Analogue to Digital
Some Least Asked Questions (and some
answers)
By Abby Mellick
Introduction
“ Australian’s love new technology” . This we hear a lot.
Australians have for example taken to mobile telephony
more enthusiastically than any other Western country
except Sweden, with 4.5 million mobile phones in use and
in many cases more than one person using each phone1. About
one in three of us now use a mobile phone, which is up
from about one in five in March last year2. Why? Well we’ll
get to that. With television, the statistic is much
closer to 100%. Clearly, TVs and telephones are a highly
significant part of the social and cultural infrastructure
in this country.
The technological landscape is about to change with the
introduction of digital technology across the range of our
everyday products. The two big sign-post dates are 2000
for the phase-out of analogue mobile telephony and 2008
for the phase-out of analogue television. But what will
these be replaced with? Our relationship with many
specific technological things is set to change as they
converge and become multifunctional: mobile phones that
also have a fax/modem capacity, clock, alarm and personal
organiser are already on the market and you’ve heard all
the stories about soon being able to access Windows ‘98 on
your car dashboard (hmmm, sounds about as safe as the
animated road side advertising which is planned for NSW
during the Olympics!)
These changes will have significant environmental, social
and cultural implications. These will include, but are
not limited to:
• a dramatic surge in the electronic waste stream due to
the material consequences of convergence and
obsolescence;
• big energy bills associated with the design and use of
digital receivers;
• increased health impacts associated with new digital
infrastructures and electromagnetic radiation.
All of these problems require careful consideration,
research and public debate, which is not happening at
anywhere near an appropriate scale considering the speed
and volume of products hitting the market. There are very
few stakeholders willing to put the brakes on
technological development for any reason, and most of them
are more than a little in the dark about the above
impacts. For example, one of the key electronic
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
1
OF
17
manufacturers involved in the development of the
Australian Standard for digital broadcasting could not
answer any of my questions on the energy implications of
digital TV. This is despite the fact that European digital
reciever design has been targeted as potentially creating
a huge rise in power consumption when the technology is
introduced later this year3.
While digitisation is everywhere in one sense, it is
actually extremely difficult to find anything beyond the
usual consumer ‘information’ of “ when and where can I get
it?” and “ how much will it cost?” These are the kinds of
questions that have characterised ‘the debate’ about
digitisation so far. Information on whether research into
the dangers of electromagnetic radiation is having any
impact on technological planning and development, whether
manufacturers are making new products that are upgradable
or even where and how to most responsibly get rid of your
old technology, is much harder to come by. This is the
kind of information we most need if we are to make
responsible and informed decisions about how, when or
whether we will subscribe to the ‘digital age’.
This article is an introduction to and a survey of some of
the questions that should be being asked regarding the
digitisation of mobile phones and TVs, as well as some
answers. Many of these issues require further research
and consideration, and will be taken up in more detail in
future InfoEcology articles. So here are a few of our
Least Asked (but perhaps most important) Questions.
Going digital: what’s the hurry anyway?
The race to introduce digital technology is all about
money, of course. It intersects with Competition Policy
and rival industry groups trying to ‘secure’ their future.
For example, the digital conversion bill has been
denounced by pay TV operators and others as an electoral
agreement between the Government and certain media barons4
because it gives the ‘free-to-air’ networks sole digital
broadcasting rights for eight years and thus an ‘unfair’
edge on the future. There is also a general cultural
hysteria about being left behind on the ‘Information Super
Highway’.The rhetoric that surrounds digital technologies
speaks the future as a kind of free-range, techno-utopia
that we all must be part of. But what price will we pay
for this ‘progress’?
The heat that is on anything digital at the moment gives
us an opportunity to take a good look at the workings of
technological modernity, and assess its sustainability.
Technological innovation is now so rapid that new products
barely enter our lives before they become obsolete, both
in terms of technology and aesthetics. While this is as
much a problem of bad design and poor regulation as it is
a problem of market forces, techno-aesthetic obsolescence
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
2
OF
17
is clearly one of the most serious ecological problems we
have. The economies of mass production are geared, of
course, to make buying something new a cheaper and more
appealing option than repair. This situation means that we
‘junk’ things - both materially and symbolically - that
may be only a fraction of the way into their true
lifespans.
While this problem is not new, it is rapidly escalating.
Even if you decide to hang on to your old analogue
technology, you might find that the infrastructure to
support it drops away and you are forced to buy new
equipment anyway. This form of mandating has recently
caused big problems for the Coalition Government. The
planned phase out of analogue mobile phone services (AMPS)
by 2000 (coupled with the planned privitisation of
Telstra), has caused a great deal of concern for people in
rural and remote areas, as the digital infrastructure does
not give the same coverage as the old analogue system.
This politically precarious situation has been partially
salvaged with Telstra’s announcement that new digital
(CDMA) technology will be introduced that offers the same
coverage as analogue, making it possible to switch
undetectably between the new digital and existing analogue
infrastructure5. While this extends the life of the old
infrastructure, consumers will still need to buy a new
handset, so the problem of disposing of old analogue
handsets still remains.
Even though the mandating of digital TV is still a few
years off, one can imagine many similar problems emerging.
Digital mobile networks require more infrastructure than
analogue systems to deliver the same service. This is
because competition policy and a deregulated
telecommunications market has meant the construction of
competing, non-restricted digital networks as opposed to
the common analogue network6.
What are the material waste impacts of digital
conversion?
The material waste impacts relate to the landfilling of
old telephones and TV sets and the development of new
ones. With digital TV alone, there is no doubt that
improved image quality will create consumer
dissatisfaction with analogue systems, generating a
dramatic escalation in set replacement and disposal. We
are talking here about the eventual junking of 10 million
analogue television sets. Retailers are saying that if you
decide to buy a new TV tomorrow, you will still get a full
life out of it. This assumes that you normally trash your
television every eight or so years at the absolute most.
In reality, the uptake of new TVs is likely to happen
sooner rather than later for several reasons:
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
3
OF
17
1 The government’s legislation favours the development of
HDTV
programming by the free-to-air
networks (over dividing the digital signal
into several channels [multi-channeling] which is banned
under the current legislation until 2005);
2 Aggressive marketing;
3 As with all technologies, mass production means prices
will drop, making HDTVs more affordable.
While 20 to 30 per cent of households are likely to have a
set-top box which allows analogue sets to receive digital
signals, a FACTS (Federation of Australian Commercial
Television Services) spokesman says that by 2008 about 60
per cent of households should have a digital TV, which
while upwards of A$3,000 when first introduced, are
estimated to cost just 15 to 20 per cent more than a
standard analogue set by 2005.7
The potential electronic waste stream stretches to mammoth
proportions when one considers the true worldwide waste
impact of digitisation: telephones, video recorders,
cameras, radios and things we have yet to marvel at are
being invented, converted, upgraded and hybridised as we
speak. This represents a problem of bulk in landfill landfill sites have to be sited, engineered, monitored and
maintained - and of hazardous materials leaching into the
soil, ground water, and, in the case of accidental fires,
the air. What kinds of hazardous materials? New Dutch
research shows that polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDs), toxic chemicals
that are used as flame retardants in millions of computers
and televisions, can damage an organism’s nervous and
reproductive systems. New Scientist magazine recently
reported that these chemicals were excluded from a UN ban
on certain chemical pollutants because there was no
evidence that they spread beyond national boundaries.
However they have now been found in the tissue of sperm
whales in the middle of the Atlantic ocean8. It is clear
that material impacts of technologies do not figure in
the limitless expansion of technoculture in modern Western
countries.
What about energy issues?
Waste is a recurring theme throughout a product’s life,
not just in the disposal phase. Digital TV will mean big
energy bills, due both to its design and also, as we will
see later, due to people watching more TV simply because
there will be more TV to watch. When digital TV is
introduced in Britain later this year, it is estimated
that the technology will dramatically increase the rate of
power consumption because the digital receivers will have
to be left on active standby 24 hours a day to update
control software. It has also been found that even the
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
4
OF
17
most efficient of these receivers would draw up to 16
times more power than an analogue receiver - which adds up
to the output of a new power station. Has anyone made the
greenhouse calculations? It seems not. The problem lies
with commercial secrecy coupled with a lack of government
regulation and integrated research and development. A
consulting engineer researching the issue of the energy
impacts of digital receiver design in the UK, was unable
to get service specifications from the broadcasters even
though the first generation of set-top boxes must have
already been specified and manufactured to meet
introduction deadlines this year9. It appears that this
scenario is also playing itself out here. The lament by
the European researchers was that receiver design had gone
ahead without any address to the problems of energy
consumption. Some of the manufacturer representatives I
spoke to here however, had not even entertained energy
conservation as a design issue.
The significance of both the materials and energy waste
impact of digitisation is more than partially a result of
the extraordinary lack of environmental preparation and
planning for digitisation undertaken by government and
industry alike. The truth is that little is known or
understood about the implications of disposal of
electrical and electronic products. The transparent
necessity for an integrated environmental management plan,
accessible public information and comprehensive government
sponsored research into such aspects as hazardous wastes
and resource recovery options, has been completely
overlooked. As it is, the responsibility for large-scale
technological waste management appears to lie with
industry and this on a good-will basis. However, the
effectivity of what industry is actually doing in this
regard is questionable, as we shall see. It is becoming
clear that the support environment for comprehensiv and,
disinterested research and development in this country is
diminishing, with cuts ever increasing to this vital
sector.
What do I do with my old technology?
In terms of TVs, the answer appears to be that you can’t
do anything except toss them out - we will get back to TVs
presently. With telephones the situation is a little less
direct. After January 1, 2000, analogue handsets will not
work outside areas designated to retain analogue
services. According to the ACA (Australian Communication
Authority - the telecommunications regulatory body)
website, trade-in and trade-up deals are becoming
increasingly available from carrier and retail digital
outlets. What this means is that they will either chuck
out the phones for you, or sell them second hand. The
website states that “ the mobile phone industry is
conscious of the need to develop responsible policies
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
5
OF
17
which will minimise any environmental damage which could
be caused by the disposal of analogue handsets and
batteries. Strategies are being developed to ensure that
analogue users are aware of environmentally safe options
for disposal of such equipment.” The salespeople I spoke
to at Telstra, Optus and Vodaphone were not aware of any
environmental strategies being undertaken for phone
disposal simply saying the phones were being disposed of,
as they are incompatible with the new phone system and as
such completely unreuseable.
Interestingly, no-one in the waste industry is actually
seeing the wasted handsets in anywhere near the volume you
would expect. This is partly because they are classified
as ‘mixed waste’ (which means it is OK to chuck them in
your general bin) but a spokesman from a major recycling
company said he was surprised that he hadn’t heard a peep
from industry regarding disposal. So where are all the
handsets? While I contacted the management of several
carriers with this question, only Telstra responded.
According to Telstra, most handsets that come back to them
through upgrade deals are being re-sold to country and
rural areas, as new analogue phones are now difficult to
buy. Telstra say they are also encouraging people to hang
onto their analogue phones as their ‘second phone’ (which
of course sets up the market for additional digital
buyers). This doesn’t really add up to a ‘responsible’
waste management ‘policy’ as suggested by the ACA website.
By 2000, every mobile phone user who wants to remain
‘connected’ will need to buy a new handset anyway. The ACA
states that the mobile phone industry “ felt it was
appropriate that they look after the environmental
issues” associated with digitisation. Appropriate for
whom? This has meant there is no regulatory jurisdiction
over the environmental impact of digital conversion.
This is not to say that the industry is doing nothing.
AMTA [Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association] is
conducting a feasibility study on the recycling of NiCAD
batteries for a six month trial project in NSW, with the
ambition that the project will go national, and the EPA is
also involved in similar research. While no research is
being done on the disposal of handsets, the AMTA source I
spoke to suggested that this battery scheme (which
involves all the carriers) might become a model for other
recycling schemes. But is it a question of too little too
late? Phones are being disposed of now, and there is not
even a monofill storage facility for analogue handsets
which would at least make the handsets reclaimable pending
the results of the research being conducted. Not only are
the findings emerging in these studies not yet available,
but the research itself is too narrowly retrospective. It
does not address the crucial issue of the sustainability
of the phones that are currently being produced - and that
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
6
OF
17
means looking at the ‘new products’ of today as the
potential environmental problems of the not too distant
future.
What is the waste management infrastructure’s
position?
The EPA is currently pursuing voluntary waste reduction
initiatives with companies in the electronics sector. As
these are at a very preliminary stage I was unable to get
further details other than that they will encourage EPR
(see glossary of terms) and it is hoped that this may have
some future impact on design of technologies. The big
problem lies of course with that little word “ voluntary” .
There is no doubt that the circulation of ideas and
discussion papers has some general educational value.
However, if this does not then follow through to
legislation, change will at best be mitigatory rather than
fundamental (which would entail an impact at the level of
design).
The Western Sydney Waste Board has been pro-active on
thinking through the necessity for a post consumer
infrastructure for general waste collection. They have
devised a plan for a national consumer waste drop offcentre program, which has attracted national EPA interest
and will be discussed at a consensus forum in September.
While this could well improve the problem of materials
wastage, it does not deal with the fundamental problem:
government responsibility to ensure that industry invests
itself in the ecology of its products. It can’t all be
‘up to the consumer’ - issues of sustainability need to
get out in front of technological innovation, not lag
behind picking up the pieces of the productivity machine.
What are manufacturers of new technology doing?
Some large electronics manufacturers in Asia are beginning
to recognise sustainable manufacturing as the coming
mainstream, and are undertaking large scale environmental
management and EPR strategies to bring their practices
into line with Northern European standards. For example
the Sony Corporation aims to cut discarded waste by 50%
compared to 1991 figures and to eliminate the use of
landfill for its Japanese waste by 2010. By 2000, Sony
also wants to reduce the number of major product types by
up to 50% compared to 1991 levels (Sony currently
introduces 3000-4000 new products each year).11
In Australia, however, we have a very low manufacturing
presence and in comparison to most other OECD countries
our government and industries are performing very poorly
with regard to researching and practising waste
minimisation strategies.12
It has been extremely difficult to get a satisfactory
answer to the question of what exactly is being done in
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
7
OF
17
terms of the local picture. Not only are the design staff
notoriously difficult to track down, but commercial
sensitivities meant that the people I spoke to were not
very forthcoming. The FACTS spokesman did say that because
the Australian Standard for digital broadcasting has only
just been finalised (it is based on the European DVB
[digital video broadcasting] standard, which is favoured
because it was a system jointly planned for terrestrial,
cable and satellite transmissions), receiver development
is “ only up to the component stage” . While one can
assume that many of the multinational companies present in
Australia would operate on the basis of their
headquarters’ environmental policies (which are generally
much better than Australia’s), they are however still
reliant on Australian infrastructure for waste management
and resource recovery.
In a recent article in The Australian, a journalist wrote:
“ If the new set makers have any intelligence, the digital
electronics will be housed in a different box from the
monitor. If all key components are modular like your hifi system, you’ll be able to upgrade your system
progressively.” 13Though I couldn’t get a direct response
to this comment, I was told that it was highly unlikely
that product design would move in this direction. Rather,
the move was much more toward integrating features within
smaller and smaller multifunctional units, rather than to
modulating components. Generally, the ‘off the record’
response to my queries was that because digital modulation
technology is totally different to analogue, most of the
materials in current TV sets are unlikely to be reclaimed
- which is exactly the same situation as with phones.
This is not to say that there are not any reusable
elements within televisions. There are disassembly
technologies that have been developed in Europe which
would enable many valuable materials reclaimed from
obsolete technologies to be fed back into the economy.
However, the importation of such technologies, the
companies to operate them, to store and on-sell reclaimed
materials, as well as the infrastructure to get the
products from the consumer to these companies - all need
government support. None of this will happen via good
will. However there has not even been a feasibility study
conducted on the commercialisation potential of the waste
infrastructure which would be suitable to an Australian
context of low local manufacture. The response from most
industry players is that recycling electronics with small
components is highly energy intensive and difficult, and
the market is not large enough to make it commercially
viable. But where is the pressure to produce more
recyclable products, with parts that are easily
dissassembled? And if such products already exists, where
is the public information to draw consumers attention to
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
8
OF
17
these technologies and the government subsidy to ensure
that these products are competitive? Companies that extol
their own environmental credentials often overlook the
fact that unless the waste management infrastructure
exists, the product will end up in landfill no matter how
‘environmentally friendly’ its design. But so far, the
government and industry have relinquished any
responsibility for developing a participatory
infrastructure because they fail to get beyond viewing
environmental responsibility as a cost - even though
Australian consumers face a $30 billion conversion cost
for digital television over the next ten years.14
What are the health impacts associated with
electromagnetic radiation?
There is not the space here to provide an adequate
response to this question - it will be the subject of an
upcoming InfoEcology newsletter. I will however, mention
just a few issues in the context of what has already been
discussed.
Numerous tests have found associations between
electromagnetic radiation and leukaemia, brain tumours,
Alzheimer’s disease and breast cancer as well as increased
incidence of miscarriage. Children are thought to be
especially at risk, not least because they can expect to
have high and increasing levels of head exposure to
radiation if the current pace of technological growth
continues. These health impacts stem from both thermal
effects (which occur when for example, there is sufficient
radiation from a mobile phone antenna to cause a rise in
tissue temperature) and a-thermal effects (which occur at
a lower level and effect those living near base stations
and overhead power cables). There is also evidence to
suggest that the pulsed radiation emitted by the digital
signal, is even worse than that emitted in analogue
transmission.15
The other obvious factor is the ‘background’, cumulative
effects of radiation, which, it is fair to assume, will
never be able to be scientifically measured even while it
increases dramatically.16This implies that even if you opt
out of the mobile phone race, you could still be being
affected by EMR and there is no way to positively
determine to what extent, until the effects start to show
(think passive smoking).
There is comparatively a huge amount of research being
conducted internationally on EMR, and many informed lobby
groups like the Electromagnetic Alliance of Australia and
the Electromagnetic Forum (both of which have websites)
are involved in providing the public with EMR information.
It is fair enough to assume that this momentum represents
a high degree of international concern - enough one would
think, to effect caution. However, the burgeoning
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
9
OF
17
popularity of mobile phones, particularly with teenagers,
would lead you to believe that radio-frequency radiation
(the form of EMR emitted by mobile phones) had been given
a clean bill of health! It hasn’t.
The basic message you will get from industry
representatives if you ask enough questions is that the
jury is still out on both thermal and a-thermal effects,
even though the ‘conclusive’ evidence to indict mobile
phones is growing. There is already an army of people with
brain tumours and breast and other cancers briefing
lawyers with the intent of filing suits.17
The point that must be communicated is that it is
extremely likely, on the basis of study evidence and
particularly given the growth of the industry and the
development of digital infrastructure, that
electromagnetic radiation will damage people’s health. But
none of this has arrived. At an astonishing rate, base
stations are being erected on top of residential home
units (without consultation) and in underground train
stations, to ensure competitive coverage.
Why is the government so inactive on all these
issues?
It is not much of a surprise that industry players (and
this includes government) are not too keen to respond to
the evidence of adverse health effects from EMR. While
the precautionary principle is overwhelmingly warranted,
the approach from government and industry can only be
described as gung-ho. Total revenue from mobile
telecommunications in Australia in 1997 came to around $A3
billion, and further growth is expected in the future,
with industry commentators predicting that between six and
eight million mobile phones will be in use in Australia by
2000.18
While Senator Alston (Federal Minister of Communications
and the Arts) says in response to tests that have shown a
significant increase in cancers in exposed test mice,
“ the most one can say at this stage is that if there are
mice in the community...they would be well advised not to
use mobile phones” 17 there are many others (though
unfortunately not in the position of our governance) who
are much more concerned for the safety and well being of
humans in a growing electro-magnetic environment.
This situation echoes the UN’s predicament over toxic
chemicals and national borders - people are different, the
places in which they reside are different and therefore
the amount of radiation that can be absorbed varies. If a
way to measure these incommensurables can’t be found, they
are excluded from the official picture (the ‘fugitive’
greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, dismissed from the
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
10
OF
17
Kyoto conference because they couldn’t find a way to
attribute them, is another case in point).
What about the social impacts of digitisation?
To answer this question we need look no further than the
advertised ‘benefits’ of digital TV. Digital TV will
change forever the way we watch and use television. We
will be watching more TV and will potentially be able to
buy anything we fancy from our lounge rooms. Not only
will digital TV change the way we shop, but the way we
bank, travel, communicate are educated and entertained.
It is also set to significantly change family relations a media researcher has found that 1.5 million Australian
homes are anti-pay TV for fear of the effects it will have
on family time. Expect some interesting responses to the
challenge this poses to operators and advertisers.20
In his media release about digital broadcasting, Senator
Alston remarks that “ viewers will no longer be limited to
looking passively at a box in the corner of the house.
Digital transmissions will enable a host of new
information to be provided along with the main television
programming.” Excited? According to Alston we should be.
No wonder the Coalition are so keen on the GST! The basis
for this tax - consumption - is set to skyrocket.
Is this sustainable? To answer this, I have responded
below to some of the everyday ‘conveniences’ it is though
digital TV will usher in21.
1. Interactive digital services for educational purposes:
Drawing on trends cited in the many studies that have been
conducted internationally on the impacts of television on
children, one could conclude that some impacts would be: a
further blurring of the distinction between entertainment
and education; lower literacy rates; shorter attention
spans; increased ability to react but not necessarily to
think things through; socially reclusivity and increased
exposure to EMR.
2. Banking on TV:
Following on from massive world wide credit card security
problems, one could only assume that further problems will
emerge as more and more peoples’ personal financial
details will essentially be entering a public domain
3. Electronic shopping on TV:
Debt generation, again a major legacy of credit cards,
will only increase thanks to new ‘services’ like
customised advertising (where you divulge details about
your lifestyle so as to receive ‘appropriate’
advertising). One can but glimpse the impact of more and
more interest-free deals, incentives, dreams, fears and
desires communicated with the added incentive that you
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
11
OF
17
could right now purchase something without even having to
get up, get dressed and go out.
Without even going to the fundamental problems with these
changes, one can really start to see their potential to
damage the social ecology.
Characterising the problems: cumulative impacts
One of the key factors that isn’t even on the horizon of
our technological desire, is that we just don’t know what
many of the cumulative impacts of new technologies will
be. In our market-driven culture, there simply isn’t the
time to allow these impacts to be conclusively assessed
before new products become ingrained in our daily lives.
We too rarely question what is available to us, perhaps
believing that the fact that a product is available at all
means that it must be OK. This isn’t true, of course. You
can still buy cigarettes, for example, and the cumulative
impacts of smoking are only really becoming incriminatory
now, even though pack warnings have been in force for
years. Generally, product standards are determined on the
basis of industry practice. Even if there are suspicions
about the adverse effects of a product, it is very
unlikely that this will hamper its appearance on the
market unless ‘conclusive’ evidence can be produced. As
was briefly discussed with reference to hazardous
materials, international agreements are extremely
compromised in this regard because they often can’t deal
with complex regional differences in assessing things like
long-range chemical hazard.
It can’t be overestimated just how early days all this is
as yet. While interested parties often characterise our
perpetually nascent technology in terms of us taking the
first steps to a better, more exciting future, this kind
of utopianism in an environment of unsustainability and
ecological damage is beginning to wear a little thin. It
really is time to start making some basic assumptions
about the cumulative consequences of technological growth.
Conclusion: ‘I like to watch’
Although we behave otherwise, the ‘environmental crisis’
that we have all been hearing about for so long is not a
false alarm. Resources are drying up and the
environmental problems that used to be ‘out there’ are now
showing up in the food we eat, the air we breathe and even
in our ability to reproduce. This is happening because we
are simply do not recognise or know how to respond to the
ways in which such problems develop. We live a televisual
culture wherein the prospect of ‘going digital’ has
blinded us to the connection between these problems and
the desire for a lifestyle filled with an ever changing
array of products to which we have a democratic ‘right’.
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
12
OF
17
Addressing our wasteful and uncritical modes of
consumption is not very exciting. But surely taking
responsibility for the ‘big picture’ is why we have
government. We expect and need them to act with a degree
of foresight and initiative and to address problems like
those outlined above. Have they? Perhaps floating just a
few of more obvious questions might help prompt answers.
• Why is there no legislation in this country addressing
the disposal of electrical and electronic waste? Not only
would an integrated waste management plan help to avoid
some of the major problems that will be ushered in with
digitisation, it might also mean market and job
opportunities suitable to an Australian context of low
local manufacture.
• Why has there been so little research sponsored to
assess the environmental and human health impacts of
electrical and electronic products during their entire
life cycle and to develop participatory infrastructure for
the collection and disassembly, remanufacture, reuse or
repair of electronic goods?
• Where research is undertaken, why is it lagging so far
behind the state of the industry?
• Why are there not more companies taking the initiative
on front-end design for component/materials recovery?
• Why aren’t the EPR schemes that have been introduced
overseas introduced here?
• What about mandatory Life Cycle Assessment (cradle to
grave) studies for manufacture and assembly, and importing
only low-energy products?
The celebration of ‘the digital revolution’ suggests that
technological progress is always good, regardless of the
direction it is taking. It also suggests that
technological innovation will automatically provide the
solutions to all our problems and give us a future. It’s
becoming very clear that this is not the case. Even a
cursory look around reveals that we need innovations in
thinking way before we need HDTV.
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
13
OF
17
Glossary of Terms
General
Data-services
EPR
This refers to the potential
of stations being able to use
some of their bandwidth to
send data unrelated to TV
programming to consumers this is where internet access
and all that goes along with
it enters the picture.
Extended Producer
Responsibility is a concept
slowly gaining momentum
throughout industrial
culture. It basically means
that the producer of any good
or service takes
responsibility for all of the
environmental impacts of a
product throughout its life
cycle. This implicates the
producer in all aspects of
the product’s processes: from
raw materials extraction,
manufacture, retail, to use,
post-use, recovery and reuse
(via ‘product take-back’
schemes). The term also
embodies a (re)design
imperative - to improve the
environmental ‘performance’
of a product at the design
stage.
Television
Analogue transmission
Conventional continuous
transmission of electronic
signals broadcast from
towers (terrestrial), via
satellite or cable, to an
analogue monitor. Analogue
transmission is subject to
various interferences.
Digital transmission
Electronic signals are sent
to digital receivers (which
are analogue monitors with
digital interface
electronics) or ‘set-top’
(decoder) boxes. The digital
signals are coded electronic
impulses which are decoded by
the receiver and the signal
restored. Sound is CD
quality, the image doesn’t
degrade and there is no
interference. However, if
there are digital
Multi-channelling
Means the division of a single
HD channel into as many as six
conventional quality channels,
via the digital process of
data compression. It has been
reported that disgusted
viewers may switch off their
TVs in droves if broadcasters
try to squeeze too many
channels into available
frequencies making TV
unwatchable.10
Mobile Telephones
AMPS
Analogue Mobile Phone System.
Analogue radio signals are
transmitted directly, similar
to radio broadcasts. The
government plans to phase out
AMPS by 2000.
GSM
Global System for Mobile
Communications. This is the
international digital mobile
phone system with which
Australian networks are
compatible. With digital
transmission, sound is coded
into data and decoded at the
other end. As with digital TV,
digital telephony offers ‘new
and improved’ features such as
less interference, data
transfer to computers, as well
as protection from people
listening in on calls.
CDMA
Code Division Multiple Access.
This is a new digital
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
14
OF
17
transmission problems, you
will get no picture at all.
HDTV
High Definition TV simply
refers to a new wide-screen
format - a ratio of 16:9
compared to the current 4:3
display. This will deliver
cinema quality pictures which
is the reason we will buy new
televisions in the future. An
HDTV program will take up
most of the digital
broadcasting signal. This
form of digital TV is also
the reason for the billiondollar studio upgrades that
are causing so much media and
political noise.
technology that can switch
between the extensive existing
rural analogue infrastructure
and new digital base stations.
Consumers will need to buy a
new handset to access this
technology.
Set-Top (decoder) Box
This is a VHS-like object
that will enable you to
access digital TV programs
and other digital services on
your analogue TV.
Acknowledgment
The InfoEcology Team would like to thank Lyn Ward from the
EMRAA (Electromagnetic Radiation Alliance of Australia)
for her valuable input on EMR issues. For more information
contact the EMRAA PO Box 589 Sutherland 1499. Telephone
9545 30772
Suggested Further Reading
Gertsakis J. and Ryan C. Short-circuiting waste from
electrical and electronic products National Centre for
Design at RMIT 1996
Endnotes
1
More than 25% of Australians own mobile phones. This
compares with 29% in Sweden, 12% in the UK, 17% in the US,
7% in Germany and 4% in France. (from Government policy
statement ‘The Australian Telecommunications Market’
[source: Natwest Markets])
2
‘Gone Mobile’ Choice March 1997 p.32
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
15
OF
17
3
Barry Fox ‘Wasted Watts’ New Scientist 14 February 1998
p.8
4
Richard McGregor ‘Digital plan buys media support’ The
Weekend Australian June 27-28 1998
5
Clive Mathieson ‘Phase-out risks a bush backlash’ The
Australian 7 July 1998
6
The relation between privatisation and mandating new,
more profitable technology is significant. Arguably, the
CDMA ‘rescue’ of regional telecommunications would never
have occurred if Telstra was already 100% private, as we
are talking about a service to a paltry number of
customers. As it was, shares dipped significantly when
Telstra made the announcement.
7
Clive Mathieson, ‘Phase-out risks bush backlash’ The
Australian July 7, 1998
8
Debora MacKenzie, ‘Still at Large: PCBs’ dangerous
cousins have slipped through the UN’s net’ New Scientist 4
July 1998
9
Barry Fox ‘Wasted Watts’ New Scientist 14 February 1998
p.8
10
Barry Fox ‘Why going digital could blur your vision’ New
Scientist 21 March 1998p.6
11
Environmental Management in Asia: A Guide to ISO 14000
Regional Institute of Environmental Technology/Asia
Environmental Trading Ltd. 1997 p.57
12
J. Gertsakis and C. Ryan Short-circuiting waste from
electrical and electronic products National Centre for
Design at RMIT 1996
13
Robert Wilson ‘Mixed Signals’ The Weekend Australian
April 25-26 1998
14
Finola Burke and Grant Butler ‘Digital TV’s big picture:
a $30bn conversion cost’ The Australian Financial Review
August 4, 1998
15
According to Lyn Ward, Secretary of the EMRAA. This
will be followed up in the next article on these issues.
16
Not to miss the opportunity posed by growing public fear
and insecurity around EMR, industry players have now come
up with a range of ‘shielding devices’ that claim to
protect phone users from radiation. There is no
Australian Standard to cover these devices and as yet no
real evidence that they protect the user from thermal
effects of radiation. ‘Globally Mobile’ Choice Jan/Feb
1998
17
Ian Cuthbertson ‘Mobile Heat’ The Weekend Australian Feb
28-March 1 1998
18
Statistics from Government policy statement ‘The
Australian Telecommunications Market’ [source: Natwest
Markets]
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
16
OF
17
19
Quoted in ‘Mobile Phones: How Safe is Safe?’ Choice JanFeb 1998.
20
‘Watt’s the Buzz?’ EMRAA News June 1998
21
These conveniences were listed in ‘Digital TV: What’s
the Real Story?’ Choice May 1998 p.10
INFORMATION ECOLOGY
ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL: SOME LEAST ASKED QUESTIONS
PAGE
17
OF
17