Free throws, aka foul shots

Down with policy clarity! The FCC's recent decision to hedge the local multipoint distribution service market shows that Clintonian regulators, like their political lodestar, know how to change course-or at least obscure the direction (if any) of the course they are charting.

LMDS technology can increase the competitive heat for local exchange carriers and cable operators alike. In that respect, LMDS can be a thing of wondrous beauty-if maximum competition is the most beautiful policy goal of all. That sometimes seems to be the FCC's aesthetic. But only sometimes.

The FCC hedged LMDS by putting in-region restrictions on LECs and cable companies but not actually prohibiting them from in-region participation, thanks to a loophole that would seem to permit-even encourage-such participation via partnership (Telephony, March 17, page 6).

Competition without entry or exit barriers ought to be the FCC's dominant policy goal. The only limiting factor should be maintaining basic access for the economically disadvantaged.

Building competitive hedges in areas far removed from basic universal access contradicts the goal of maximizing competitive freedoms. The industry should condemn this hedge-and all similar future hedges.

PCS ads with an edge. Heard a glorious drive time radio spot by PrimeCo. Two guys are talking about a new appliance. There is a strong sucking sound throughout the spot. The first guy owns the appliance and says it looks like a little vacuum cleaner. No, it's a cellular phone, the second guy says, and the primary function of a cellular phone is to vacuum the coins out of your pocket. Which then does so with a loud whooshing sound.

After the cellular vacuum is through with the first guy's pocket change, it vacuums his wallet, then his checkbook, then sucks the shirt off his back and finally the hairpiece off his head.

Turn it off, the victim pleads. No can do, responds the second guy, because you've got a contract. Whoosh.

The message: Cellular vacuums your coin. PCS doesn't. Buy PrimeCo.

Great radio ad: It creates a strong "visual" image, incorporates snappy dialog and sound effects, is funny so it can withstand repeated listening and makes a single memorable point.

This type of ad is the future, not just of wireless advertising but of telecom consumer spots in general.

Marketing competitive services will require sharp, aggressive consumer advertising. Service providers that aren't now making their advertising plans accordingly are going to be the lambs, not the lions, of the competitive era. First step: Get a good ad agency. Think of the agency as your appliance.

In a competitive world it is either vacuum or be vacuumed.

Are you serious? It's very unlikely to happen, so no point in making a big deal over it. But President Clinton last week proposed that broadcast frequencies for digital TV should be given to the networks in exchange for free airtime for major political candidates.

OK, the president (not to mention his ambitious and faithful sidekick from Tennessee) is neck-deep in a malodorous fundraising stink. He's desperate to take the initiative on campaign finance reform. But offering to trade a scarce public resource for the benefit of a sliver of the population, a group that has shown no sense of self-discipline or fair play in its pursuits?

This is the same statesman who doesn't want to auction the resource, thus matching value to investment and using the proceeds to further some public good (like, say, reducing the national debt, funding adult literacy programs, offering additional skills training to welfare recipients about to be cut off the dole). Nor does the president suggest any other broad-based public interest standard for distributing the spectrum.

Fortunately, Clinton is not doing anything to build support for his idea, a strong indication he is not serious about it except insofar as it provides momentary political cover.

What is this? Is this part of a rational national communications policy? Is this meaningful campaign finance reform?

Neither. It's knee-jerk, cynical opportunism. It's the opposite of responsible governance.