4 ms·

10x for data seems insane. Wondering if anyone has more context on what these costs are, and why they're so high.

Rebelgecko 3y ago
https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/08/17/afterword-korea-s-challenge-to-standard-internet-interconnection-model-pub-85166 https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/08/17/afterword-korea-s-c...
- goles 3y ago
  The comment about helping migrate streamers and their communities to another platform stood out to me in the OP. But presumably Korean streamers and viewers came to Twitch because they offer a superior service or reach or ad rate. Do the Big 3 telecom providers have a at least somewhat comparable service to Twitch or is this more or less the end of some of these channels and communities people have spent a ton of effort to build?
  - lifthrasiir 3y ago
    No. They did try with OTT services with some success, but no comparable live streaming services exist AFAIK. Rather conveniently though, Naver, the biggest portal service in Korea, announced a game streaming service set to be released in 2024. I guess Naver did know something about a windup of Twitch in Korea months ago?
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Is afreeca not a korean twitch?
      - lifthrasiir 3y ago
        Afreeca is not associated with telcos.
        goles 3y ago
        Afreeca has an interesting controversy section on their Wiki[1] detailing various social problems. It has a somewhat ominous last line about South Korean attitudes towards personal broadcasting platforms from here[2]. Apparently South Korea is also one of the few countries where Pornography is illegal. But I saw conflicting accounts of who supports that politically and if it's really just a barrier for non-VPN traffic. Knowing the age demographic that Twitch can attract, and that Twitch has very popular Pools, Hot Tubs, and Beaches[3] and Just Chatting[4] sections. I'd be curious if that perspective has an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfreecaTV#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfreecaTV#Controversy [2]https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/media/835746.html https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/media/835746.html [3]https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/pools-hot-tubs-and-beaches https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/pools-hot-tubs-and-... [4]https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/just-chatting https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/just-chatting
        lifthrasiir 3y ago
        > Apparently South Korea is also one of the few countries where Pornography is illegal. Which is incorrect, though it is commonly framed by majority male-dominated communities. Korean law distinguishes pornography 성인물 from obscene material 음란물 and only legalizes pornography, and it's true that the line between them is quite blur, but most pornographic works are not considered obscene and can be legally imported if there is a demand. The actual reason for these kind of complaints is that, most non-obscene pornographic works are already available and only considered illegal because of the copyright violation. People want a free porn, easy ways have been blocked for the obvious reason, and they say something about the freedom of expression but still don't want to pay for them. This absurd argument makes actual changes much harder. > I'd be curious your thoughts if that plays an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones. I doubt Afreeca will be able to capture most streamers in exile. In fact it's clear to me that most will just go to YouTube, because when Twitch gave up with clips and stream archives, many if not most streamers moved them to YouTube instead. Naver's new service may find some niche but it's unlikely to match YouTube's existing offers.
  - TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
    One of the Korean alternatives to Twitch is AfeeecaTV, and it's already used by a lot of prominent players.
    - belltaco 3y ago
      I think AfreecaTV avoids fees by being P2P.
      - throwaway290 3y ago
        I'm sure the service is still liable for traffic generated so if you are P2P and don't pay up to mandated monopolies you'll be blocked. Per the article, Twitch tried being P2P but it's still expensive.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  Thanks. It doesn't immediately seem like charging the person sending traffic is a bad idea, as theoritically the costs should come out the same, so this seems like it's primarily an issue with regulatory capture. The article also mentions that Korea hasn't been investing in their infrastructure, but I find it hard to believe they're really that far behind every other country. Really sad that it seems like Korean users will be cut off from major platforms.
  - stefan_ 3y ago
    You don't believe it's a sign of a failed market when an ISP charges both their customers and companies like Twitch for the same data transfer?
    - zeroCalories 3y ago
      South Korean ISPs may have market failures, but it seems like in this case they wouldn't be able to do this without the regulation. This is all guessing based on context, but it seems like they don't want to play the risky game of blocking traffic, so companies could just ignore any bill they get sent. By having this regulation they can send a bill and have the courts enforce it if the company wants to do business in South Korea.
    - kijin 3y ago
      I don't deny that this is double dipping, but our intuitions about double dipping might not be universal. For example, in America, it is taken for granted that you pay for both incoming and outgoing calls. Koreans, on the other hand, would find it preposterous. Why should the callee pay, when the caller is already paying for those minutes? It's the same situation, but reversed.
      - nitwit005 3y ago
        Do you imagine people approve of having to pay for incoming spam calls? The idea is near-universally disliked, excepting telephone companies and politicians.
      - deleted 3y ago
rsingel 3y ago
ISPs have termination monopolies. They can charge what they like to reach their because there is literally no other path to them. Termination fees lead to high prices and weird arbitrage games. The long distance phone system works this way, which is why it's still like $5 a minute to call India from the US, and "free conference call" systems set up in rural areas to juice incoming call revenue.

https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/08/17/afterword-korea-s-challenge-to-standard-internet-interconnection-model-pub-85166 https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/08/17/afterword-korea-s-c...

goles 3y ago
The comment about helping migrate streamers and their communities to another platform stood out to me in the OP. But presumably Korean streamers and viewers came to Twitch because they offer a superior service or reach or ad rate. Do the Big 3 telecom providers have a at least somewhat comparable service to Twitch or is this more or less the end of some of these channels and communities people have spent a ton of effort to build?
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  No. They did try with OTT services with some success, but no comparable live streaming services exist AFAIK. Rather conveniently though, Naver, the biggest portal service in Korea, announced a game streaming service set to be released in 2024. I guess Naver did know something about a windup of Twitch in Korea months ago?
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Is afreeca not a korean twitch?
    - lifthrasiir 3y ago
      Afreeca is not associated with telcos.
      - goles 3y ago
        Afreeca has an interesting controversy section on their Wiki[1] detailing various social problems. It has a somewhat ominous last line about South Korean attitudes towards personal broadcasting platforms from here[2]. Apparently South Korea is also one of the few countries where Pornography is illegal. But I saw conflicting accounts of who supports that politically and if it's really just a barrier for non-VPN traffic. Knowing the age demographic that Twitch can attract, and that Twitch has very popular Pools, Hot Tubs, and Beaches[3] and Just Chatting[4] sections. I'd be curious if that perspective has an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfreecaTV#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfreecaTV#Controversy [2]https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/media/835746.html https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/media/835746.html [3]https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/pools-hot-tubs-and-beaches https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/pools-hot-tubs-and-... [4]https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/just-chatting https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/just-chatting
        lifthrasiir 3y ago
        > Apparently South Korea is also one of the few countries where Pornography is illegal. Which is incorrect, though it is commonly framed by majority male-dominated communities. Korean law distinguishes pornography 성인물 from obscene material 음란물 and only legalizes pornography, and it's true that the line between them is quite blur, but most pornographic works are not considered obscene and can be legally imported if there is a demand. The actual reason for these kind of complaints is that, most non-obscene pornographic works are already available and only considered illegal because of the copyright violation. People want a free porn, easy ways have been blocked for the obvious reason, and they say something about the freedom of expression but still don't want to pay for them. This absurd argument makes actual changes much harder. > I'd be curious your thoughts if that plays an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones. I doubt Afreeca will be able to capture most streamers in exile. In fact it's clear to me that most will just go to YouTube, because when Twitch gave up with clips and stream archives, many if not most streamers moved them to YouTube instead. Naver's new service may find some niche but it's unlikely to match YouTube's existing offers.
- TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
  One of the Korean alternatives to Twitch is AfeeecaTV, and it's already used by a lot of prominent players.
  - belltaco 3y ago
    I think AfreecaTV avoids fees by being P2P.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      I'm sure the service is still liable for traffic generated so if you are P2P and don't pay up to mandated monopolies you'll be blocked. Per the article, Twitch tried being P2P but it's still expensive.
zeroCalories 3y ago
Thanks. It doesn't immediately seem like charging the person sending traffic is a bad idea, as theoritically the costs should come out the same, so this seems like it's primarily an issue with regulatory capture. The article also mentions that Korea hasn't been investing in their infrastructure, but I find it hard to believe they're really that far behind every other country. Really sad that it seems like Korean users will be cut off from major platforms.
- stefan_ 3y ago
  You don't believe it's a sign of a failed market when an ISP charges both their customers and companies like Twitch for the same data transfer?
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    South Korean ISPs may have market failures, but it seems like in this case they wouldn't be able to do this without the regulation. This is all guessing based on context, but it seems like they don't want to play the risky game of blocking traffic, so companies could just ignore any bill they get sent. By having this regulation they can send a bill and have the courts enforce it if the company wants to do business in South Korea.
  - kijin 3y ago
    I don't deny that this is double dipping, but our intuitions about double dipping might not be universal. For example, in America, it is taken for granted that you pay for both incoming and outgoing calls. Koreans, on the other hand, would find it preposterous. Why should the callee pay, when the caller is already paying for those minutes? It's the same situation, but reversed.
    - nitwit005 3y ago
      Do you imagine people approve of having to pay for incoming spam calls? The idea is near-universally disliked, excepting telephone companies and politicians.
    - deleted 3y ago

rsingel 3y ago

ISPs have termination monopolies. They can charge what they like to reach their because there is literally no other path to them. Termination fees lead to high prices and weird arbitrage games. The long distance phone system works this way, which is why it's still like $5 a minute to call India from the US, and "free conference call" systems set up in rural areas to juice incoming call revenue.