4 ms·

From what I can tell, it's related to network usage fees from ISPs, i.e basically anti-net neutrality. From a year half ago: From https://www.koreaherald.com/v

From what I can tell, it's related to network usage fees from ISPs, i.e basically anti-net neutrality. From a year half ago: From https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220421000740 https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220421000740 > YouTube threatens to cut down investments in Korea over ‘network usage fee’ bill >Proposed revisions will require global content providers to pay network fees to local Internet service providers > The planned revision to the Telecommunications Business Act -- also known as the ‘network usage fee’ bills -- would require global content providers to sign mandatory contracts with local Internet service providers such as KT and SK Broadband to standardize obligations to pay fees for using their networks And from: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/skorea-broadband-firm-sues-netflix-after-traffic-surge-squid-game-2021-10-01/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/skorea-broadb... > South Korean Internet service provider SK Broadband has sued Netflix (NFLX.O) to pay for costs from increased network traffic and maintenance work because of a surge of viewers to the U.S. firm's content, an SK spokesperson said on Friday. > The move comes after a Seoul court said Netflix should "reasonably" give something in return to the internet service provider for network usage, and multiple South Korean lawmakers have spoken out against content providers who do not pay for network usage despite generating explosive traffic. Twitch also deleted recorded VOD content of Twitch Korean streamers last year for what they said was a different regulation: https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1590532134011564032 https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1590532134011564032

zeroCalories 3y ago
> The move comes after a Seoul court said Netflix should "reasonably" give something in return to the internet service provider for network usage, and multiple South Korean lawmakers have spoken out against content providers who do not pay for network usage despite generating explosive traffic. Why not charge the end user? That seems like it would be more fair, easier to implement, and require no regulation. Makes it seem like they have other motives.
- kijin 3y ago
  > Why not charge the end user? The entire country is a single market, with 3 major cellular carriers and a handful of broadband carriers all competing for the same population. The competition is so cutthroat, they even publish monthly reports of which ISP stole how many customers from whom. Obviously, no ISP wants to be the first to charge the end user more, or become known as the one that throttles YouTube, and risk losing hundreds of thousands of customers in an instant. Much easier to make the whole thing look like a business disagreement. Note that it is always SK Broadband that whines the loudest about foreign video streaming platforms. Other ISPs like KT are sitting on bigger undersea cables, so they can afford to absorb much more bandwidth without resorting to reputation-destroying surcharges.
  - yongjik 3y ago
    That sounds backwards. If competition were actually cutthroat, no ISP could easily demand payment from Twitch, because then Twitch would just say "Due to the unreasonable demand, Twitch streams will be throttled for SK Telecom users to 360p," and the other ISPs would advertise like hell: "Come to us and enjoy Twitch in its full HD glory!" The fact that it doesn't happen is a strong indication that the competition is lukewarm, especially considering that Korean antitrust laws are pretty much toothless and companies collude all the time.
    - kijin 3y ago
      That's why SK Broadband (not to be confused with SK Telecom, a much more popular ISP that shares little infrastructure with SK Broadband) goes to the government and whines about evil foreign companies clogging up their pipes. They can't make the first move in the market, unless everyone else is required to do the same. Korean telcos do collude all the time, but even here, a surcharge for consumers who were previously promised unlimited data is not something they can get away with.
- Xelynega 3y ago
  If I have to pay more to access one service than another, that's against the idea of net neutrality(making services equitably easy to access). I don't understand how net neutrality applies in the opposite case though. If the hosting party is paying relative to their usage, how does that have anything to do with my access as an end user?
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    I'm suggesting that users pay for data by the byte, similar to how users pay for mobile data in most countries. I don't see how that violates nn.

zeroCalories 3y ago

> The move comes after a Seoul court said Netflix should "reasonably" give something in return to the internet service provider for network usage, and multiple South Korean lawmakers have spoken out against content providers who do not pay for network usage despite generating explosive traffic. Why not charge the end user? That seems like it would be more fair, easier to implement, and require no regulation. Makes it seem like they have other motives.

kijin 3y ago
> Why not charge the end user? The entire country is a single market, with 3 major cellular carriers and a handful of broadband carriers all competing for the same population. The competition is so cutthroat, they even publish monthly reports of which ISP stole how many customers from whom. Obviously, no ISP wants to be the first to charge the end user more, or become known as the one that throttles YouTube, and risk losing hundreds of thousands of customers in an instant. Much easier to make the whole thing look like a business disagreement. Note that it is always SK Broadband that whines the loudest about foreign video streaming platforms. Other ISPs like KT are sitting on bigger undersea cables, so they can afford to absorb much more bandwidth without resorting to reputation-destroying surcharges.
- yongjik 3y ago
  That sounds backwards. If competition were actually cutthroat, no ISP could easily demand payment from Twitch, because then Twitch would just say "Due to the unreasonable demand, Twitch streams will be throttled for SK Telecom users to 360p," and the other ISPs would advertise like hell: "Come to us and enjoy Twitch in its full HD glory!" The fact that it doesn't happen is a strong indication that the competition is lukewarm, especially considering that Korean antitrust laws are pretty much toothless and companies collude all the time.
  - kijin 3y ago
    That's why SK Broadband (not to be confused with SK Telecom, a much more popular ISP that shares little infrastructure with SK Broadband) goes to the government and whines about evil foreign companies clogging up their pipes. They can't make the first move in the market, unless everyone else is required to do the same. Korean telcos do collude all the time, but even here, a surcharge for consumers who were previously promised unlimited data is not something they can get away with.
Xelynega 3y ago
If I have to pay more to access one service than another, that's against the idea of net neutrality(making services equitably easy to access). I don't understand how net neutrality applies in the opposite case though. If the hosting party is paying relative to their usage, how does that have anything to do with my access as an end user?
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  I'm suggesting that users pay for data by the byte, similar to how users pay for mobile data in most countries. I don't see how that violates nn.