泥中蟠龍's Game愛歌 Should keep net neutrality alive? Part 03

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 03

 

August. 15. 2018.

I talked about the dictionary definition of net neutrality, the characteristics as public goods, and the problem with zero rating in Part 02. Lastly, I'd like to take a look at why net neutrality should be kept alive.

 

Let's look back on the past. The telephone companies were heavily against the implementation of mVoIP, mobile Voice over Internet Protocol, in 2012. They insisted that the new service would pull down their profits and deter new investment. Anonymous people, called experts in the media, claimed that the net neutrality repeal will guarantee quality for network service and protect subscribers' interests in the long term. They also said that it is finding balance between the telephone companies and Internet content providers and protecting the rights of users who want better service even if they pay more. Furthermore, they insisted that the property rights of the networks must be protected as private property because telecommunications operators built the networks. This is the same with the argument over privatizing health care a few years ago and many state-owned enterprises which already moved from the public sector into the private sector. SK Telecom, who recently proclaimed that there is no money to invest in facility for 5G due to net neutrality, reached over W17 trillion in sales and over W1.5 trillion in operating profits in 2017. KT reported over W23 trillion in revenue and its operating profits reached over W1.3 trillion. LG+U' made W12 trillion in sales and over W800 billion in operating profits. They've never been unprofitable in recent years. Their profits are from W1 trillion to over W17 trillion. Aside from spending trillions of won on the new facilities, the companies earned the decent profits. I want them to be rather more straightforward to make more money like scum bag who forcefully take money from someone instead of walking on eggshells about fee hikes while the network service providers grow and prosper.

 

Frequency is a limited public good. It is nonsense to say that it is privately-owned property despite huge profits from assigned frequency. This parallels with an owner of private highway on the state-owned land reaped enormous profits asking for the most popular tourist destinations to pay extra money as many as numbers of visitors because they improved profits thanks to the travelers used the highway. Furthermore, the highway owner threatens to block traffic with lane restriction to the destinations if they don't pay extra charge. Better service for premium users paying more means that there will be a premium rate-only lane in the highway while discriminating people paying lower rates. It's no different from Korail, Korea Railroad Corporation, expects Busan City Government to pay congestion fees for passengers of KTX, Korea Train eXpress, during G-Star, an annual trade show for the computer and video games industry in South Korea. It's high-handed conduct of Internet service providers to instigate the rich become richer and the poor become poorer in modern society in which communications became an everyday item and the reason why we should keep net neutrality alive. If Internet service providers feel like they are philanthropists and don't have enough cash to invest, give up the rights to use frequencies and sell the companies. I want to take over, if only they are willing to sell.

※ 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 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