Traditional cable television entertainment giants, Time-Warner and TCI, are cooperating in developing standards for multiple services for a future electronic "information highway." (Newsbytes, 1993). The power players in today's information world are swiftly building their teams to do battle for market share in tomorrow's.

Given the multiple hardware and software alliances forming, not only is the consumer faced with dauntingly complex decisions in purchasing a full multimedia computer work station today, but hardware, content and software providers have increasingly difficult choices in making their own plans. As one major player has complained, "We have a Balkanization of media technology today" (Seybold, Inc., 1991).

The Consumer Electronics Industry

Perhaps to simplify choices (and to lower costs), the consumer electronics industry is marketing "partial" multimedia solutions having limited functionality for display on home television sets. Philips CD-Interactive (CD-I) technology, for example, offers "interactive" games, travelogues, atlases, encyclopedias, etc. (North American Philips Corporation, 1991). Commodore, Inc. is marketing CDTV (compact disk television), a system presumably so simple for the end user that it ". . . is the porthole into the magic of computing for people who are afraid of computing" (Shapiro, 1991). A two-way technology using an over-the-air radio frequency with a modified home TV receiver has been announced by TV Answer, Inc. and Hewlett-Packard (TV Answer, 1992). Finally, Eastman Kodak is a recent market entrant with Photo CD, a technology that stores and displays photos from a compact disk (Shapiro, 1991).

The strong players of the video game world - Sega, Nintendo and new start-ups such as 3DO - see multimedia as an extension of their low-cost gaming hardware. CD-ROM additions and network connections bring increasingly sophisticated games and video performance to the hands of millions of present users and new ones attracted, perhaps, by the sophistication of multimedia offerings (Markoff, 1993; Turner, 1993).

A new force pressing the consumer electronics industry is the entry of home shopping services which so far have used traditional cable television and simple telephones as display and point-of-sale transaction devices. Multimedia promises interactivity to give the consumer more control products seen (the prospect of thumbing through video catalogs in a "virtual" shopping mall, for example) and speed in completing the purchase (Zinn, et al., 1993). One report shows five interactive technologies presently being tested (Lipman, 1993).

These offerings are based in house standards, captive of a given manufacturer, each having its own stable of applications. Each developer has tried to gather wide support from consumers, and from other manufacturers working under license arrangements. Simultaneously, each has tried to attract cooperative software publishers, advertisers and financial backers who can make or break these systems through the availability of content choices, use fees and start-up investment capital. Nevertheless, few such standards have been adopted widely (Shapiro, 1991).

This has led to a vicious circle well-known to the consumer electronics industry: as manufacturers hold back waiting to see which standards will survive, all are denied a wide level of support. Software publishers, new equipment manufacturers, retailers and consumers stay away, fearing what has occurred in this industry many times before: abandoned equipment, bereft of suppliers, dealers and, especially, software. The failed, orphan products of the 1980s "new" media - 8-track players, quadraphonic LP audio recordings, Betamax(r) videotape machines, and computers with peculiar standards having few if any software providers - still clutter dusty attics and closets. Consumer electronics survives on wide distribution, low mark-up and high volume sales. Its equipment and software must be durable, simple and not require extensive support, since retail outlets can range from department stores to discount malls. The complexities and uncertainties of multimedia contradict these essential growth conditions.

Traditional Content Providers (Publishing)

The publishing and broadcast/film industries have both embraced the electronic future and defended traditional turf against new media outsiders. The commercial publishing of content-based software has, in the past few years, included dictionaries, marketing information, video libraries and Hollywood film clips, text databases (such as telephone directories), academic journals and novels. Some observers contend that this market

". . . could be as big or bigger than the application software industry we know today" (Pane, 1991).

Indeed, "electronic publishing" has had an active history for the past decade, with a host of problems to be inherited by multimedia applications. But the standards problems are less those of technology, since text and simple, static images can be converted or adapted to a wide array of electronic or platform standards. Rather, they center largely on choosing the "client" software that allows manipulation of the contents. For a publisher, the choice is critical, since to choose client software limits users to those having the necessary hardware and software support. Some publishers have hedged their bets by issuing their materials in several forms, notably for the IBM and Macintosh platforms.

"Client" software limits the ways in which the user can manipulate or access multimedia content software. And there are no agreed-upon standards for the capabilities offered or the user behavior demanded. What does exist has generally evolved from hardware/platform capabilities. If a mouse is supported, the product may employ "point-and-click" screen buttons to manipulate the contents in a way familiar to those having experience with a Macintosh or PC with Windows. If the system has a CD-ROM with a sufficiently high data transfer rate, it may support motion or animation standards. An audio board in the computer may allow polyphonic music or text-to-speech encoding.

Organization and search strategies borrow heavily from computer traditions of basic "flat file" databases that fetch contents matching key words. Many simple multimedia structures try to resemble their print-on-paper ancestors (employing such features as indexes, chapters, tables of contents, etc.), capitalizing on one's knowledge of how traditional publications are used. For the manipulation of moving images, the user may be presented with on-screen, familiar VCR-like controls for play, pause, rewind and stop (Rosenthal, 1992).

This kind of metaphor - the electronic embodiment of a familiar media form - is perhaps the most often attempted house standard to bridge the user to multimedia content. Those who control the intellectual property of slow-to-change traditional media need this stable basis to develop their multimedia publications. Nevertheless, as the situation currently exists, vying house standards are holding up the content-based software industry just as they are the other sectors of multimedia development. One software publisher, restless with this contention, asserts:

No one wants to be first. Software people out there are pushing: 'This is going to be a standard; you've got to do it my way, and pay me for the privilege of doing it.' Well, that's not the way computers were developed. It was a whole bunch of people doing a whole bunch of different things, and the market chose which ones were right (Pane, 1991).

So the dilemma is posed: how does one accomplish stability yet allow for innovation? Add to this basic problem the quickly expanding capabilities of new computing hardware, and content software must follow a rapidly moving technological target.

Traditional Content Providers (Broadcasting)

For broadcasting, the pull-and-tug between the forces for technological change and the status quo is one that has been regularly refereed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Over the years, however, this agency has not shown consistent leadership in nurturing broadcasting breakthroughs and has exhibited difficulty in staying abreast of technological trends. Standing in the middle of the political crossfire that accompanies each suggested alteration in spectrum usage, the FCC has developed a reputation for giving in to established broadcasting interests and, thereby, handicapping the potential of broadcast innovations. Additionally, inadequate Congressional funding and limited staff support have pushed the agency to rely increasingly on the very industry it is supposed to oversee for the technical data and engineering advice it needs to formulate decisions.

In reviewing the Commission's handling of new broadcast technologies, authors Erwin Krasnow, Lawrence Longley and Herbert Terry offer their own harsh criticism of the FCC's performance, noting that, "the FCC has not been highly successful at giving birth to new communications services. At times, in fact, it has almost destroyed them (1982)."

The past failures of the FCC to establish itself as a consistently competent authority for the selection of broadcasting standards has given added weight to the argument that government is ill-equipped for such a task. Beginning in the late 1970s, the FCC and the nation's other leading regulatory agencies were commonly challenged for their inability to efficiently manage rapid technological change (Brenner & Fowler, 1982).

In the case of the FCC, the staunch emphasis of the Reagan Administration on deregulation during the 1980s was most plainly reflected in the Commission's March 1982 decision (reaffirmed in 1988) to leave the choice of an AM stereo standard to the marketplace (FCC, 1982; Marcus, 1987). This initiative on the part of the FCC, led by Chairman Mark Fowler, proved disastrous, as both stations and consumers held back from embracing any of the five competing AM stereo systems for fear of investing in a losing technology (Klopfenstein & Sedman, 1990). A decade later, there remains no dominant standard for AM stereo in the U.S.

Since the failure of the Fowler Commission's marketplace approach, the regulatory pendulum has swung back from that extreme to a more moderate view of the FCC's powers as a standards-making body. Under the leadership of Chairman Alfred Sikes (who replaced Fowler's successor Dennis Patrick), the Commission has sought to re-establish its role as a coordinator of industry efforts to arrive at a single standards solution for innovative technologies, much as it is presently doing for high definition television. Reflecting the revised regulatory attitude of the Bush Administration (Vickery, 1991), Chairman Sikes has acted to reassert the FCC's crucial leadership position in the formulation of de jure standards for the broadcast industry ("Quello: Move," 1988; "FCC to Take," 1990; Farhi, 1991). The debate has continued, however, as to how strongly the government should leave its imprint on the character of any new broadcasting standard and how much responsibility it should relinquish to industry leaders.

Telecommunications4

The earliest efforts of electronic publishing relied on distant databases and foreshadowed problems in multimedia standards as this earlier generation searched for its best standards mix. It is not in the scope of this paper to detail the agonies of the electronic publishing industry (primarily videotex and teletext) in the U.S. during the 1980s (Durand, 1983; Aller & Lowenstein, 1985). It is reasonable to conclude that its successes were, at best, mixed and well below initial projections (Harris, 1985). The two best-funded ventures, Viewtron in Coral Gables, Florida, and Galaxy in the Los Angeles area, failed in the mid-1980s after having hemorrhaged millions of corporate dollars.5 Hampered by a variety of design flaws, these systems did, however, adhere to technical standards: a special compression scheme for text and images developed by AT&T known as NAPLPS (North American Presentation Level Protocol Standard). The software, which was developed by a single monopoly provider (AT&T) at a central source, was untroubled by the conflicts of multiple providers that exist today.

Though electronic publishing has been redirected in recent years from wired distribution to removable, permanent media (such as CD-ROMs), the potential of networked services has been the focus of renewed attention. The French success with a simple videotex system (Minitel) distributed to over 12 million users by government telephone authorities shows the virtue of de jure standards promulgated at low user cost (Marchand, 1987). Use is largely transactional, involving services such as on-line purchases, catalog sales, travel reservations, electronic mail, and banking. In the U.S., the use of networks - particularly digital networks - offering high-speed information transfer, represents an alternate means of diffusing multimedia information that is unsuited to the static, archival nature of CD-ROM disks and other removable storage media (Pane, 1991).

In anticipation, there has been intensive development in this area. A recent survey of "distributed" multimedia standards, show some 34 standards under review by the CCITT and a half dozen or more being developed by commercial organizations (Adie, 1993). Apple Computer, for example, is developing Bento, for the transmission and storage of multimedia "objects," including sound, motion and text. Bellcore, the research organization of the seven regional Bell operating companies, has released Metamail, a standard for multimedia mail (Borenstein, 1992). In addition to the standard text carried in simple electronic mail, multiple fonts, foreign characters, still images, binary data and audio can be transferred. Many others are variations on these themes tied to portable "personal digital assistants," teleconferencing, document transfer and storage, medical imaging, fax machine replacement and a desire to work around the costs of traditional video production.

More ambitious plans are contained in the National Research Electronic Network or NREN draft legislation, championed by Vice President Gore and given high promise by his electoral success with President Clinton. Billed by sponsors and the press as an "electronic superhighway," it promises a ubiquitous, wide-band data transmission infrastructure ideally suited for the heavy demands of multimedia (Markoff, 1993).

Once an infrastructure is in place, the daunting challenge to networked multimedia is navigation. With thousands of databases totaling millions of entries, the unaided task of finding specific information is complicated. Most of the work to date has developed on Internet, a world-wide network6 connecting major universities, libraries, and research institutions. With the need to exchange images, audio tracks, and drawings in addition to simple text, multimedia offers important capabilities.

Several search "engines" in use on Internet are experimenting with multimedia capability, including: Gopher (a menu-oriented system best suited for browsing), WAIS (Wide Area Information System - an iterative, multiple keyword search system for indexed databases); and Wide World Web (an experimental hypertext system). All have the ability to transfer images, audio and animation contents. One WAIS database, for example, contains audio CD and image "documents." For each CD, descriptive text is accompanied by a 20 second audio sample and an image of the slip case artwork. The standards making this possible were developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force to enable reliable transfer of Postscript (a typeface and graphic description language), voice messages, music, binary data files and video (Dern, 1992).

Finally, there is a problem of standards in overcoming diverse addressing protocols in networks. Within the vast reaches of Internet, for example, five subsumed addressing styles can be found. The obvious need is to allow one "standard" to transfer mail to another, since accessing the widest number of electronically-linked individuals is the central point of networking. The 1988 CCITT standard, X.400, for inter-network mail addressing is rapidly spreading as a world addressing standard (Korzeniowski, 1991; Nittiskie, 1991; Dern, 1992).

Can Standards be Reconciled?

The root industries of multimedia are dissimilar in many ways. They are uncomfortable fellows in the bed of multimedia, reflecting diverse business traditions, varied records of industrial cooperation and the unequal presence of governmental, professional and international bodies giving force to the standards forged. The situation of multimedia is further confused by an innovation rate that is swift and a definition that (seemingly) keeps taking on new capabilities and functions. Too, there appears to be a market for multimedia technology that is enthusiastic without full realization of just what it is. Consequently, the task of coherent, planned standards covering the breadth of multimedia capabilities will likely prove difficult. This diversity of tradition is summarized in Table 3.

Having the most basic and potent technology, the leaders in the computer domain will likely be ". . . the ones largely responsible for seeing to it that all these different cultures work together to deliver effective multimedia applications for business, education and the home (Pane, 1991)." While facing this challenge, the computer industry remains the most turbulent of the converging cultures giving rise to multimedia, with an extremely fast rate of change driven by technical advances. What standards exist are mostly the result of de facto corporate dominance and some non-binding industry agreements.

Consumer electronics - the home-use audio-visual equipment industry - concentrates on delivery technologies for broadcast, video and music publishing. Characteristically, sales volumes are high, profit margins low, and standards are often driven by industry-wide agreement to reduce confusion in the marketplace. The tragedy of shifting or divisive video disk and tape standards in past decades are fresh reminders of the chaos and consumer disgruntlement that can result from ill-advised change and poorly-shared standards.

The traditional mass media abide by long-established industrial standards and processes for producing their content products. Transitions such as digital audio broadcasting (DAB) and high definition television (HDTV) are approached slowly and often with government supervision lest the consuming public be abused by rapid and inconsistent shifts in technology.

Telecommunications, with its mandate of universal service and the networking dictum that consistent standards are necessary for reliability and universality, is the slowest and most cautious industry in terms of change and standards adoption. International, federal and state concurrence on change slows the process of evolution to a glacial rate, necessitating that most changes be transparent to the basic telephone user. Massive alterations such as ISDN (integrated service digital networks) have provoked a decade-long debate, not only concerning the technical standards themselves, but also the social consequences of their costs.

To forge agreements across this diverse community of industrial cultures, unique problems have to be considered that raise multimedia from the commonplace of standard-setting:

• The industries have different customs and practices in setting standards. The mix of house, de facto and de jure standards vary by the traditions of each industry. Goverment dominates such groups as broadcasting and telecommunications, while trade organizations and dominant industrial players affect consumer electronics, computing and publishing. Each standards process has a customary way of legislating standards and evolving them over time, differing constituencies to be consulted in arriving at decisions and variant domains of influence once standards have been set (de jure standards in telecommunications are typically international in scope and stable, while house standards in consumer electronics may affect only one domestic manufacturer for as long as is profitable).

• The industries have very different rates of change. Their needs are in part embodied in the speed of their response to change. Standard-setting must conform to these traditions - a tough requirement when rates of change vary so much across foundation industries. The inability of content software developers (reflecting the conservative change rate of the publishing industry) to fill the void created by new computer technologies can doom innovations to a fatal software lag. Too fast a pace frustrates content software providers with a moving technological target that denies them economies of scale and market stability.

• There are few companies with sufficient expertise to cover all major sectors of multimedia development. Some, by merger or new venture, are gaining expertise. Microsoft, for example, operates a traditional publications affiliate, Microsoft Press and has invested heavily in CD-ROM electronic publishing. Packard-Bell and the DAK Corporation have made successes of selling multimedia-equipped computers through volume outlets, like discount stores or catalog mail order, in a way that imitates the market strategies of the consumer electronics industry ("PC Economics," 1991; Wolf, 1991; DAK Industries, Inc., 1992). So far, these efforts have been limited. In large part, computer manufacturers, consumer electronics and "traditional" media push their multimedia efforts onto the marketplace with little cross-cooperation.

• Content software is a departure for most computer industries. The core of multimedia is contents, not task performance. Traditionally, the focus of computer software has been applications devoted to such activities as word processing, accounting and database management. The contents, if any, have been provided by the customer. There are different needs in this new software domain, some of which can be ascertained from the traditional content industries of publishing, broadcasting and film. Further, content and its applications-like control software interact with one able to enhance or limit the other. Industry-wide "best" models of this software amalgam seem few, with imitations limited by the threat of copyright infringement (Pane, 1991; Karon, 1992).

• Cooperative standards efforts do not enjoy full participation. Major efforts, such as those of the MPC and IMA, do not enjoy full participation within the computing industry and exclude many of the related industries needed to support standards. Indeed, the more powerful a particular group becomes, the likelier it may be that a competing group may enter to prevent market domination of one interest. Consumer electronics, for example, shows a tendency toward proprietary standards closely kept within the corporate family. Few standards seem likely here until one of the special-purpose forms of multimedia produced capture a high market share.

These issues signal the immaturity of a growing industry, but they also show one very much at risk of fragmentation and consumer confusion if not stabilized. Industries accustomed to slow change, such as publishing and telecommunications, may hold back participation until more stable standards come, or will wager their own industrial clout to make de facto standards that may not be in the best interest of all.

By one estimate, it can take between four and eight years for an international body to develop standards (Cargill, 1989; Gilhooly, 1989). Some fear that standards approached at this laggardly rate may be obsolete before they are ever established (Office of Technology Assessment, 1990). The question, then, is how to provide standards swiftly enough and with ample flexibility to allow for the orderly growth of capabilities and the market.

Consolidating Multimedia Standards

One major issue is the most effective role for government. Its regulatory agencies are uniquely positioned to foster recognition of broad social issues, just as they have in past efforts to set media standards (FCC, 1945, 1950). To answer growing criticism that government often fails to make good choices because it cannot keep pace with the complex economic and technical considerations involved, it could serve as a coordinator for inter-agency panels and fact-finding (Rosen, Schnaars & Shani, 1988; OTA, 1990). As a case in point, the FCC has taken a minimalist role in setting standards for HDTV, serving as a "referee" and organizing a neutral field test for judging competing technologies (FCC, 1988). Government funded research could be used to identify and champion broad social needs to be considered in setting standards. When choices have been made, beyond its regulatory force, the government has substantial market influence by backing a leading standard in its own purchasing standards. Even so, the heads of industry might perceive the government's proposed leadership role as posing a substantial commercial threat, particularly if their own proprietary technologies are at stake (OTA, 1990). Short of explicit standard-setting, the government could withhold support for contending standards, letting it be known that all were considered immature. This would hopefully motivate competing industrial firms to revise and improve their offerings.

Industrial forces represent a second level of standards setting. We have already seen competing standards organizations form: the Microsoft-lead MPC and the Apple-IBM-Kodak amalgam, the IMA. While these powerful organizations could forestall a single standard, their creation may, nevertheless, offset the chaos inherent with dozens of standards. With the failed videotex systems of the early 1980s, the AT&T NAPLPS house standard became a national de facto standard due to the strength and near-monopoly of this industrial giant. Few such forces are on the American horizon for multimedia. On the other hand, seemingly unlikely alliances, such as that of arch-rivals IBM and Apple, demonstrate that even the powerful will sometimes join forces when it serves to advance their common interests.

Some media industrial organizations have tried to mediate and speed-up standard-setting. Groups like the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) have made efforts to streamline the standards process while still preserving opportunities for wide participatory input (Carter, 1989a, 1989b, 1990a, 1990b). More work remains to be done in reshaping the hierarchical structure of many well-established standards bodies to respond to new demands on the standards process, as well as to eliminate any duplication of effort among a host of standards organizations (Cargill, 1989; OTA, 1992). If voluntary industry groups can prove they are able to adopt more streamlined processes for managing debates over standards, they may, in fact, represent one of the brightest hopes for generating a standards environment able to balance stability with the need for future flexibility (Rosen, Schnaars, & Shani, 1988; Cargill, 1989).

Consumers and consumer testing groups represent a third force for standardization that has traditionally had a limited voice in the specialized domain of high technology. Even so, organizations such as The Consumers' Union have a long history of involvement in testing the products of the consumer electronics industry. Hobbyist and trade publications in the consumer and corporate computer information industries have an established record of product and software evaluation. Publications such as Infoworld offer their test facilities to manufacturers seeking an independent assessment of their wares, awarding favorable cases a seal of buyer assurance reminiscent of "home and garden" publications several decades ago. Major corporate buyers, too, are continuously solicited by manufacturers for comments and suggestions. Nevertheless, except for the aggressive hobbyist and volume corporate buyer, the details and implications of standards typically remain far from public view. Eventually, the consumers' perspective becomes evident in the marketplace. By then, however, it is often too late to alter standards to meet unanticipated problems or new needs.

There is growing recognition that the time-consuming hunt for broad consensus typical of government and industry de jure standards is being stretched to the limit with today's rapid pace of technological change (Cargill, 1989). By the time years of negotiations have been conducted and standards are adopted, technology and needs have often surpassed the agreed-on capabilities. By trying to "freeze" technology to gain market advantage for some or find a low common denominator specification to which all agree, innovation and changed consumer interests may be lost from the decision.

Some new efforts downplay standards as a tool for market control or of dispute settlement among rival commercial adversaries. Instead, proactive approaches now stress the value of standard-setting as a planning aid to anticipate and shape future technological development (Cargill, 1989). The success of the OSI reference model,[JB1] developed during the late 1970s and early '80s, serves as evidence of benefits to be gained by an "open systems" approach to standards development that pushes for national and international agreement in anticipation of market demand (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1984). The creation of the OSI standard also serves as testimony to the gains that are possible through the close cooperation of national, regional and international standards bodies, in this case primarily the International Standards Organization and the CCITT.

New Developments and Players

Despite these forces favoring stable standards, the tempo of diversity and change has accelerated greatly in recent months. Partly from fear, partly from ambitions to stake out a share of emerging information industries, an inrush of major commercial interests have joined the multimedia fray with new enterprises as diverse as interactive TV shopping channels and wristband pagers. Recent joint ventures of telephone, cable television, newspapers, computer information services and Hollywood producers show the quest of major traditional media to find alliances to new media technologies. Paramount, Viacom, the QVC shopping channel, US West Telecommunications, TCI cable television and AT&T, to name a few major players, are moving swiftly and occasionally contentiously, to cement alliances with traditional rivals or simply complementary information services that help each protect a challenged market sector (Zeigler, et al., 1993, Andrews, 1993, Landler, et al., 1993). Paramount and Viacom, for example, can offer each other content and distribution, respectively. Even in the staid newspaper industry there is renewed interest in electronic distribution, despite costly failures in the mid-1980s. Knight-Ridder's information design lab, for example, is experimenting with a newspaper layout compatible with notebook computer displays, while the San Jose Mercury and The Chicago Tribune are delivering editorial content via America On Line, a computer information service distributed to modem-equipped PCs (Reilly, 1993, Rosenberg, 1992). Newspapers clearly want to safeguard the distribution of their product, be it by cable or bicycle.

Implicit these actions is the growing realization that standards are as much about software as they are about hardware. Indeed, with fully digital devices such as high definition televisions, this distinction becomes academic at best. Government and industry concern of old with "technical" standards must cope with systems and software. As Ferguson and Morris (1994) commented in their recent account of IBM's slide from profitability,

A few of the vendors will define the standards and protocols the others must meet. These are the same ones that enjoy some element of architectural control over the system. In contrast to facsimile machines or television sets, the critical standards of these architectures are not defined by international or government standards-setting bodies, but are instead defined and controlled by private companies the key software vendors or microprocessor designers (pp. 119-120).

Thus standards-setting moves from the province of single industries and basic technical characteristics such as frequencies used for broadcast, to complexities of system architectures that embrace a wide range of industries, technologies and software.

After a decade at the sidelines of evolving information technologies, the US federal government has responded to the activity of the marketplace. In September 1993, the Clinton administration has appointed an advisory council for a "national information infrastructure" (NII) to look broadly at information networking to " . . . make it easy and affordable to connect people with each other, with computers, and a vast array of services and information resources."(White House, 1993) In effect, this commission, together with an administration-written "plan for action" for the NII, have become the elaborate cornerstone of a national information policy (National Technology and Information Administration, 1993).

The common element in these actions seems a firm belief that the communication marketplace is shifting in a way not experienced since the introduction of radio 90 years ago. A new national media base is being formed that is digital, networked and with integrated capabilities. While recent commercial alliances seem to suggest growing financial stakes in what multimedia becomes, the planning of a national information infrastructure gives government, potentially, a large role in determining what social, educational and long-term industrial good is served (DeLoughry, 1993, Markoff, 1993). At this historically close range, it isn't possible to say if these developments will aid the standards process or impede it. Arguably the lengthening list of major industrial players could make for greater confusion as each fights for market dominance, just as the increased interest of the federal government in stable new media could push compromise and cooperation among the contenders.

The present, fractured industrial base for multimedia must overcome vast differences in products, rates of change and standard-setting customs. As well, balance must be struck between public and private interests in developing standards for a multimedia future. It will take wisdom among the participants to know when and where to hold off strict standards to allow for growth and innovation, yet provide a clarity that limits confusion and waste. By orchestrating the infrastructure through which these industries distribute their information products, government has a strong hand in deciding the social needs served and the protections afforded in a new US media base. So far, brave plans and forecasts have been laid. The hard knocks of market forces, sensible standards negotiation and reconciling public good with private gain have just begun.

1. Hemenway (1975) distinguishes between two types of standards: quality and uniformity. We are concerned with uniformity standards because their focus is sameness or predictability of design. As Rosen et. al. (1988) note, "They [standards] purposely reduce the variety of products."
2. De facto standards are usually created by the prominance of a major industrial provider in the marketplace. Others take-up the standards based on the strength of its industrial progenitor.
3. Some authors differentiate between de jure standards and "regulated" standards, explaining that regulated standards are not entirely voluntary since they must be sanctioned, and sometimes even imposed, by a governmental agency. That differentiation has not been made in this article because even most regulated standards demand majority approval by industry if they are to be successful.
4. In this review, we do not directly consider the extensive work in teleconferencing (typically a closed circuit, limited audience setting). Our interest is with those developments most relevant to mass circulation technologies.
5. Current general audience videotex efforts, such as the Sears and IBM-sponsored Prodigy, have tried to address earlier deficiencies, but have an unclear record so far.
6. More correctly, Internet is a backbone network into which many smaller primary wide area networks connect.

   ---

   References

   Aller, H., & Lowenstein, R. (1985, October). The inevitable march of videotex. Technology Review , pp. 22-29.

   Andrews, Edmond. (1993, August 8). A.T.&T. reaches out (and grabs everyone). New York Times. p. F-1, F-6.

   Arnett, N. (1990, January 15). The four-layer multimedia model. Multimedia Computing and Presentations.

   Borenstein, Nathaniel. (1992, February 7). Metamail announcement distributed by Internet newsgroup comp.multimedia at Bellcore. Further information at .

   Brenner, D. L., & Fowler, M. S. (1982). A marketplace approach to broadcast regulation. Texas Law Review, 60, 207-256.

   Cargill, C. (1989). Information technology standardization: theory, process and organizations. Bedford, MA: Digital Press.

   Carter, A. (1989a, October). SMPTE reviews standards policy. TV Technology, p. 1.

   ________ (1989b, December). SMPTE '89 arrives in Tinseltown. TV Technology, p. 1.

   ________ (1990a, April). SMPTE standards report delayed. TV Technology, p. 1.

   ________ (1990b, December). SMPTE process examined. TV Technology, p. 17.

   DAK Industries, Inc. (1992). Early spring catalog, pp. 52-59.

   DeLoughry, Thomas. (1993, May 19). Colleges and telephone companies battle over the future of the Internet. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A26-8

   Dern, D. (1992, February 24). E-mail integration: taking on new roles. Infoworld,

   Durand, P. (1983, June). The public service potential of videotex and teletext. Telecommunications Policy, pp. 149-162.

   Dvorak, J., & Seymour, J. (1991, April). Just what is this multimedia thing good for, anyway? PC Computing , p. 54.

   Farhi, P. (1991, June 3-9). Alfred Sikes's mission at the FCC. The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, pp. 6-7.

   FCC to take simulcast route to HDTV. (1990, March 26). Broadcasting, pp. 38-40.

   Federal Communications Commission. (1945, 25 May). Report of allocations from 25,000 kilocycles to 30,000,000 kilocycles, docket no. 6651.

   ___________ (1950, September 1). First report of the commission (color television issues), docket nos. 8736, 8975, 9175 and 8976.

   ___________ (1982, March). Report and order in the matter of AM stereophonic broadcasting, 47 F.R. 13152.

   ___________ (1988, September 1). Tentative decision and further notice of inquiry: in the matter of advanced television systems, 3 FCC Rcd 23.

   Ferguson, Charles H. and Charles R. Morris (1994). Computer wars: the fall of IBM and the future of global technology. New York: Random House/Times Books.

   Gilhooly, D. (1989, January 16). Expanding the scope for the CCITT. Communications Week, p. 1.

   Harris, C. (1985, January 14). For videotex, the big time is still a long way off. Business Week, pp. 128-133.

   Hawkins, T. (1989, October). Why multimedia is multiconfusing. Personal Computing, p. 220.

   Hemenway, D. (1975). Industry-wide voluntary product standards. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing.

   IBM, Apple seal promise-laden pact; Taligent: to be formed by IBM & Apple Computer to develop an advanced operating system. (1991, October 7). Computerworld, p. 7.

   Karon, P. (1992, March 9). Electronic publishing faces legal traps over copyrights. Infoworld, p. S70.

   Klopfenstein, B. C., & Sedman, D. (1990, Spring). Technical standards and the marketplace: the case of AM stereo. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 171-194.

   Krasnow, E. G., Longley, L. D., & Terry, H. A. (1982). The politics of broadcast regulation. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

   Landler, et al. (1993, July 12). Media mania: The scramble for digital technology is on. Business Week. pp. 110-118.

   Lewyn, M., & Rothfeder, J. (1990, September 10). How long will Prodigy be a problem child? Business Week, p. 75.

   Lipman, J. (1993, August 25). Interactive TV entices many marketers, but so far hype outpaces technology. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B6.

   Marcus, Michael J. (1987, January). Technical deregulation: a trend in U.S. telecommunications policy. IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 66-68.

   Markoff, J. (1993, April 15). Sega links with cable providers: venture to deliver games into homes. New York Times, pp. C1, C12.

   __________(1993, January 23). Building the electronic superhighway. A key project of Clinton and Gore raises a debate: public or private. New York Times, p. F-1.

   __________ (1993, January 24). Building the electronic superhighway. New York Times, pp. F1, F6.

   Microsoft Corporation. (1991, May). Multimedia personal computing: the Microsoft view. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation.

   __________. (1993, May). Intel and Microsoft's Windows Telephony. in Newsbytes. (5/5/93).

   National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1984, December). Standards in process: foundations and profiles of ISDN and OSI studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

   National Telenology and Information Administration, NII Office. (1993, September 15). The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action. [version 1.0] Washington DC.

   Nittiskie, L. (1991, November 25). X.400 tops list of developments at NIST meeting. Communications Week, p. 1.

   North American Philips Corporation. (1991, October 16). Introducing a whole new way of looking at television. Seattle Times, p. A-8 (advertisement).

   O'Malley, C. (1991, July). Multimedia update: the technology is still too expensive for widespread business use. Lotus, p. 13.

   OTA [Office of Technology Assessment]. (1990, January). Critical connections: communications for the future. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

   __________(1992, March). Global standards: building blocks for the future. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. p.41, 44 .

   Pane, P. (1991, March 11). Data on demand: the market for 'content-based software' will ride the wave of multimedia. Infoworld, pp. 47-51.

   Pane, P. (1991, March 11). Data on demand: the market for 'content-based software' will ride the wave of multimedia. Infoworld, pp. 47-51.

   PC Economics 101: welcome to the wonderful world of commodity computers. (1991, November 18). Computer Letter, p. 1.

   Quello: move on must carry; Sikes: no rush on HDTV standard. (1988, June 6). Broadcasting, p. 30.

   Reilly, L. (1990, December 15). Federal government multimedia standards effort is underway. Multimedia Computing and Presentations, p. 2.

   Reilly, Patrick. (1993, April 26). Publishers design electronic newspapers to keep control of information delivery. pp. B-1, B-5.

   Rosen, B. N., Schnaars, S. P., & Shani, D. (1988). A comparison of approaches for setting standards for technological products. Journal of Pruduct Innovation Management, 5, pp. 129-139.

   Rosenberg, Jim. (1992, October 31). Knight-Ridder info design lab. Editor & Publisher, pp. 26-33.

   Rosenthal, S. (1992, March 9). Quicktime steals the spotlight: Apple's multimedia architecture transforms business presentations into Oscar contenders. Infoworld, pp. S65-S66.

   Ross, M. (1991, December 17). IBM chooses different course with its Ultimedia PC. PC Magazine, p. 36.

   Seybold, Inc. (1991, November 1). The Apple-IBM deal: what it means in the words of key players. The Seybold Report on Desktop Publishing, p. 3.

   Shao, M., & Brandt, R. (1989, October 9). It's a PC, it's a TV--it's multimedia: add a CD here, a VCR there, and you have a computer revolution. Business Week, pp. 152-155, 158, 162, 166.

   Shapiro, E. (1991, May 12). Now, CD's emit sights as well as sounds: but competing formats, high prices may limit appeal. New York Times, p. F-5.

   Strothman, J. E. (1991). Interactive multimedia white paper: promises and pitfalls. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.

   Sultan, K. (1991a, October 28). MPC group to set 2nd standard: higher-level multimedia spec due within a year. PC Week, p. 12.

   _________ (1991b, December 2). Multimedia PC Council comes under fire. PC Week, p. 19.

   Turner, R. (1993, January 7). Software network: video-game innovator lures corporate giants to 'interactive' media. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A8.

   TV Answer, Inc. (1992, February 27). TV Answer and HP to speed development of first, national interactive TV system. Reston, VA: TV Answer, Inc. (press release).

   Vickery, H. (1991, April 29). President's team breathes life into dormant agencies. Seattle Times, p. A-3.

   When worlds collide: demystifying multimedia. (1991, June). PC Today, p. 6.

   White House. (1993, September 15). Executive Order, William Clinton, President. United States Advisory Council on the national information infrastructure. Washington, DC.

   Wolf, R. (1991, July 22). Computers move to the corner store. San Jose Mercury News, p. E-1.

   Xenakis, J. (1991, October 14). Multistandards for multimedia: major vendors join fray over huge potential market. Information Week, p. 22.

   Ziegler, Bart, et al. (1993, September 27). Calling all channels: with phone rivals facing off against cable rivals, the information superhighway may arrive years sooner than expected. pp. 130-135.

   ---

   This HTML document was created by GT_HTML 6.0d 08/10/96 7:38 PM.