PERSPECTIVE ON COMMUNICATIONS : A Debate: Competition and Monopoly in the Information Age : Telephones can provide a vast array of services to all levels of society. But newspaper publishers want to bar the door.

Imagine a telephone service that automatically alerts a disabled person to evacuate her home as a brush fire unexpectedly approaches.

Or a widely available and affordable data-base network that gives a South-Central Los Angeles student--using a computer and telephone linkup--the same access to information as students in newer, wealthier suburbs.

Or an electronic Yellow Pages that offers callers the address of the nearest all-night pharmacy, locksmith or mechanic.

In little more than 100 years, the telephone has gone from novelty to necessity. And as we enter the telephone’s second century, technology exists that would make the preceding examples a reality. The telephone, originally invented to assist the hard-of-hearing, could become the key that unlocks the door to a vast array of information services that benefits all levels of society.

But the legal ability of some of those most qualified to turn these visions into reality--local exchange companies, such as Pacific Bell--is in jeopardy.

The courts have given their approval, recently lifting a seven-year prohibition that barred the nation’s regional telephone companies from the information-services business. That important decision gives regional phone companies the same rights as other businesses to provide these services.

But there’s a problem. The newspaper industry--including The Times--doesn’t want this to happen. Publishers want to control the pace of--and the competitors in--the burgeoning Information Age.

That’s why they’re lobbying lawmakers, seeking sympathetic legislators to enact laws in their favor.

That’s why they’re printing full-page ads by a powerful lobby, the American Newspaper Publishers Assn., distorting the truth and trying to scare the public into supporting their position.

And that’s why they’re publishing editorials, again encouraged by the ANPA, supporting protectionist legislation--the Telecommunications Act of 1991--that would turn the clock back on the consumer.

In zealously pursuing this three-pronged corporate agenda, publishers ignore the public and delay innovation. In essence, they want to put society on hold while waging a high-stakes battle to keep the nation’s local telephone companies from fully participating in this industry.

Publishers pitch this as a battle of control, arguing that telephone companies, if allowed to provide information, will somehow control everything that travels over their networks and into your home or office. But examining publishers’ own records in this area exposes their rhetoric for what it is: a self-serving smoke screen designed to protect newspapers’ bottom line, not the consumer.

In reality, publishers are frightened--frightened of the emergence of a new industry and new competitors. They know that the development of new electronic services, such as an electronic Yellow Pages, may be more effective at selling automobiles or furniture than their own classified ads, which are sagging under the weight of the recession.

Using Orwellian logic, publishers try to confuse the public by arguing that greater choice means less information. Rather than face this issue head-on, they cloak their arguments in a veil of innuendo that, upon close examination, easily unravels.

Quite simply, telephone companies make money by providing access to their networks, not by restricting it. We handle millions of calls a day without regard to content. We routinely connect thousands of competitors’ privately owned pay phones, PBX equipment and voice mail systems to our networks. And we offer innovative entrepreneurs the use of our network to provide “900� services to launch new information programs.

To restrict access would be foolish--and against the law. On the other hand, media conglomerates can and do control the information stream. Consider the track record of Times Mirror, owner of The Times. Times Mirror has kept a competitor’s all-news channel off its cable television system in Orange County, even refusing to publish its ads.

It seems that publishers in general, and The Times in particular, have few problems with controlling information when they hold the reins.

That’s why consumers should welcome the entry of telephone companies into the information-services field. Admittedly, Pacific Bell stands to gain if we are successful. But fear of telephone company success on a level playing field should not stand in the way of bringing the Information Age to all consumers.

This debate is not about control of information. It’s about freedom of choice and competition--pure, simple and fair. Nor is it a winner-take-all battle. There will be myriad competitors, any of whom, including The Times, could offer services over the telephone network.

The fact is that greater participation, greater competition and greater choice mean greater benefits for consumers. We stand on the verge of making a variety of new information services available and affordable to nearly everyone--without dominance by any single provider. And that’s good news for all.

Let competition spur innovation. If The Times truly endorses the Information Age, truly wants to see society benefit and truly wants a free flow of information, it should prepare for true competition.

Or is that too much to expect from Southern California’s virtual monopoly newspaper?