Connect with us

Asia

Dae-Keun Cho: Demystifying Interconnection and Cost Recovery in South Korea

South Korean courts have rejected attempts to mix net neutrality arguments into payment disputes.

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Advisor in Dae-Keun Cho, a member of the telecom, media and technology practice team at Lee & Ko.

South Korea is recognized as a leading broadband nation for network access, use and skills by the International Telecommunications Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

South Korea exports content and produces platforms which compete with leading tech platforms from the US and China. Yet few know and understand the important elements of South Korean broadband policy, particularly its unique interconnection and cost recovery regime.

For example, most Western observers mischaracterize the relationship between broadband providers and content providers as a termination regime. There is no such concept in the South Korean broadband market. Content providers which want to connect to a broadband network pay an “access fee” like any other user.

International policy observers are paying attention to the IP interconnection system of IP powerhouse Korea and the lawsuit between SK Broadband (SKB) and Netflix. There are two important subjects. The first is the history and major regulations relating to internet protocol interconnection in South Korea. Regulating IP interconnection between internet service providers is considered a rare case overseas, and I explain why the Korean government adopted such a policy and how the policy has been developed and what it has accomplished.

The second subject is the issues over network usage fees between ISPs and content providers and the pros and cons. The author discusses issues that came to the surface during the legal proceedings between SKB and Netflix in the form of questions and answers. The following issues were identified during the process.

First, what Korean ISPs demand from global big tech companies is an access fee, not a termination fee. The termination fee does not exist in the broadband market, only in the market between ISPs.

In South Korea, content providers only pay for access, not termination

For example, Netflix’s Open Connect Appliance is a content delivery network. To deliver its content to end users in Korea, Netflix must purchase connectivity from a Korean ISP. The dispute arises because Netflix refuses to pay this connectivity fee. Charging CPs in the sending party network pay method, as discussed in Europe, suggests that the CPs already paid access fees to the originating ISPs and should thus pay the termination fee for their traffic delivery to the terminating ISPs. However in Korea, it is only access fees that CPs (also CDNs) pay ISPs.

In South Korea, IP interconnection between content providers and internet service providers is subject to negotiation

Second, although the IP interconnection between Korean ISPs is included in regulations, transactions between CPs and ISPs are still subject to negotiation. In Korea, a CP (including CDN) is a purchaser which pays a fee to a telecommunications service provider called an ISP and purchases a public internet network connection service, because the CP’s legal status is a “user” under the Telecommunications Business Act. Currently, a CP negotiates with an ISP and signs a contract setting out connection conditions and rates.

Access fees do not violate net neutrality

South Korean courts have rejected attempts to mix net neutrality arguments into payment disputes. The principle of net neutrality applies between the ISP and the consumer, e.g. the practice of blocking, throttling and paid prioritization (fast lane).

In South Korea, ISPs do not prioritize a specific CP’s traffic over other CP’s because they receive fees from the specific CP. To comply with the net neutrality principle, all ISPs in South Korea act on a first-in, first-out basis. That is, the ISP does not perform traffic management for specific CP traffic for various reasons (such as competition, money etc.). The Korean court did not accept the Netflix’s argument about net neutrality because SKB did not engage in traffic management.

There is no violation of net neutrality in the transaction between Netflix and SKB. There is no action by SKB to block or throttle the CP’s traffic (in this case, Netflix). In addition, SKB does not undertake any traffic management action to deliver the traffic of Netflix to the end user faster than other CPs in exchange for an additional fee from Netflix.

Therefore, the access fee that Korean ISPs request from CPs does not create a net neutrality problem.

Why the Korean model is not double billing

Korean law allows for access to broadband networks for all parties provided an access fee is paid. Foreign content providers incorrectly describe this as a double payment. That would mean that an end user is paying for the access of another party. There is no such notion. Each party pays for the requisite connectivity of the individual connection, nothing more. Each user pays for its own purpose, whether it is a human subscriber, a CP, or a CDN. No one user pays for the connectivity of another.

Dae-Keun Cho, PhD is is a member of the Telecom, Media and Technology practice team at Lee & Ko. He is a regulatory policy expert with more than 20 years of experience in telecommunications and ICT regulatory policies who also advises clients on online platform regulation policies, telecommunications competition policies, ICT user protection policies, and personal information protection. He earned a Ph.D. in Public Administration from the Graduate School of Public Administration in Seoul National University. This piece is reprinted with permission.

Request the FREE 58 page English language summary of Dr. Dae-Keun Cho’s book Nothing Is Free: An In-depth report to understand network usage disputes with Google and Netflix. Additionally see Strand Consult’s library of reports and research notes on the South Korea.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Broadband Breakfast is a decade-old news organization based in Washington that is building a community of interest around broadband policy and internet technology, with a particular focus on better broadband infrastructure, the politics of privacy and the regulation of social media. Learn more about Broadband Breakfast.

Continue Reading
2 Comments

2 Comments

Leave a Reply

China

Industry Groups Plea for Funding to Address Secure Network Shortfall

The trade groups argue that carriers initiated the ‘rip and replace’ procedure with the expectation of full reimbursement.

Published

on

Photo by Kvistholt Photography / Unsplash

WASHINGTON, January 11, 2024 – A group of nine wireless and wireline trade groups on Thursday urged Congress to allocate an additional $3.08 billion in funding for providers to comply with a 2020 law, mandating the replacement of some foreign-manufactured equipment in U.S. communications networks.

In a jointly-written letter, spearheaded by the Competitive Carriers Association, groups argue the reimbursement program designed to fund equipment replacement efforts is significantly underfunded, and say without full financial support many providers could be stranded mid-effort.

The Federal Communications Commission, responsible for overseeing the program, granted approval for $4.98 billion in applications seeking funding from the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program in July 2022, but was compelled to prorate funds, providing 39.5 percent of reasonable costs upfront.

However, this approval revealed a significant overcommitment from the $1.9 billion appropriation for the program assigned by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020.

With deadlines for providers to remove all Huawei and ZTE communications equipment from their networks ranging from October 8, 2023 to September 23, 2024 – the associations implore Congress to promptly allocate full funding.

An FCC bureau granted several six-month extensions to eligible communications providers in October 2023, due to what the FCC recognizes as a lack of funding slowing the removal, replacement, and disposal processes.  

In an October letter addressed to Rep. Frank Pallone, ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee in October, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel emphasized that “the grant of these extensions does not lessen the urgency for a fully funded reimbursement program.”

The trade organizations argue that following the guidance of Congress and the FCC, carriers initiated the “rip and replace” procedure to eliminate such equipment, with the expectation of full reimbursement.

In a report to Congress last Friday, the Federal Communications Commission says just a handful of telecommunications companies has finished removing tech equipment supplied by companies considered to have close ties to China’s Communist government.

Continue Reading

China

FCC: Only Five Firms Have Finished ‘Rip and Replace’ of China Gear

Congress appropriated $1.9 billion, but with $4.98 billion in applications, there is a $3.08 billion shortfall.

Published

on

Photo of the FCC's headquarters at 45 L Street NE from the Smith Group.

WASHINGTON, January 7, 2024 – In a new report to Congress, the Federal Communications Commission says just a handful of telecommunications companies has finished removing tech equipment supplied by companies considered to have close ties to China’s Communist government.

In 2019, Congress passed the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, which authorized the FCC to reimburse certain telecommunications providers for the removal of Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. communications equipment and services within one year of receiving funds. The FCC was flooded with funding requests.

In the FCC report, the agency said just five funding recipients have submitted final certifications that Huawei and ZTE gear is out of their networks. The report did not include the names of the five firms.

Huawei and ZTE, both based in Shenzhen near Hong Kong, are global suppliers of telecommunications equipment, including technology for advanced 5G wireless networks. Huawei says its company is entirely employee-owned. The Chinese government reportedly has a substantial stake in ZTE, which also makes inexpensive Android smartphones.

The FCC’s report was prepared for the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, panels that oversee the FCC and the communications sector.

The FCC said funding recipients attributed the sluggish pace to “lack of funding, supply chain delays, labor shortages, and weather-related challenges.”

Congress appropriated $1.9 billion for the “rip and replace” program, the shorthand phrase that many use to refer to the 2019 law. But applications for funding sought $4.98 billion, creating a $3.08 billion shortfall.

The FCC said it has so far received 12,983 reimbursement claims “across 122 of the 126 applications approved for a funding allocation.” The agency’s budget officials have approved $396.5 million in disbursements, which will cover both removal and replacement costs.

In 2020, the FCC formally determined that Huawei and ZTE posed a national security threat to the integrity of U.S. communications networks and communications supply chains. That decision cut off the FCC’s Universal Service Program as a funding source to acquire equipment provided by Huawei or ZTE.

“We cannot treat Huawei and ZTE as anything less than a threat to our collective security,” Republican FCC Commissioner Carr said in a June 30, 2020 statement.

Ted Hearn is the Editor of Policyband, a new website dedicated to comprehensive coverage of the broadband communications market. This piece was published on Policyband on January 6, 2024, and is reprinted with permission.

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Chip Export Restrictions Will be ‘Huge Roadblock’ for Chinese AI Competitiveness: Expert

China will need to manufacture advanced chips domestically if it wants to continue researching and implementing AI.

Published

on

Photo of Qiheng Chen from the Asia Society

WASHINGTON, August 24, 2023 – China’s ability to remain competitive in the global artificial intelligence race will depend on its ability to produce its own chips, as U.S. restrictions on the export of that product to the adversarial nation will hobble its ability to move forward, experts said Thursday.

“U.S. chip export sanctions are a huge roadblock” for AI development in China, said Qiheng Chen, a senior analyst at consulting firm Compass Lexecon.

The ability to manufacture advanced chips domestically will be essential for the country to continue researching and implementing AI, Chen added at the AI event hosted by the Asia Society Policy Institute.

The Commerce Department imposed in October 2022 restrictions on exports of advanced semiconductors and chip manufacturing equipment to China and required U.S. citizens to get a permit before working with Chinese chip manufacturers.

The move was designed to limit China’s ability to compete with the U.S. by curbing its access to hardware required for cutting-edge military technology. It also makes AI research and development, a highly chip-dependent process, more difficult.

Other panelists Tuesday emphasized chip making as a top priority of the Chinese government.

The country has already moved toward independence from the U.S. in other areas, like satellites and fiber optics, as a response to Trump administration policies.

This has continued under President Joe Biden, with a 2021 executive order restricting investment in Chinese firms drawing criticism from Huawei, the Chinese telecom company.

Experts have previously said the threat of restricting access to global trade even further could make China hesitant to retaliate for the sanctions. This is because advanced chip manufacturing requires materials, components, and processes that would be difficult for a single nation to source entirely within its borders.

“It’s too complex, too global, too interdependent for one country to be able to produce all these technologies on their own,” said Jimmy Goodrich, vice president of Global Policy at the Semiconductor Industry Association, at a conference earlier this year.

A Huawei spokesperson estimated at a conference following the investment ban that it would take three to five years for Chinese chip manufacturing to become self-sufficient and rely less on American components and investments.

Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law last year, two months before the export restrictions went into effect. It allocates $52 billion for American semiconductor manufacturing and gives tax credits for investments in the industry.

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast News



Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

Trending