Network free ride prevention law, what arguments are distorted

Domestic telecommunications companies began to argue that the distribution of fake news was serious over the free ride prevention law.

While Internet service companies have signed a dedicated line contract and pay the relevant price, only Google and Netflix, which occupy one-third of domestic Internet traffic, rejected this, and distorted information is flooding.

It is a debate that stems from the legislative discussion to avoid network use contracts like Google and Netflix.

The problem is that global dinosaur companies are behind it, and domestic YouTube creators are gathering to spread fake news.

Contrary to the claim of profits from corporate interests, it is concerned that general YouTubers can be driven by legal responsibility if they expand the distorted information. If the mass-produced fake news is regarded as a huge infringement of the company, it will have no choice but to take legal response to YouTuber individuals.

■ Only Korea makes free ride prevention methods?

It is representative fake news that it is trying to establish a free ride prevention law only in Korea al1. Even if you look at the news of overseas, you can check it quickly, but it is a common story as an example of 'opposite'.

First, in conclusion, the EU has a much more active legislative movement than Korea. France, Italy, and Spain have strongly suggested the introduction of the legislation to the EU Executive Committee, and the EU level has stated that it will complete the bill within the year.

Europe is already seriously looking at the tax evasion problem like Google. Starting with tax evasion, the collection of personal information for advertising projects is also sensitive. Recently, the handling of personal information of minors has become a hot topic.

This is the reason why relevant legislation, such as the digital market law, which is about to be implemented next year, and the GDPR, which are already implemented, are also active.

Network free ride is also a problem for European countries. Some content service firms (Cps) are continuing to negotiate asymmetrical negotiations with local telecommunications companies as weapons of market dominance, and profits are focused on some US companies, while Europe's investment in network infrastructure is seriously decreasing.

For this reason, in addition to the fair network investment contribution statement at the World Mobile Telecommunications Business Association (GSMA), the European Communications Business Association (ETNA) has made a statement that demands net investment sharing in some global Cps in a stronger level.

It is also necessary to point out the worries and emotions of European policymakers. During the modernization period, the development of basic science and technology was led by Europeans, but based on this, digital technology companies that developed and dominated the European market by strengthening the US capital.

As a result, some monopoly services and ecosystems discussed the need for regulatory needs, and in particular, the number of Internet data traffic increased rapidly, and aiming some companies that avoided responsibility for net investments came.

In addition, it is necessary to look at the reason why the free ride prevention law began to be discussed in various countries outside of Europe.

Companies for business with general Internet service subscribers, as well as content services, sign a contract for use in the service area, and pay relevant costs according to negotiations on the network capacity for stabilizing the service.

On the other hand, some companies, such as Google, which occupy most of the entire Internet traffic, have a difference in negotiations and ignoring these market order, except for countries like China.

It is also noteworthy that domestic Internet service companies have issued a problem with the Fair Trade Commission against the three telecommunications companies. Although it was pointed out that foreign companies such as Google were not receiving network use, they were in a domestic company, but the FTC's judgment was judged to be an example of three telecommunications companies.

** ■ It is difficult to enter Korean content companies when it passes the free ride prevention law.

The claim that domestic Cps will be difficult to enter overseas if the free ride prevention law is passed.

Even if a general Internet user uses any content, a contract of paying a network is made to a telecommunications network. It is the same logic as no one can access files stored on PCs that have not been connected to the Internet.

Any company must put content on the communication network to provide its own content. The company must connect the company's exclusive line to the company's server in Korea or local countries, use a cloud service with a telecommunications company, or sign a contract with a CDN company with a content transfer infrastructure in the service area.

Except special companies such as Google and Netflix, all content companies are generally done.

For example, if a lot of online games are popular in Korea and many users are attracted, it is the same as the expansion of domestic servers.

The Internet connection is not a bandwidth at home Wi-Fi levels. In order to operate a stable game, a contract with a carrier will be signed, and the data transmission capacity will be increased. In this way, the price of the network is coming and going.

Unlike simple puzzle games, in a game where real-time access and play takes place, users who join a specific telecommunications company are not suddenly connected.

If the data transmission capacity is not large, a network usage agreement with a domestic carrier will be signed and the submarine cable will be connected to a local carrier. On the other hand, if services are activated in certain countries abroad, they will sign an appropriate transmission capacity contract with local carriers or CDN companies.

At the center of the controversy, Google raises the cache server in each service area and refuses to contract related to related costs.

In addition, Netflix, which is causing legal disputes with SK Broadband, has built its own CDN service in Tokyo and Hong Kong, Japan, and avoided responsibility for the 900g submarine cable directly connected to the SK Broadband, but was defeated in the first trial.

■ Internet transfer is free?

Last month, the National Assembly's Science and Technology Information and Communications Commission was surprised at the National Assembly as well as telecommunications companies at a public hearing that asked for the opposition to the free ride prevention law.

A law professor who represented the camp against the free ride prevention law, saying, The Internet is no one to pay the transmission fee when everyone transmits the data, and the actual cost is zero when the information is delivered. Unfolded.

The telecommunications industry was very absurd because it was a story that was placed in Netflix's claim that the Internet transmission was free.

Netflix has adopted its own developing CDN service, an open connect (OCT) from various national telecommunications companies around the world, and has reduced traffic costs of $1.2 billion by 2020. He also emphasized that he spent more than 1 trillion won in OCT development.

At the time of the first Netflix service in Korea, traffic was sent to Korea from the Amazon Web Service (AWS) in Seattle, USA. Netflix is well known as a representative company that transfers all IT systems to AWS. Netflix, which used AWS's infrastructure resources and Akamai CDN, moved the network connection point to Tokyo, Japan, where its own OCT was located in 2018.

DISPUTE

If the professor's remarks that Internet transmission is free, Netflix spent 1 trillion won in developing OCT to reduce data traffic costs that do not need to pay. In addition, Netflix viewers in Korea can access the submarine cable in Seattle, which moved to Japan for no reason.

Google, which is the most active in investing in submarine communication cable, is also free of the Internet transmission, which continues to be unnecessary.


Of course, Netflix lost the Internet with SK Broadband and the transmission of the Internet, and the transmission was free of charge.

Since then, in the second trial appeal process, he has argued over the agreement of Mujeongsan and has not made a claim that the Internet transmission is free.

Comments