Despite the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the media and telecommunications industry have and will continue to be in the throes of legislative debate for many years to come. Even as that bill was passed, the ACLU and other protectionist groups were challenging the constitutionality of the document. In particular, there was a flurry of lawsuits regarding the Communications Decency Act, the part of the Telecommunications bill that applied to issues of 'pornography' and 'obscenity' on the Internet.

The Communications Decency Act portion of the Telecommunications bill was overturned in June 1997. Thus, a national media policy, even when derived by democratic means, is not set in stone. We are still the final arbiters; just because it's the law doesn't mean that it's immutable. So then, what should the role of the government be in forming a national media/telecommunications policy?

An initial overview would include a need to define the role of major corporations within the media and telecommunications industries. The FCC has, according to Leo Bogart in Toward a National Media Policy, been erratic and uneven in its attempts at legislation: ''A broadcasting company can own up to 60 radio stations...and six within a given market. ...[However] newspapers have been exempted from the antitrust laws.''

In addition, the ''must-carry'' rule, part of the Cable Act of 1984, was another attempt by the government to ensure equality for the little guy within the media. Local broadcast channels, required to be included in cable companies' channel lineups, were assured an outlet at no cost (in contrast to cable network channels, which have to compete for the opportunity to appear on each system).

These laws could be considered attempts at equalization within the market, but it's equally possible that these laws simply maintain a consistent level of control for the government, in technology and the marketplace. In fact, it's probably a good idea, at some level, to have an agency monitoring the technology-capitalism-people relationship in terms of fairness. However, the critical issue is, how much control is acceptable?

According to Ken Auletta, in his New Yorker article ''Under the Wire'', very limited control: ''During...Reagan and Bush, marketplace forces were free to determine the direction of the media revolution; in contrast, the Clinton-Gore Administration wants...a minimalist approach to regulation.'' This article was written in 1994, a prophetic two years before passage of the legislatively quixotic and definitely non-minimalist 1996 Telecommunications Bill.

Political posturing aside, what does the average person want, in terms of government-imposed media regulation? Depending on which television show you're watching, we should either support government subsidized internet/media access or support a complete separation of government from the 'public' sector. This dichotomy reflects and shapes the polarization of the American people and their philosophies. This is why we have a 'radical' left and right; even though most people consider themselves moderates, eventually we all end up swinging one direction or the other.

Any national media policy will be incapable of meeting everyone's idea of what's best to do. Of course, in a country that's increasingly individualized, the 'right' thing to do is a matter of perspective. In the end, the only solution is compromise. Idealism (though I am prone to bouts of it myself) is a fantasy; we can work towards heaven but the probability of getting there is incalculably slim.

Thus, the most logical solution is a balance. Though far from perfect, the Clayton and Sherman Antitrust Acts, in addition to the 1996 Telecommunications Bill, help maintain a certain playing field. Capitalism in America (and abroad) has led to monopolies, meaning that everyone does not have equal opportunity and access. Governmental refereeing has become a necessity because capitalism is not nice; people need access and voice (besides an anonymous voting booth encounter) to keep the local spirit alive. Local radio, regional TV, statewide newspaper, whatever--accessible outlets are critical to freedom of expression and human development.

In addition, the government could act as a media facilitator through funding and subsidy via educational resources. More internet-wired computer terminals in public libraries and in public schools--at least one net-wired computer lab in every public school--would allow access to everyone.

Instituting these types of rules may not be considered the American way (survival of the fittest and all) but a poor black girl from rural Louisiana deserves access to the same educational experience as a rich black girl in Beverly Hills. Yeah, maybe that kid can go to an expensive prep school back East, but on the public school level, things should be roughly the same.

Well, that sounds kind of expensive. How do you plan to pay for it? A low-level, across the board tax increase could compensate for this (perhaps for every family with children) or, even better, some federal budgetary shuffling could just as easily foot the bill. We all want our taxes to go for something relevant, something we really care about. Creating an environment/society that truly serves the people requires us all to, at some level, work together toward that common goal. But before we can move forward, we must know where we want to go and how; by determining the role of government we shape the face of our future. It's about time that it started serving the public interest, as Al Gore said, a little better.