We are now on the brink of a new age in communications. The 1990s will be a historic period in which developments in communications will revolutionize our way of life. Can you imagine having available every book in every major library to read on your own personal-computer terminal? What about a television in your home the size and quality of a movie screen? Or, what about being able to use a personal, pocket-size telephone to place or receive calls anywhere in the world via satellite? The technology for all these things to become a reality has already arrived: wire-based fiber optics and advanced radio-based telephone systems.

But there are a number of obstacles that could hamper the nature and pace of this new world of communications - most notably the array of regulations the Federal Communications Commission, the courts and other agencies currently enforce. For instance, today’s market visionary confronts a long-standing restriction against cross-ownership. If you’re in the telephone business, you can’t get into TV. If you’re in the cable-TV business, you can’t get into telephones. And financial regulations can compound the problem. Those who want to start businesses using fiber optics, for example, face tax-depreciation schedules that force them to write off new plants over many years. This tends to discourage companies from deploying new technologies.

New communications technologies that use radio waves present a special problem. The would-be entrepreneur is confronted by an increasingly crowded spectrum; there are fewer and fewer radio frequencies available. The FCC is hampered in helping these entrepreneurs because the commission controls less than 2 percent of the frequencies in the ultrahigh bands that are most commercially promising and thus cannot make them available for new uses, like CD-quality digital radio. (The federal government, particularly the Pentagon, controls the rest of the bands.)

Neither Japan nor Germany suffers such restraints. Radio-frequency managers in those countries have much more flexibility in assigning frequencies and there are fewer restrictions on companies offering a combination of media and telecommunications services. Cross-ownership is not a problem. In fact, in Japan there are national policies aimed at giving each home access to virtually every library book in the world plus movie-quality TV. And in Britain, which has a more dictatorial allotment system than ours, they are going to make certain the shortage of radio frequencies does not deter the development of a personal-communications network.

In the United States, powerful forces want to preserve the status quo. Political-action committees connected to the communications industry are among the richest special-interest groups in Washington. These PACs have a vested interest in preserving things as they are, and incumbent congressmen - dependent upon PAC money - are more than ready to respond to these interests. The incumbents fight changes in radio-band allocations and work to preserve the current division of the radio market. They push for the retention of advantageous government subsidies and close government regulation of competitors. In short, no troublesome new competition is wanted.

But there are some encouraging developments. No longer is the promise of fiber optics, digital radio, advanced television and cordless personal-communications networks a secret known only to industry insiders. Some business leaders in positions of influence are also beginning to ask how these promises might become reality. At the FCC, we are exploring ways to make the radio spectrum available for new uses and have set 1993 as the date for a high-definition television (HDTV) standard. The FCC has also issued licenses to test various methods of personal-communications networks. And this year the FCC will hold public hearings on the “Networks of the Future.” The hearings will cover the full range of issues relating to the new technologies. We intend to examine the outmoded federal and state rules that now restrict the market. We want to identify which regulatory policies are helpful and which ones risk jeopardizing the future of communications in this country. The fact is that if we remain tied to our current system governing who can use the radio spectrum, and for what purposes, HDTV, digital radio and advanced space-based communications will be at risk. If telephone companies can’t transmit video, and cable companies can’t provide telephone services, then development of fiber optics may also be at risk. If that happens, our world leadership in communications is in serious jeopardy.

Today many companies with a lot invested in current technologies warn of commercial chaos if we alter the rules that keep certain companies from owning or competing with certain other companies. These public-policy questions must not be answered solely by the affected industries. The challenge in the 1990s is for the public to become involved so that the stakes will be understood by more than just the stakeholders. In this way, the United States can move into the 21st century with more productive regulations and a more competitive market for the revolutionary new forms of communications.