President Obama showed he understood today's technological age by harnessing nearly every available media form as campaign communication. Now that it's time to govern, he should approach regulation of that technology in ways that best serve the country.

He's off to a good start, reportedly selecting Julius Genachowski to lead the Federal Communications Commission. Genachowski was directly involved in formulating Obama's technology agenda, which should shift the agency's emphasis more toward the public than was the case under the FCC regime led by Kevin Martin.

Genachowski's initial priority needs to be the troubled transition to digital TV, which is still set for Feb. 17 despite Obama's appropriate suggestion that the date be moved. Like many, Obama is concerned that too many Americans -- especially in non-English speaking and poor households -- aren't ready for the conversion. And even for those who have taken steps to buy a DTV converter box, the federally funded coupon program has hit a funding ceiling that's delaying the issuance of some coupons.

Congress was continuing to debate a possible delay on Friday, but regardless of when the transition takes place the FCC needs to focus on readying the remaining homes that need a converter box and be prepared to quickly address the inevitable outcome that some will find only snow on their screens the day after the switch.

After the TV transition, Genachowski should shift his attention to the thorny issue of Internet access -- or so-called "net neutrality" -- and here he should advocate equal and open access. Internet users, rather than service providers, should be able to determine the content they view and the applications they use online. And, if Genachowski deems it necessary, he should advocate for a new law allowing FCC enforcement of that principle. He should then shift his attention to maximizing broadband access, which is not only sound telecommunications policy but also important for economic development.

Much of Martin's tenure was wrapped up in trying to loosen the rules of media ownership. But a bipartisan coalition thwarted most of these efforts, reflecting the public interest in encouraging diversity in media ownership. Genachowski's FCC should heed the overconcentration concerns. It also should be open to exceptions when the very survival of vital news sources -- including newspapers -- is directly dependent on cross-ownership within a market.

Perhaps nothing the new FCC leader will do will be scrutinized more than his approach to enforcement of the agency's decency standards. The cultural coarseness of the public's airwaves concerns many, but determining what is indecent is highly subjective. Was Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" more offensive than CBS airing "Dexter," a series about a serial killer? Should language standards also include gestures, such as the recent incident at the "Golden Globe Awards"?

The answers are murky. There are technological solutions, such as the V-chip, as well as marketplace solutions, including a la carte cable pricing that allows consumers to pay only for the cable channels they want. Martin was maligned for making a la carte pricing a priority, but he was right -- if not for economic reasons, then for social ones.

The technological and commercial forces shaping the media landscape make the work of the FCC more complex today. If the agency keeps consumer interests at the forefront, however, the country will realize the full potential of the technology that's driving social and economic change around the world.