s such as cable, satellite, and production and distribution of programs. She goes further to state that deregulation of program content will be positively adopted to satisfy program need caused by the introduction of multi-media and multi-channels.Hyeon-Dew Kang states that government needs to reduce regulations to attract investors in the broadcasting industry. Also public investment will make it possible to inflow enormous capital, help providing sufficient programs, and provide management skills for operating broadcasting system.He further states that it is "necessary to assure diverse types of ownership under a flexible structure where it can combine one broadcast stations and others, broadcasters and telecommunicators, and newspapers and broadcasting so as to meet the current trend of globalizing the broadcasting industry" (241). In particular, it can help cope with the opening trends of broadcasting market by strengthening domestic corporates’ predominating positions.Friedland and Westlake also advocate deregulation as the means to technological progress in telecommunications. They state that "deregulation - a trend that began in the mid-1980s - could be critical to the success of national economics ... Deregulation was supposed to deliver goods by fostering efficiency through competition" (66). They further go on to say that liberalization has taken root in South Korea and some local firms are already world-class players. For governments and the commercial operators, the basic issue is how to achieve the most effective form of competition. To this effect, they quote a Washington based privatization consultant, "The general path is that you separate the regulatory apparatus from the operation of the telephone system. Next, you corporatise the telephone system operator. The next step is privatization and the development of a profit mentality at the old operator. Finally, you license private common carriers or niche ...
