泥中蟠龍's Game愛歌 Should keep net neutrality alive? Part 02

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

泥中蟠龍‘s Game愛歌 Should keep net neutrality alive? Part 01

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 01

July. 12. 2018.

The Federal Communications Commission repealed net neutrality rules in December 2017. It also has an influence on the net neutrality repeal in South Korea. It's hard for us to express our personal opinion about this issue in many ways. Meeting many different people working in the field of contents industry, I see people around me having the opposite opinion of me. It's not easy for me personally talk about this issue, so I'd like to express my idea in writing hoping that I could convince many people to agree with me.

 

By definition, net neutrality is as follows:

 

"Internet service providers and government treat all data on the Internet equally, and not discriminate differently by user, content, platform, type of attached equipment, or method of communication."

 

Net neutrality is divided into two main categories in the market.

The first claim is Internet service providers' stance. They argue that business operators using more data should pay more based on data usage because there is a big gap among operators' usage. They also assert to introduce zero rating. Zero rating is the practice of providing Internet access to certain websites without user's financial cost and content providers pay network fees on their behalf. They say that it brings benefits to Internet contents providers since it helps them to attract more customers. The Internet service providers also insist that net neutrality should be repealed due to high data traffic rising every year requiring them to increase equipment investments. A telecommunication company executive said, "Doing business freely in the lobby of a hotel where someone built."

 

The second claim is Internet content providers' stance. They argue that network is public goods and internet service providers should not private property-like control network which is social infrastructure. They also insist that it can be double charge if Internet service providers charge content providers, while they collect the bill from their subscribers. And they say that the abolishment of net neutrality will instigate unfair business practices between Internet service providers and finally will hurt users.

 

I took a look at opinions on net neutrality. I would like to see whether net neutrality should be kept alive 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

泥中蟠龍's Game愛歌 Blockchain and right game

이중반룡의 게임애가

泥中蟠龍‘s Game愛歌

[A love song for games of the dragon waiting for an opportunity]

Blockchain and right game

 

June. 28. 2018.

I dealt with the subject of the Bechdel test and right game in the last column. I'd like to talk about another meaning of right game this time.

 

Recently, there's been a lot of talks about blockchain-related subject across the content industry. I also discussed the impact of blcokchain technology on the content industry in a related government agency just hours before writing this article. I have predicted that blockchain will not only change a large part of the content industry but also contribute to developing the content field. I still haven't changed my thought.

 

However, I think that the recent talks about the new technology is putting the cart before the horse. Blcokchain is literally a technology. It doesn't make anything. Blockchain solution brings up transparent transactions based on DLT, distributed ledger technology, and is also a security technology which is resistant to modification of the data. This technology can contribute to improving the market structure and play a big role in intellectual property protection. Additionally, it can protect the interest of producers and create entirely new content distribution market. However, the state-of-the-art technology isn't directly involved in creating content or intellectual property. While discussing blockchain in many areas, people seem to may not care so much about content itself. I am a little bit skeptical whether the content is inset into the blcokchain to issue a cryptocurrency coin. It makes me think about which is more important between content and blockchain.

 

There is a television program 'Ssulzun' that I enjoying watching, in which panels deal with important social issues. A debater Park Hyoung-jun of the talk show had impressive comment last March.

 

"Salt lost its savor isn't salt anymore."

 

This is exactly what I want to talk about the blockchain technology-related discussions in the content industry nowadays. Content is not for blcokchain when it needs to be supported by the technology. Recently introduction of the blockchain-related technology is actively discussed expecially in the gaming industry. Unlike the other content, it can be easily applied to game because game is basically based on software and game makers generally have deeper understanding of the technology. However, a game without fun and pleasure, the essentials of game, is not a game anymore. I hope that game won't be salt lost its savor due to the blockchain technology.       

※ This is from Kyunghyang Games column by 泥中蟠龍 since September 2013.

   (http://www.khgames.co.kr)

    Translation by Kim Ki-hui