to create new visions and aspirations, build national brands, and generate significant commercial value. For the most part, divergence never occurred in the economic effects of media. Hence convergence cannot be slow in coming In any case, communications policy should promote, not convergence, but worthwhile social, political, and economic goals. The historical record shows that over seventy-five years advertising has grown about the same rate as the over-all economy. Thus if policy seeks information industries to serve as an engine for creating new economic opportunities and jobs, policy should seek to develop media not supported by advertising Most persons today spend a large amount of time within the home, sitting down, watching pre-packaged, distributor-scheduled streaming audio and video, i.e. television If the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people, policy should encourage the growth of more diverse media environments and more diverse ways of interacting with media. To promote serious discussion of serious issues, as well as the release of human energy in healthful productive, avocational, social, political, and ludic communications, policy should encourage the development of a multiplicity of communications sources and outlets Stating policy goals is easy; the question is al ways what to do. The growth in the number of participants in the communications industry, the globalization of firms, and rapid technological change make many traditional policies unintelligible or ineffective. In the Microsoft antitrust case, in the aol Time Warner merger, and in formulating pricing policies, policy makers and industry participants are increasingly recognizing the importance of economics of attention. An insightful policy analyst pointed out early in the 1990s When new technologies conducive to increasingly diverse and smaller-scale mass communications emerge, commercial market forces and deeply ingrained media habits pull back hard in the other direction. Communications policy needs to identify effective levers for influencing commercial media development and wide-spread habits of media use Thus for policy purposes television is not something to be made into an appliance like a toaster; it's always been more or less like People magazine with animation The quotation is from the concurring opinion of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in Whitney v California 274 US 357(1927). Articles in the trade press indicate that Internet appliances currently under development may foster the growth of more diverse environments for media use and more diverse ways of interacting with media 7 The provision of mere entertainment, while not encouraged, is generally tolerated A key issue in the Microsoft case relates to how control was exercised over the first screen seen when starting Windows. The first screen is important because most users notice it and do not change it Similarly, the FCC's approval of the AOL Time Warner merger included a condition requiring that AOL Time Warner must allowing ISPs providing services over AOL Time Warner facilities to control the contents of the first screen that subscribers see. With respect to pricing policies, Odlyzko, Andrew, "The history of communications and its implications for the Internet"(available at http://www.research.att.com/-amoshowsthathistoricallycustomershavepreferredflat-rate communications services. With such services customers do not have to pay attention to For a short well-written article building on Odlyzko's work, see Cohen, Hal, "The Price is Wrong, The Industry StandardJanuary1-8,2001,onlineatwww.thestandard.com Neuman, W. Russell, The future of the mass audience(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Press, 1991)p4 to create new visions and aspirations, build national brands, and generate significant commercial value. For the most part, divergence never occurred in the economic effects of media.5 Hence convergence cannot be slow in coming. In any case, communications policy should promote, not convergence, but worthwhile social, political, and economic goals. The historical record shows that over seventy-five years advertising has grown about the same rate as the over-all economy. Thus if policy seeks information industries to serve as an engine for creating new economic opportunities and jobs, policy should seek to develop media not supported by advertising. Most persons today spend a large amount of time within the home, sitting down, watching pre-packaged, distributor-scheduled streaming audio and video, i.e. television. If “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people,” policy should encourage the growth of more diverse media environments and more diverse ways of interacting with media.6 To promote serious discussion of serious issues, as well as the release of human energy in healthful productive, avocational, social, political, and ludic communications,7 policy should encourage the development of a multiplicity of communications sources and outlets. Stating policy goals is easy; the question is always what to do. The growth in the number of participants in the communications industry, the globalization of firms, and rapid technological change make many traditional policies unintelligible or ineffective. In the Microsoft antitrust case, in the AOL Time Warner merger, and in formulating pricing policies, policy makers and industry participants are increasingly recognizing the importance of economics of attention.8 An insightful policy analyst pointed out early in the 1990s: When new technologies conducive to increasingly diverse and smaller-scale mass communications emerge, commercial market forces and deeply ingrained media habits pull back hard in the other direction.9 Communications policy needs to identify effective levers for influencing commercial media development and wide-spread habits of media use. 5 Thus for policy purposes television is not something to be made into an appliance like a toaster; it’s always been more or less like People magazine with animation. 6 The quotation is from the concurring opinion of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in Whitney v. California 274 US 357 (1927). Articles in the trade press indicate that Internet appliances currently under development may foster the growth of more diverse environments for media use and more diverse ways of interacting with media. 7 The provision of mere entertainment, while not encouraged, is generally tolerated. 8 A key issue in the Microsoft case relates to how control was exercised over the first screen seen when starting Windows. The first screen is important because most users notice it and do not change it. Similarly, the FCC’s approval of the AOL Time Warner merger included a condition requiring that AOL Time Warner must allowing ISPs providing services over AOL Time Warner facilities to control the contents of the first screen that subscribers see. With respect to pricing policies, Odlyzko, Andrew, “The history of communications and its implications for the Internet” (available at http://www.research.att.com/~amo ) shows that historically customers have preferred flat-rate communications services. With such services customers do not have to pay attention to usage. For a short, well-written article building on Odlyzko’s work, see Cohen, Hal, “The Price is Wrong,” The Industry Standard, January 1-8, 2001, online at www.thestandard.com . 9 Neuman, W. Russell, The future of the mass audience (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991) p. 165