The Ministry made public its intentions that it would let market forces choose the technology standard, yet kept making public comments that this company would choose that standard for such a reason futher confusing us as to what future steps to take. These are just some of the criticism being levelled at the Ministry and government for changing numerous points that were thought to be final, things that they have now changed.
Flip-Flopping Ministry on IMT-2000 Requirements
english.joins.com
by Lee Chul-ho - Jul 17, 2000 - JoongAnn Ilbo Newspaper
The Ministry of Information and Communication has just announced their criterion for selecting which business will be awarded the much sought-after IMT-2000 licence. This would have been welcome news except that this is yet another in a series of announcements by government of yet another change in the selection process. The communication industry is understandably confused.
Companies are having to grasp the situation again with information and communication policies changing at every single public hearing, said one executive from SK Telecom. Another executive at Korea Telecom said, The Ministry made public its intentions that it would let market forces choose the technology standard, yet kept making public comments that this company would choose that standard for such a reason futher confusing us as to what future steps to take.These are just some of the criticism being levelled at the Ministry and government for changing numerous points that were thought to be final, things that they have now changed.
First of all, the maximum number of businesses that the Ministry was to consider was three, but under heavy criticism from prospective licence bidders, this changed to four. Yet, government has again changed its mind back to its original number of three- or not. Conflicting government reports are indicating that this is still four while others are pointing to a change back to the original three.
Also, the Ministry had been making public its views on what would constitute a winning bid. Then, after holding public hearings and taking into account public opinion, the Ministry again changed its guidelines giving advantages to a consortium rather than one single company making a bid for the licence. And, it is because of this news that SK Telecom found itself forced to join (or create) a consortium in order not to exceed the limit of total investment one company was allowed to make.
Government also made it clear in their requirements that any interested companies wishing to be awarded the IMT-2000 licence would have to be able to provide support technology systems, an announcement that required LG to take over some communication companies which it had no intention of buying before this statement was made by government officials.
Korea Telecom, whose majority shareholder is the government itself, has also been having a hard time with consistent changes in government position especially in terms of the choice in technology standard. Government officials had previously stated that it would let the market choose the technology standard, but then Ministry officials said that Korea Telecom would have to follow government's reommendations on this.
In 1996, then vice-minister of Information and Communication and numerous related ministry officials were found guilty on charges of receiving kickbacks from fledgling mobile-service providers wanting to get government support for the PCS cellular service system. These public servants saw blame put squarely on their shoulders. The politicians and PCS provider companies, which had earned a tremendous amount of profit, did not even show any interest in the affair, said a Ministry official.
It is still unclear if the Ministry of Information and Communication would remain an idle spectator in the determination of the technology standard, the keystone of the entire IMT-2000 project. The Ministry had indicated that it hoped that a multiple standard would be chosen yet would let the market decide on its own. And, the market seems to be indicating that it would be in favor of a single standard system. If the government remains a spectator (as it has promised), the asynchronous (European w-CDMA) standard is likely to be selected as the technology standard; if the government does intervene, the market will likely be told to select the synchronous (American CDMA 2000) standard.
Former high-ranking government officials, currently consulting with major communication companies hoping to still be awarded the IMT-2000 licence, expressed their regrets on the Ministry£§s contiunuing vacilllation. £¢This is quite different from the past, when it seemed the Ministry had a clear-cut vision. If the Ministry keeps on making announcements that are convenient or facile to appease whomever needs appeasing at the moment, it is clear that there will be some major problems to contend with down the road,£¢ warned one such former government official. |
