Think Jennifer Aniston. Now think of what she might be wearing on "Friends," the well-recognized television show. This is where the fun begins for many guys. But for technophiles (euphemism for nerds), deeper questions arise. Technophiles have not only asked, "What is Jennifer wearing?" They have asked, "Who makes what she is wearing? How can we design a technology to enable viewers to buy what she is wearing? How can we convince viewers to use the technology?" European technophiles have whipped up a solution to enable TV viewers to get more than just picture and sound. Its name is t-commerce. But here is the problem: t-commerce will not be massively deployed in America for a while. This lag is unwarranted and unsuitable.
Let me first address the benefits of t-commerce before I show the absurdity of the American lag. T-commerce, like e-commerce, enables you to have an interactive experience. You could be nestled in your dorm room watching "Will and Grace," and, say, an actor's Ermenegildo Zegna suit perks your interest. Point your powerful remote control at the sartorial splendor and you will instantly receive information about the suit: colors, availability, and -- of course -- cost. Perhaps you are a sports fan. You could watch Monday Night Football on ABC, and the Denver Broncos line up to kick a 53 yard field goal. Point your remote to the kicker and bet on whether he will make the field goal. T-commerce soars through the uprights into other areas: vacations, CDs, DVDs, books and movie or sports tickets. T-commerce makes watching TV more than just a "ha-ha" experience, it converts TV into an "ah-ha!" experience.
It is utterly absurd that America does not have t-commerce. America proclaims itself the world's technological superstar. But when it comes to t-commerce, America is a dinky dog. Fly to London if you want t-commerce because we are not getting it anytime soon. Why has Europe been the leader in interactive television? Europe simmers and gurgles with a stew of fresh technologies, mainly third generation telephones and t-commerce. Add to the stew a dash of governmental involvement. The result: millions of people harvest an interactive television experience thanks to t-commerce.
Prime Minister Tony Blair appointed an e-minister in June 2001 to oversee the United Kingdom's technological infrastructure. True, e-Minister Douglas Alexander has proven to be a technological minimalist, although he has been at his post for one year. Nevertheless, the message that Mr. Blair sends U.K. businesses is one of openness and willingness. Businessmen often spurn government involvement. But Mr. Blair has illustrated that government creates the atmosphere in which businesses work. This business atmosphere has led to the creation of interactive television and t-commerce. It is absurd that England has an e-commerce minister and America does not. President Bush, though, dutifully focused on other pertinent matters, should consider creating a secretary of technology. Detractors will argue that an added government department will add to the confounding bureaucracy. But if adding a department whips a new technology into existence and provides thousands of jobs, I will take it.
More absurdity arises when one of America's business seniors has to enter a European market with his cutting-edge t-commerce rather than an American market. News Corp, Fox News's parent, and its Chairman Rupert Murdoch have garnered five million subscribers in the U.K. alone for its "Sky" TV service. Just as technophiles see e-mail as the best application or "killer-app" of the Internet, Mr. Murdoch sees t-commerce as TV's killer app. Mr. Murdoch's Sky TV has voraciously consumed other world television giants. Earlier this summer Mr. Murdoch unsuccessfully fought for a stake of DirecTV.
Mr. Murdoch recognizes the potential of t-commerce. But why does he have to fulfill his dream from the outside-in? Why is it that he bases his technological kingdom from England rather than America? In brief, America does not have the conditions necessary for t-commerce. The U.K. government voted to switch off old analog TV transmission by 2010. Yes, the government is requiring businesses to provide the best technology to its citizens. As a result, 40 percent of U.K. TV users already have interactive television. No wonder Mr. Murdoch salivates over scones and marmalade.
Can you imagine the commotion it would cause if America passes a bill requiring TV broadcasters to end analog transmission? Hundreds of congressional hearings, endless partisan bickering and wavering business consent would ensue. The last is what is most bothersome. American businesses are not pushing for required digital transmission. These companies are still recouping their money from the ongoing broadband rollout; these companies are focusing on their short-term financial gain rather than delving into the financial glories of t-commerce. The endless debates and business apathy are perhaps endearing parts of American democracy, but when it strangleholds innovativeness and fresh ideas, we might need the government to step in and put us back on the right path.
How can America be so far behind in such a prelusory and proficient technology? It is absurd. So now, we can only guess as to where Jennifer Aniston gets her clothes.
