I wonder if the problem is the word content itself (which has too many, contested uses). Firstly, on a technological basis might I suggest we separate "channel media" (print, radio, TV, film, videos, nonnetworked games) vs "environmental media" (telephone, CB radio). I understand the latter, environmental media, as being 'contentless' in the sense that the content is constitutive of the experience of being into communicative enviroment (eg a telephone call) - while there are two people on the phone, they experience the interaction within an environment of collectivity (2 become 1). Oddly enough, that's why conventions of turn taking, dialogue etc are required - since the 'two are in one space, without a connecting channel' you need social rules to manage that. The former, channel media, distances and separates the two parties (conventionally producer and audience memebrs) - content is necessary to 'link' the two together because otherwise there is no connection. The internet confuses all of this (as does, incidentally, latest generation mobile phones and, in theory at least, iTV) because it actively promotes combinations of channel and environmental media; on a business end, too, content has become a major issue because of the difficulty of profiting sufficiently from 'just' communication. Phone companies and related service providers don't make a lot from providing the environment; they want deals or control over content to make significant returns (both through direct selling and related advertising). I suspect that the key term is not content, but connectivity - and content and communication are elements that create different kinds and patterns of connectivity between ppl. What do you think? M Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor in Internet Studies President Association of Internet Researchers Faculty of Media Society and Culture Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J http://smi.curtin.edu.au/NetStudies/allen.htm +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 92663166 (f)