이중반룡의 게임애가
泥中蟠龍‘s Game愛歌
A love song for games of the dragon waiting for an opportunity
Should keep net neutrality alive? Part 02
August. 01. 2018.
I took a look at the dictionary definition of net neutrality and talked about two stances of it in Part 01. There are Internet service providers' position where Internet content providers providing information through network should pay network fees for their users and Internet content providers' position in which net neutrality is the basic right and digital contents industry can be threaten without net neutrality. I'd like to examine the two sides of it in detail.
First, we need to make sure that network is public goods or private property. Do you think network can be replaced with another? We are already living in the world of Internet. Teachers access to the Internet for sending newsletters and bank clients don't go the bank thanks to Internet banking. Living without Internet in modern society is exactly the same situation with getting along without transportation. Services for all members of the public should be developed to increase convenience when there are more users. That's why I believe that bus-only lanes on highway and Seoul roads are right policy decision. Public transportation cannot simply compare to Internet service based on profitability. However, it's ridiculous to ask to pay more because more people use the service when network is not a choice. An arbitrary service control of Internet service providers is network power in the world of network without substitute goods. Better service for people paying more means that users paying less will be necessarily discriminated.
The second stance is that there is need for more resources to set up a new network and Internet content providers pay more through zero rating to reduce their customers' burden so that the increased number of subscribers would benefit both Internet contents providers and the users. Who is going to foot the bill for building up a new network? Cost should be covered by somebody whether it is content providers or subscribers. I'm afraid their theory won't do if someone should bear high costs. Internet content providers will pass on their cost to their customers and it will be a financial burden to users in the end when they pay the fees. This is little more than passing the buck to users after Internet service providers, who cannot charge directly for their services, charge Internet content providers. This is the same situation as a conglomerate ask its first-tier contractor to lower the supply price and make them to cover the deficiency with inevitable demand for reducing the price to second-tier contractor, which is abusing its dominant position in the market. It reminds me a Chinese saying Cho-Sam-Mo-Sa which means three for the morning four for the evening. Now Internet service providers are testing whether users are monkey or people.
I'd like to go on to talk about the rest of the topic in the next column.
※ This is from Kyunghyang Games column by 泥中蟠龍 since September 2013.
(http://www.khgames.co.kr)
Translation by Kim Ki-hui
