11 ms·

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 l

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
    [deleted]
- Ekaros 3y ago
  No not really. It cost something to host the pipe to customer, customer should bear this cost. And then it also cost something to allow access and utilization of ISP network. Reasonably this should be paid by whoever sends the data. If the sender owns a network they could negotiate peering contract where data send to each other is offset and then after some period either one pays to either. Would be entirely logical and sensible model.
  - specialist 3y ago
    Who pays to ship a physical package? Sender, receiver, or both?
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      Sender, and receiver pays them to pay that. So in this scenario the users of Twitch should pay for the sender to be able to send data. I see no reason why Twitch would not be charging for using their service in this scenario. And then viewer can pay for it.
      - specialist 3y ago
        The next logical step: customer gets free ISP. The complaint is that ISPs are charging both sides. Hence the pro "net neutrality" position. (Aside: "Net neutrality" is a terrible phrase. Obscures rather than illuminates the policy debate.)
rsingel 3y ago
Sending Party Network Pays in telecom world is awful. The telecom you pay has a monopoly over accessing you, so they can charge whatever they want to terminate calls/data. Ask your parents or grandparents how expensive long distance or international calls used to be (and still are for landlines). It was dollars per minute, wholly untethered from actual costs. That's what South Korea is doing here and it's a terrible idea
- Xelynega 3y ago
  Isn't what you describe exactly how all ISPs work. Look how cheap service can be in countries where it's cheap, then look at the USA/Canada. Neither of them have sender party networks pays yet they both increase network connection costs way beyond what's necessary since they have regional monopolies. Basically why does a sender party network pays system lend itself to a monopoly, while rogers supporting entire businesses in Canada who have no alternative is not?
- gafage 3y ago
  >The telecom you pay has a monopoly over accessing you They don't. I have many broadband options.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    You have only one broadband company active at a time, the website you visit doesn't have a choice but to pay that company so it doesn't have any option to haggle for it. I hope you see how this creates perverse incentives.
aidenn0 3y ago
> Really sad that it seems like Korean users will be cut off from major platforms. This will always be an issue with SPNP. Anybody who doesn't want to pay is basically removed from the internet for customers of the ISP. It gets even worse when ISPs own competitors to the senders service. Comcast owns Peacock; think about what relative subscription prices would be if they could charge Netflix for access to your connection, but Peacock gets it for free (even if they are required to pay, they are paying it to themselves).
Ekaros 3y ago
I think charging sending party for data is not unreasonable model. In balanced network you could offset it with received data. And thus bill on whatever side send more. Would be entirely reasonable design.

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
  [deleted]
Ekaros 3y ago
No not really. It cost something to host the pipe to customer, customer should bear this cost. And then it also cost something to allow access and utilization of ISP network. Reasonably this should be paid by whoever sends the data. If the sender owns a network they could negotiate peering contract where data send to each other is offset and then after some period either one pays to either. Would be entirely logical and sensible model.
- specialist 3y ago
  Who pays to ship a physical package? Sender, receiver, or both?
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Sender, and receiver pays them to pay that. So in this scenario the users of Twitch should pay for the sender to be able to send data. I see no reason why Twitch would not be charging for using their service in this scenario. And then viewer can pay for it.
    - specialist 3y ago
      The next logical step: customer gets free ISP. The complaint is that ISPs are charging both sides. Hence the pro "net neutrality" position. (Aside: "Net neutrality" is a terrible phrase. Obscures rather than illuminates the policy debate.)

rsingel 3y ago

Sending Party Network Pays in telecom world is awful. The telecom you pay has a monopoly over accessing you, so they can charge whatever they want to terminate calls/data. Ask your parents or grandparents how expensive long distance or international calls used to be (and still are for landlines). It was dollars per minute, wholly untethered from actual costs. That's what South Korea is doing here and it's a terrible idea

Xelynega 3y ago
Isn't what you describe exactly how all ISPs work. Look how cheap service can be in countries where it's cheap, then look at the USA/Canada. Neither of them have sender party networks pays yet they both increase network connection costs way beyond what's necessary since they have regional monopolies. Basically why does a sender party network pays system lend itself to a monopoly, while rogers supporting entire businesses in Canada who have no alternative is not?
gafage 3y ago
>The telecom you pay has a monopoly over accessing you They don't. I have many broadband options.
- Jensson 3y ago
  You have only one broadband company active at a time, the website you visit doesn't have a choice but to pay that company so it doesn't have any option to haggle for it. I hope you see how this creates perverse incentives.

aidenn0 3y ago

> Really sad that it seems like Korean users will be cut off from major platforms. This will always be an issue with SPNP. Anybody who doesn't want to pay is basically removed from the internet for customers of the ISP. It gets even worse when ISPs own competitors to the senders service. Comcast owns Peacock; think about what relative subscription prices would be if they could charge Netflix for access to your connection, but Peacock gets it for free (even if they are required to pay, they are paying it to themselves).

Ekaros 3y ago

I think charging sending party for data is not unreasonable model. In balanced network you could offset it with received data. And thus bill on whatever side send more. Would be entirely reasonable design.