�Over the next decade, audiences will move away from the linear, scheduled world where there is a relatively limited number of distributors who push their content at the viewer � a world where traditionally you got what the broadcaster wanted you to get � and the regulator allowed the broadcaster to give to you. We will instead enter a world where content is increasingly delivered through internet-protocol-based networks that are non-linear, on-demand and entirely self-scheduled. In that world, the viewer � not the broadcaster � will decide what is consumed and how.�

~David Currie, Oct 2004

The rejection of linearity is the new socialist realism.

Linear, in fact, is lately something of a dirty word. It is associated with analogue technologies and �old models� of broadcasting. Linearity is the opposite, we are told, of the �on-demand world�. The on-demand world is invariably portrayed as hipper; people wear more black clothing and are generally cooler looking. And, of course, there is nothing more humiliating than being accused of �linear thinking�. We�ve always been at war with linearity.

So, I arrived at my brother�s new house here in Atlanta, Georgia on Monday. My brother loves technology, so he has it all from a media and communications perspective. His cable system is particularly robust: He has hundreds of channels, a large high-definition television, and super-fast broadband. And he has on-demand products. I was checking them out on his cable system. His HBO on-demand (just one portion of the total on-demand offering), for example, has movies, HBO specials, and what�s really cool � HBO series like �Curb Your Enthusiasm�. So, at any time of the day, I can turn it on, and have at my finger tips hundreds�maybe thousands�of programmes of all varieties, �on-demand�. And, this does not even count his broadband connection to the internet, and all the on-demand product available there such as iTunes or Major League baseball games.

I�ve (temporarily) entered David Currie�s on-demand world, albeit still wearing my blue jeans. But I don�t think I�ve entirely escaped the linear world, for several reasons:

* Perhaps most obviously, life itself is linear. Restaurants are completely on-demand, but most people still tend to eat dinner around the same time. Linear just means in this context that things have a beginning, middle, and end. The media content that we consume is scheduled or structured by the distributor to match certain patterns in life�like the fact that most people work from 9am until 5pm, or have free time to watch long sporting events on the weekend. So, when I wake up in the morning, I want the morning�s news. Not the news from last week. Or the news from next week. If there is a live sports event happening, or a hurricane approaching, my desire for linearity becomes compelling.

* Not only is life linear in many respects, I think some people take comfort in having other people schedule things for them. Consider the following example: In music, on-demand technologies like albums or CDs have been around for decades. But linear radio still seems to thrive. Allowing someone else to select and schedule the content appeals to some of us because we are too busy or too distracted to do it ourselves. Perhaps comparing them to the editor of an anthology of poetry or a newspaper, we place a small amount of faith in the media scheduler to get it right�to give us what we want.

* Even the so-called on-demand offerings are highly linear. For example, the new HBO series �Rome� is offered on-demand at no extra charge on my brother�s cable system (it is also scheduled linearly). Now, how will I watch the on-demand portion? Right now, there are three episodes of Rome available, mirroring the linear scheduling somewhat. Of course, I will start with episode one and proceed linearly and HBO will apparently not permit the on-demand offering to get ahead of the scheduled offering. Another example: Perhaps the most on-demand product I know of is iTunes. But anyone who uses iTunes regularly can tell you that linear thinking pervades that product: iTunes Essentials and iMixes.

* Content creators like HBO and the BBC still control their product. Currie is just plain wrong when he says that content will be �entirely self-scheduled� and I the viewer will decide �what is consumed and how.� Whether it is a Harry Potter movie, a new Coldplay album, or a television series or special, the consumer does not make the key decisions and probably never will. I can choose, of course, to watch a movie at 4pm instead of 7pm or on a Tuesday instead of a Wednesday, but that�s about it. I cannot call up Harvey Weinstein and command him to release his next movie to coincide with the timing of my next holiday. The extent of my on-demand powers is very limited.

* I suppose this is an obvious point, but it is hardly ever mentioned: The same technologies that give viewers more control really serve to give cable companies and similar providers more control, perhaps exquisite control. Think DRM. Think data mining. We need not be worried about content creators and distributors, and toothpaste manufacturers who want to reach listeners and viewers in the on-demand world. If their ‘linear model’ is under threat, they will respond somehow. They�ll do just fine I predict.

So, sitting here in Atlanta completely surrounded by on-demand technologies, I am still mostly in the linear world, watching television as NBC or HBO thinks it should be presented. I�m not claiming�as Currie does�to know the future. There could be much less linearity in the future, particularly as the on-demand technologies become even more robust. I just think we have not yet reached the point where we can say with confidence that one will completely replace the other. Surely, there are other possible outcomes.