There is also “convergence” and “convergence”. The good convergence is that the different digital devices and tools are able to communicate with each other. Example: If I want to use my TV as a screen to read my SMS messages received with my mobile phone, I should be able to do it.

Then there are these silly people who think that the Swiss Army knife is the humankind’s greatest innovation ever. They want to advance the bad convergence. They want to merge different digital tools in one device. This means that in the end of the day the all-in-one-digital-device is no more a tool that you can use for something. It becomes a souvenir. Example: You can watch football with your mobile phone’s 176X208 pixels screen.

I still do not see how the Digital TV will support the good convergence. So far the vision has been that the Digital-TV should be the “information society device” of the common man – just like Kauppi said. Money lost!

I think the mobile phone may actually become a common mans information society tool. The culture of usage of mobile phones emphasises activity: you write messages, you even call for some people, you check your contacts, etc. In some developing countries there are great examples how the mobile phones has changed the ways people work and do business. Still there is no reason to start to build “mobile PCs” – like the PDA industry is now doing. What we need to do is to come up with models, services and tools that are just relying on the strengths of the mobile phones.

Digital TV for education is, with the current technology, just a reflection of the past methods of perceiving students simply as only receivers of information. My forecast is that it will flop in education faster than digital educational content delivery channels on the internet.

As with traditional media, people are sick of sitting silent and being only perceived as consumers of broadcast content. Cluetrain will take care of providing the paradigm shift.

When it comes to use of ‘Digital TV’ in education I would be much more critical than Mr Kauppi. I do not see that the Digital TV of Finland will provide anything new to teaching and learning that the analogical TV is not already offering. Millions of euros are put to the national digital TV network. One reason used to justify the investment has been the possibilities the Digital TV will offer for education.

Digital TV – in Finland and most part of the world – is just a simple broadcasting network with a narrowcast ‘return channel’. The term ‘return channel’ tells how the developers of Digital TV see the people’s interest to publish and speak out. The video on demand, better quality of picture and sound etc. are just minor improvements to the analogical TV.

The Digital TV just do not empower people to ‘rip, mix and learn’, to be active knowledge builders, to read and write. It is not only the technology they are using. It is also the culture of usage of TV. TV is TV! When I watch TV I want to be passive receiver of information and relax, even when watching news or documentary. When I use Internet I want to meet people, argue, watch, read, learn and teach people.

What we really need as citizens, educators and students are two way broadband IP networks – no broadcasting networks. The IP network is the basic infrastructure for learning, playing, living and for business, too.

Actually South Korea has been strongly investing on the ‘broadband for all’ and it seems to be that this is why they are according to several indicators now the leading information society in the world. Could it be that in Finland, in a certain point, we just got it wrong? Are we able to learn from our mistakes?