Stuart E. Eizenstat suggested in a letter to the editor {June 25} that no new legislation is necessary to increase control over the cable television industry. In challenging an article written by Tom Shales {Outlook, June 10}, Mr. Eizenstat says Shales's article was flawed because it did not point out "that the cable industry is still subject to strict regulation by city governments."

That simply is not true. We have a provision in our cable television franchise that requires the cable company to provide a free program guide to each subscriber. The company has notified subscribers they now propose to charge $1.45 a month for the guide, and if cable subscribers don't want to pay the $1.45 a month, they will get no guide. On behalf of the City of Bowie, we protested the charge as being contrary to the terms of the franchise. The company's response was that the monthly charge for the program guide was a form of rate increase, and under the deregulation act of 1984, we no longer had any control over rates.

If this is the kind of "strict regulation" the cities have over cable television suppliers, then consumers are at the mercy of the industry.

We note press accounts saying that President Bush is opposed to reregulation of the cable industry on the reasonable ground that competition is the best way to control prices for goods or services. The White House needs to be informed that there is, in fact, no competition in the cable television industry and the industry is fiercely fighting one of the main potential means of bringing about healthy competition for the cable subscriber's dollar: granting the telephone companies authority to bring cable service into the home through the use of new telephone technology. RICHARD J. LOGUE Mayor of Bowie Bowie