An update on Twitch in Korea(blog.twitch.tv)
blog.twitch.tv
An update on Twitch in Korea
https://blog.twitch.tv/en/2023/12/05/an-update-on-twitch-in-korea/
194 comments
Native Korean here, It's way worse here. It has been a decade since former telecom board members in the chief of Korea Communications Commission, which should prevent this in the first place.
The Netflix trial back in 2021 beforehand was due to SK Broadband (South Korean ISP) having lots of NTT bound traffic since they didn't join the Netflix's OpenConnect Program while requesting Netflix to co-locate in their server main content servers in (the SK Broadband). The results? Netflix found guilty for causing those traffics.
For your information, You can't establish an ISP in South Korea since the law forbids anyone other than "3 major telecom"s (SK Broadband, KT, LG U+). Regulations protecting telecoms and making sure CPs getting properly ripped off (Bonus point if you are not domestic business).
The Netflix trial back in 2021 beforehand was due to SK Broadband (South Korean ISP) having lots of NTT bound traffic since they didn't join the Netflix's OpenConnect Program while requesting Netflix to co-locate in their server main content servers in (the SK Broadband). The results? Netflix found guilty for causing those traffics.
For your information, You can't establish an ISP in South Korea since the law forbids anyone other than "3 major telecom"s (SK Broadband, KT, LG U+). Regulations protecting telecoms and making sure CPs getting properly ripped off (Bonus point if you are not domestic business).
Are bandwidth fees just as high for any domestic Korean company creates a Twitch competitor?
Or do the 3 major telecoms operate their own streaming services, so only companies under their umbrella can afford a site like Twitch?
Or do the 3 major telecoms operate their own streaming services, so only companies under their umbrella can afford a site like Twitch?
> Are bandwidth fees just as high for any domestic Korean company creates a Twitch competitor?
Yes, it is the same price. The biggest Korean streaming service, AfreecaTV, pays 1/3 of the total revenue.
So major real-time streaming services in Korea relies on peer-to-peer streaming to reduce the cost.
Yes, it is the same price. The biggest Korean streaming service, AfreecaTV, pays 1/3 of the total revenue.
So major real-time streaming services in Korea relies on peer-to-peer streaming to reduce the cost.
How effective peer-to-peer there? Is CGNAT widely deployed? Is IPv6 available to most people?
They were able to reduce the network price from $70m/yr to $12m/yr [1] (their revenue was around $220m/yr btw).
There is almost no IPv6 yet since we still have enough IPv4 addresses. I am not sure how it is implemented but p2p has been often used in Korean services since 20 years ago.
[1]: https://m.businesspost.co.kr/BP?command=mobile_view&num=2986...
There is almost no IPv6 yet since we still have enough IPv4 addresses. I am not sure how it is implemented but p2p has been often used in Korean services since 20 years ago.
[1]: https://m.businesspost.co.kr/BP?command=mobile_view&num=2986...
> It's particularly bad in the E.U. where Commissioner Thierry Breton, a former telecom CEO, wants to shove it through despite overwhelming opposition, including from the EU's top telecom regulators (BEREC).
How would it then get through parliament?
How would it then get through parliament?
First you slide language into a report saying that all players should fund internet infrastructure - then you try to get parliament to adopt language in a competition report saying they support access fees, without any hearings. Luckily some last minute lobbying derailed that.
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2023/06/when-media-gets-i...
The European Commission has been engaging in tons of bad-faith trickery around this, including ignoring BEREC (the EU's top telecom regulators), trying to slam it through without a consulation, downplaying all the negative comments in the consultation they were forced into having, and who knows what is next? Shoving it into a must pass bill?
Thierry Breton is a dangerous tech dinosaur who thinks that the future of Europe dominating tech is in Europe's ISPs. He thinks ISPs are the thing - when everyone knows that who you pay to get online is immaterial - it's what you do online that matters. He's deadset on figuring out how to make every big tech service in the world, from Google to AWS to Akamai to Cloudflare, pay EU ISPs.
Having a former telecom CEO at the head of the EU will be disastrous for the EU, and could be disastrous for the world generally.
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2023/06/when-media-gets-i...
The European Commission has been engaging in tons of bad-faith trickery around this, including ignoring BEREC (the EU's top telecom regulators), trying to slam it through without a consulation, downplaying all the negative comments in the consultation they were forced into having, and who knows what is next? Shoving it into a must pass bill?
Thierry Breton is a dangerous tech dinosaur who thinks that the future of Europe dominating tech is in Europe's ISPs. He thinks ISPs are the thing - when everyone knows that who you pay to get online is immaterial - it's what you do online that matters. He's deadset on figuring out how to make every big tech service in the world, from Google to AWS to Akamai to Cloudflare, pay EU ISPs.
Having a former telecom CEO at the head of the EU will be disastrous for the EU, and could be disastrous for the world generally.
For the slide in thing, look at the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/94370
Chapter 2: c
We commit to: "developing adequate frameworks so that all market actors benefiting from the digital transformation assume their social responsibilities and make a fair and proportionate contribution to the costs of public goods, services and infrastructures, for the benefit of all people living in the EU."
Take that anodyne statement and then try to make it into online services paying ISPs in law. Call it fair share and point to this statement saying that everyone agreed to it.
Then try to shove that into a paragraph of a competition policy report to get legislators on the record supporting network fees without debate and hope no one notices. Claim victory even when the gambit fails because of a very clever amendment.
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2023/06/when-media-gets-i...
ISPs, their lobbyists, and their lawyers play the long game.
Chapter 2: c
We commit to: "developing adequate frameworks so that all market actors benefiting from the digital transformation assume their social responsibilities and make a fair and proportionate contribution to the costs of public goods, services and infrastructures, for the benefit of all people living in the EU."
Take that anodyne statement and then try to make it into online services paying ISPs in law. Call it fair share and point to this statement saying that everyone agreed to it.
Then try to shove that into a paragraph of a competition policy report to get legislators on the record supporting network fees without debate and hope no one notices. Claim victory even when the gambit fails because of a very clever amendment.
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2023/06/when-media-gets-i...
ISPs, their lobbyists, and their lawyers play the long game.
The ISPs are lobbying for this for years. They see that 90% of traffic is a handful of services like Netflix and co. and they feel entitled to charge those something.
You only need to convince a handful of bureaucrats of that idea.
You only need to convince a handful of bureaucrats of that idea.
You need to convince a decent chunk of Parliament, not just a handful.
No, only the pols in charge.
Well you need to convince someone in the Commission to raise the proposal (the easy part), and then you need to convince a majority of parties 300-350 people to vote in favour of the proposal in Parliament, and do the same in the council (member countries national leaders).
Came pretty close, actually: https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2023/06/when-media-gets-i...
The way you get all other legislation that doesn't get public spotlight: through lobbying, commission, and then present it as fait accompli to the Parliament amidst a hundred or so other laws.
Can you link the sources for this. afaik India still has net neutrality and no bills tabled recently against this.
Here's the proceeding on it:
https://www.trai.gov.in/consultation-paper-regulatory-mechan...
Here's Jio's filing, claiming poverty:
https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Reliance_JIO_Inf...
Here's my boss, the great Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Schewick, rebutting Jio and more:
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publicatio...
Here's Jio's filing, claiming poverty:
https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Reliance_JIO_Inf...
Here's my boss, the great Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Schewick, rebutting Jio and more:
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publicatio...
Try https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Reliance_Jio_Inf...
If not that, then https://www.trai.gov.in/consultation-paper-regulatory-mechan... and go to the last page of filings (p 21)
If not that, then https://www.trai.gov.in/consultation-paper-regulatory-mechan... and go to the last page of filings (p 21)
> Try https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Reliance_Jio_Inf...
This one works. Took me embarrassingly long to figure out the difference is in the capitalization of "Jio".
This one works. Took me embarrassingly long to figure out the difference is in the capitalization of "Jio".
I don’t have data but I wouldn’t be surprised if it got there. India is mobile first, Jio is putting internet in the hands of 100s of millions of Indian at cheap prices. They’re shutting out the competitors.
Jio also has its own streaming service, which doesn’t count against your data caps. That’s anti net neutrality.
The obvious next step is to start making the sender pay for traffic as well.
Jio also has its own streaming service, which doesn’t count against your data caps. That’s anti net neutrality.
The obvious next step is to start making the sender pay for traffic as well.
That's the exact game plan:
https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Reliance_JIO_Inf...
https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Reliance_JIO_Inf...
> Jio also has its own streaming service, which doesn’t count against your data caps.
How does this work? AFAIK JioCinema uses Akamai for content delivery... do they not count data for traffic from their own hosted edge caches or is it something else?
How does this work? AFAIK JioCinema uses Akamai for content delivery... do they not count data for traffic from their own hosted edge caches or is it something else?
Can you point me to where Jio says it zero rates this? This is new to me and very interested
If you connect two or more telecom lines into your rack or any service, you need to pay "Cross-Connect" fees. This is paid separately even if you brought your network line by your own. I can't say how much price is it since it is mostly trade secret with the sales dept of the telecom. but I'd say its a lot.
Usual fees for cross-connect are low and one-time. It's charging for data into a network that cause the issue.
Transit yes; Deutsche Telekom AG is one of the worst in Europe. While telia charges something in the range of 10-20ct per Mbit; DTAG charges 80ct.
[deleted]
Pure speculation, but I wonder how much of this is done in an attempt to push out Western companies in favor of Korean companies. All of the large telecoms in Korea sponsor eSports teams, they probably want to develop local services and stimulate their own economy. Beyond that, it's much easier to control or assert political pressure on a local company, while Twitch is known for being notoriously unreceptive.
I watch competitive StarCraft 2 and Brood War, both of which only provide the highest quality stream through AfreecaTV. This isn't something I've looked much into, but I swear that AfreecaTV also has a way better bitrate and encoding than what you get with unpaid YouTube.
This post leaves me wondering about YouTube's relationship with Korea. Someone mentioned Worlds 2023, which was dual streamed on Twitch and YouTube Live.
I watch competitive StarCraft 2 and Brood War, both of which only provide the highest quality stream through AfreecaTV. This isn't something I've looked much into, but I swear that AfreecaTV also has a way better bitrate and encoding than what you get with unpaid YouTube.
This post leaves me wondering about YouTube's relationship with Korea. Someone mentioned Worlds 2023, which was dual streamed on Twitch and YouTube Live.
I think protectionism is probably the reason.
According to this article, on of the proponents is SK Telecom, of “SK Terran” fame. https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-netflix-under-scru...
According to this article, on of the proponents is SK Telecom, of “SK Terran” fame. https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-netflix-under-scru...
When I think of protectionism, I think of things like the agriculture and aerospace industries for the sake of food and national security. What is the strategic benefit of game streaming? Does loss of that industry represent an existential national threat??
Protectionism doesn't have to be a matter of national security. Korean ISPs love money and they have friends in the government, that's basically it, as far as I know.
It’s the same with Canada and our Telecom+Media Oligopoly. Three companies basically control internet/phone/tv/radio, and exert incredible influence over politicians to implement laws and regulations that benefit them to the detriment of the general public.
[deleted]
The strategic benefit of game streaming is cultural imperialism. Every sovereign country wants a Hollywood.
To be clear, a "Hollywood" is any local industry that simultaneously:
1. Monopolizes or oligopolizes the internal market to the point where cultural importation is forbidden, and,
2. Exports a large amount of its own work to other countries, displacing the foreign country's culture
Out of these two concerns, #1 is key; #2 is more icing on the cake. Censorship of other countries' speech allows imposing whatever values you want in the resulting silence. If Twitch is operating in Korea, then they control (through algorithmic editorialization) what a large chunk of Koreans are watching; Korea's government loses that control.
How this manifests in other countries differs. America has an oligopoly that used to marginalize anything it didn't make, but Big Tech needs Hollywood to be subservient to them for various copyright-related reasons, so they're willing to circumvent that control with social media. Going further, you can self-privilege in the law: France and Canada have explicit requirements to show a certain percentage of French or Canadian content in broadcast and streaming media.
To be clear, a "Hollywood" is any local industry that simultaneously:
1. Monopolizes or oligopolizes the internal market to the point where cultural importation is forbidden, and,
2. Exports a large amount of its own work to other countries, displacing the foreign country's culture
Out of these two concerns, #1 is key; #2 is more icing on the cake. Censorship of other countries' speech allows imposing whatever values you want in the resulting silence. If Twitch is operating in Korea, then they control (through algorithmic editorialization) what a large chunk of Koreans are watching; Korea's government loses that control.
How this manifests in other countries differs. America has an oligopoly that used to marginalize anything it didn't make, but Big Tech needs Hollywood to be subservient to them for various copyright-related reasons, so they're willing to circumvent that control with social media. Going further, you can self-privilege in the law: France and Canada have explicit requirements to show a certain percentage of French or Canadian content in broadcast and streaming media.
Entertainment and the infrastructure that delivers it is an important pillar of soft power.
>Entertainment and the infrastructure that delivers it is an important pillar of soft power.
Might be a miscalculation if the goal is soft power as in cultural export (the so called Korean Wave). At least in the gaming/streaming space where Korea has been punching above it's weight in cultural impact since the StarCraft 2 days.
My guess is this policy results in Korean streamers on Korean sites streaming to Korean-only audiences. Reduces the worldwide crossover reach of Korean cultural export at least near and medium term.
Though YouTube is probably adequate for this if it can stick around...
Might be a miscalculation if the goal is soft power as in cultural export (the so called Korean Wave). At least in the gaming/streaming space where Korea has been punching above it's weight in cultural impact since the StarCraft 2 days.
My guess is this policy results in Korean streamers on Korean sites streaming to Korean-only audiences. Reduces the worldwide crossover reach of Korean cultural export at least near and medium term.
Though YouTube is probably adequate for this if it can stick around...
It won't, see Japanese manga/anime. There's close to zero global reach, zero exchange of capitals and influences are completely one-way. Cultural development in isolation creates invasive species of cultures, the only caveat is it must be paired with alternate means of acquiring foreign currency(car export) to work.
Korean entertainment does get exported a bit primarily in Asia, but it's valuable domestically that you or your people have access or control over their entertainment.
Both India and China have protectionism. China is the most obvious case where most typical US tech companies are banned
Yes??
>Mentality: SK Terran is a highly aggressive style that is intended to pressure the Zerg with a large number of MnM and Science Vessels. The ideal scenario is to split apart a big MnM ball and engage in guerrilla tactics around the map while irradiating key Zerg units such as Defilers, Ultras, and Lurkers.
I assumed this was a humorous analogy for this Korean policy but and it's going over my head (though I only know SC2) or maybe you meant to link SK Telecom https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/SK_Telecom_T1
>SK Telecom is a mobile telecommunications operator in South Korea that is a part of the SK Group, one of South Korea's largest conglomerates.
I assumed this was a humorous analogy for this Korean policy but and it's going over my head (though I only know SC2) or maybe you meant to link SK Telecom https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/SK_Telecom_T1
>SK Telecom is a mobile telecommunications operator in South Korea that is a part of the SK Group, one of South Korea's largest conglomerates.
Insight from a Z player in BW: the idea behind the whole strategy is to shut down all Zerg units while pushing them to their bases. Imagine a flying detector unit which has a decent speed and Viper's Parasitic Bomb which works twice as long, could be cast on any unit and deals damage only to bio ones... Basically it could kill any Zerg unit except the big ones in one cast (because Queens are flying and can't heal in BW) or shut down Muta stacks, ceasing any map control attempts until the counter measures will grow.
edit: wording.
edit: wording.
Actually, I meant to share this link containing info that the strategy is named after a player with the name of SoulKey and not for SK Telecom.
Ironically, I only know of SK Telecom because I watched League of Legends tournaments on Twitch...
This has long been portrayed as the battle between "poor local internet services who pay huge sum to telcos" and "evil international internet services who bombard our poor telcos and pay nothing for it". The main target was video streaming, who makes the most traffic; I believe game streaming simply got caught up by the wide net. In fact the law that mandated the "sender pays" principle was dubbed "anti-Netflix law".
Sidenote: The local telcos have long tried to make their VOD service "Wavve" work. The service is part of SK Telecom, who sued Netflix for traffic payment as they didn't have cache server unlike the other 2 telcos.
Sidenote: The local telcos have long tried to make their VOD service "Wavve" work. The service is part of SK Telecom, who sued Netflix for traffic payment as they didn't have cache server unlike the other 2 telcos.
I wish the U.S. would adopt a pure tit-for-tat policy with respect to trade. [1] Of course, that would fully detonate our trade relations with China.
[1] https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/project...
[1] https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/project...
Because AfreecaTV uses peer-to-peer data model.
Why are Korean network costs so much higher? In the aughts Korea was famous for its internet infrastructure. How do other streaming services survive there?
EDIT: I’m guessing this is related https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-netflix-under-scru...
EDIT: I’m guessing this is related https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-netflix-under-scru...
Korea, pound for pound, has to be one of the most poorly legislated technology states in the world.
Everything is in absolute bizarro land in Korea when it comes to technology. Here are just a few of things I’ve encountered in Korea:
- You have to have a phone number to sign up for any type of account. (Hasn’t discouraged any toxicity either.)
- Foreigners can’t use things like delivery apps because they can’t make accounts due to the phone number thing or they can’t use their international credit cards.
- Most people own windows PCs because in order to do any banking in Korea you have to install software that is tantamount to the bank’s spyware on your computer.
- All mobile phones have non-mutable shutter sounds.
- Location services like find my iPhone are banned.
- cellular data usage costs an arm and a leg, making free WiFi a necessity at any business
- The quality of FaceTime calls is extremely throttled. For the longest time FaceTime just didn’t even work. KakaoTalk video calls never had that problem.
- contactless pay via Apple Pay was only introduced this past year
You’d think Korea would be bleeding edge when it comes to technology it’s far from a technocracy, It’s just a stumbling, bumbling, corrupt state that can only get out of its own way to clear space for the large conglomerates.
I feel so sad for the Korean people. What should be a thriving, entrepreneurship-driven economy is the exact opposite - an oppressive, corporatist hole that sucks up peoples economic dreams and emits zero-sum, despair-driven ambition.
Everything is in absolute bizarro land in Korea when it comes to technology. Here are just a few of things I’ve encountered in Korea:
- You have to have a phone number to sign up for any type of account. (Hasn’t discouraged any toxicity either.)
- Foreigners can’t use things like delivery apps because they can’t make accounts due to the phone number thing or they can’t use their international credit cards.
- Most people own windows PCs because in order to do any banking in Korea you have to install software that is tantamount to the bank’s spyware on your computer.
- All mobile phones have non-mutable shutter sounds.
- Location services like find my iPhone are banned.
- cellular data usage costs an arm and a leg, making free WiFi a necessity at any business
- The quality of FaceTime calls is extremely throttled. For the longest time FaceTime just didn’t even work. KakaoTalk video calls never had that problem.
- contactless pay via Apple Pay was only introduced this past year
You’d think Korea would be bleeding edge when it comes to technology it’s far from a technocracy, It’s just a stumbling, bumbling, corrupt state that can only get out of its own way to clear space for the large conglomerates.
I feel so sad for the Korean people. What should be a thriving, entrepreneurship-driven economy is the exact opposite - an oppressive, corporatist hole that sucks up peoples economic dreams and emits zero-sum, despair-driven ambition.
> - You have to have a phone number to sign up for any type of account. (Hasn’t discouraged any toxicity either.)
While unfortunate, this is not required by the law. It is just that many Korean services abuse phone numbers to control users. A cultural problem, not a legislative one.
> - Most people own windows PCs because in order to do any banking in Korea you have to install software that is tantamount to the bank’s spyware on your computer.
Things have changed, and most banks support macOS too. Personally I don't mind them supporting anything, because smartphone bank apps work and it is more convenient than those of PC's.
> - All mobile phones have non-mutable shutter sounds.
It is not a legislation, but a voluntary restriction imposed by mobile carriers. I also hate it, but there's huge concerns among South Koreans regarding hidden cameras, and although I think those concerns are excessive and even paranoid, before the Korean people change their mind, the voluntary restriction won't go away.
> - Location services like find my iPhone are banned.
Only Apple's does not work. Samsung's and even Google's work.
> - cellular data usage costs an arm and a leg, making free WiFi a necessity at any business
I use an unlimited plan for 30 bucks a month in South Korea. I have no idea how much the carriers of other countries charge for an unlimited plan, but I don't think the current cost is too much.
> - contactless pay via Apple Pay was only introduced this past year
It was just because Apple and Korean credit card companies couldn't agree upon a fee. If legislation was the reason, why were there many contactlees pay services in South Korea before Apple Pay? Even China's UnionPay had been allowed in South Korea.
I assume you were angry because you could not use Apple's services in South Korea. Blame Apple's predatory strategy rather than South Korea, I guess.
While unfortunate, this is not required by the law. It is just that many Korean services abuse phone numbers to control users. A cultural problem, not a legislative one.
> - Most people own windows PCs because in order to do any banking in Korea you have to install software that is tantamount to the bank’s spyware on your computer.
Things have changed, and most banks support macOS too. Personally I don't mind them supporting anything, because smartphone bank apps work and it is more convenient than those of PC's.
> - All mobile phones have non-mutable shutter sounds.
It is not a legislation, but a voluntary restriction imposed by mobile carriers. I also hate it, but there's huge concerns among South Koreans regarding hidden cameras, and although I think those concerns are excessive and even paranoid, before the Korean people change their mind, the voluntary restriction won't go away.
> - Location services like find my iPhone are banned.
Only Apple's does not work. Samsung's and even Google's work.
> - cellular data usage costs an arm and a leg, making free WiFi a necessity at any business
I use an unlimited plan for 30 bucks a month in South Korea. I have no idea how much the carriers of other countries charge for an unlimited plan, but I don't think the current cost is too much.
> - contactless pay via Apple Pay was only introduced this past year
It was just because Apple and Korean credit card companies couldn't agree upon a fee. If legislation was the reason, why were there many contactlees pay services in South Korea before Apple Pay? Even China's UnionPay had been allowed in South Korea.
I assume you were angry because you could not use Apple's services in South Korea. Blame Apple's predatory strategy rather than South Korea, I guess.
Heck! 30 bucks (dollars?) per month? Here(Italy) I'm paying like 7 Euro
$3 month in India for unlimited 5g 500mbps to 1gbps
All mobile phones have non-mutable shutter sounds.
Location services like find my iPhone are banned.
It’s not entirely clear that the location stuff is related to North Korea. A lot of the heavily restrictive laws are done under the guise of privacy.
It’s funny how the two things you mentioned are related to a particular quagmire of mine which was that my baby son misplaced my phone inside our place in Korea. I had absolutely zero way of finding it. I didn’t want to buy a shutter-compromised phone so I just waited a month to buy a phone in the US.
It’s just absolutely bizarre that, in this modern age, an iPhone briefly going out of sight means losing it forever. (I think he threw the phone away, as he started to enjoy putting things in the trash can.)
It’s funny how the two things you mentioned are related to a particular quagmire of mine which was that my baby son misplaced my phone inside our place in Korea. I had absolutely zero way of finding it. I didn’t want to buy a shutter-compromised phone so I just waited a month to buy a phone in the US.
It’s just absolutely bizarre that, in this modern age, an iPhone briefly going out of sight means losing it forever. (I think he threw the phone away, as he started to enjoy putting things in the trash can.)
Isn’t the location thing that if Apple were to store any location data, it would have to keep a lasting record of said data for the government to access instead of its 24 hour deletion policy?
Yeah, I've read the same, which is that Korea's supposed privacy policies actually decrease privacy and security because they mandate retention policies that, supposedly, Apple et al aren't willing to comply with.
It's like the whole ActiveX debacle. I just don't understand what's in lawmakers' heads.
It's like the whole ActiveX debacle. I just don't understand what's in lawmakers' heads.
Actually that is mandated by Korea Financial Telecommunications & Clearing Institute (consisted of banks).
Looks like it's mandated just to play a ping-pong game of "who is the culprit of this data leak" that usually concludes into user's improper installation of "Security Software".
Looks like it's mandated just to play a ping-pong game of "who is the culprit of this data leak" that usually concludes into user's improper installation of "Security Software".
Can‘t you do it the old-fashioned way and call the phone? If it’s on silent, it might make it harder, but it still makes a buzzing sound since it vibrates.
They don't even enable the 'play a sound' feature and "you are connected to your phone from your watch"?
> Japan has similar legislation that came from men taking up-skirt photos in public places (trains, etc.).
It does not. This is a carrier requirement, not the law. That's why you can evade it so easily.
It does not. This is a carrier requirement, not the law. That's why you can evade it so easily.
> Japan has similar legislation that came from men taking up-skirt photos in public places (trains, etc.).
This seems to be incorrect, it appears to be a network policy from the carriers not binding legislation. More info on it can be found here: https://review.lineageos.org/c/LineageOS/android_frameworks_...
This seems to be incorrect, it appears to be a network policy from the carriers not binding legislation. More info on it can be found here: https://review.lineageos.org/c/LineageOS/android_frameworks_...
It's related to data sovereignty laws, I'd bet. South Korea is very VERY paranoid about the GIS data about the country, to the point that there are laws that basically say "if you get GIS data from Korea you are not allowed to export it in any way." The Korean language OSM page for mapping SK is an interesting place to start: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ko:첫_걸음
It would not surprise me if "Find My iPhone" would have to be completely and totally rebuilt from the ground up in SK and run on SK infrastructure in order for it to not be considered exporting of survey data.
Every map of South Korea must be served from... South Korea up until a certain point. You can see this if you open up Google Maps and zoom in.
There's a special version of OSM that has military bases conveniently ignored for the purpose of in-country usage: https://tiles.osm.kr/
Here, South Korea is only visible as a series of indiscernible land shapes -- North Korea has more detail: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7704632,128.4760504,6.94z?en...
Zoom in one level and if you're on a particularly bad internet connection, South Korea will slowly chug its way into existence: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7701121,128.6819944,7.94z?en...
Bing's view of South Korea is even weirder, since they don't use vector graphics for that part of the world. You can see where the labels will overlap, with English labels being covered by English vector labels: https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=35.883894%7E127.933616&lvl=9.0 ( https://i.postimg.cc/SRnZfgHC/image.png )
At some zoom levels in Bing Maps, you can see they're using a VERY old render, sometimes old enough that destroyed buildings are still visible or routes that no longer exist are still there. It uses American-style highway signs and with a high resolution screen such as a modern 4K panel you can easily see where the bitmap graphics that have been hauled over are falling apart.
It would not surprise me if "Find My iPhone" would have to be completely and totally rebuilt from the ground up in SK and run on SK infrastructure in order for it to not be considered exporting of survey data.
Every map of South Korea must be served from... South Korea up until a certain point. You can see this if you open up Google Maps and zoom in.
There's a special version of OSM that has military bases conveniently ignored for the purpose of in-country usage: https://tiles.osm.kr/
Here, South Korea is only visible as a series of indiscernible land shapes -- North Korea has more detail: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7704632,128.4760504,6.94z?en...
Zoom in one level and if you're on a particularly bad internet connection, South Korea will slowly chug its way into existence: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7701121,128.6819944,7.94z?en...
Bing's view of South Korea is even weirder, since they don't use vector graphics for that part of the world. You can see where the labels will overlap, with English labels being covered by English vector labels: https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=35.883894%7E127.933616&lvl=9.0 ( https://i.postimg.cc/SRnZfgHC/image.png )
At some zoom levels in Bing Maps, you can see they're using a VERY old render, sometimes old enough that destroyed buildings are still visible or routes that no longer exist are still there. It uses American-style highway signs and with a high resolution screen such as a modern 4K panel you can easily see where the bitmap graphics that have been hauled over are falling apart.
Although an overseas Android phone will work on Japanese networks you won’t be able to use Google Pay. In order to use Google Pay you need a phone that has NFC-FeliCa support and only Android phones sold in Japan have it.
I'm in Japan now, and from my experience, that's incorrect. Google pay works just fine everywhere for regular payments. But you won't be able to use your phone to replace anything IC card related (like contactless payment cards for transportation).
iPhones support it anywhere. Newer Google Pixel (at least 5 and 6?) devices would need to be modded to Japanese SKU for it to work. Comes down to manufacturers having to pay Sony for it to be enabled and while FeliCa 4.1 supposed to support provisioning after the fact, they just don't have a system setup like Apple does.
[deleted]
This wikipedia article[0] covers some of the history and ongoing issues with weird Korean technology policies, bizarre indeed.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_compatibility_issues_in_So...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_compatibility_issues_in_So...
> You have to have a phone number to sign up for any type of account. (Hasn’t discouraged any toxicity either.)
Note that this isn't just confirming that you have *a* phone number. They check who actually owns the number by phoning the mobile service provider which is tied to the national ID (which encodes date of birth, sex and before 2020, place of birth registration). Online age verification in South Korea is therefore quite effective, since they check the actual age according to the phone subscription (and in turn national ID) rather than just a "please don't lie" button.
Before this it was even worse; they straight up requested the entire national ID (unchangable except after 2017 under very extreme data-leak circumstances, subjective to review) before it became illegal.
Note that this isn't just confirming that you have *a* phone number. They check who actually owns the number by phoning the mobile service provider which is tied to the national ID (which encodes date of birth, sex and before 2020, place of birth registration). Online age verification in South Korea is therefore quite effective, since they check the actual age according to the phone subscription (and in turn national ID) rather than just a "please don't lie" button.
Before this it was even worse; they straight up requested the entire national ID (unchangable except after 2017 under very extreme data-leak circumstances, subjective to review) before it became illegal.
So... the whole country sounds like a Samsung product.
This is weird how in just 15 years Korea has turned from the most Internet-enabled country and into this backwards state.
That happened to Japan on even earlier timeframe and I wonder if China will follow that path - whether we are seeing the top Internet-enabled China right now (in fact, a few years back before they started cracking down on gaming)
That happened to Japan on even earlier timeframe and I wonder if China will follow that path - whether we are seeing the top Internet-enabled China right now (in fact, a few years back before they started cracking down on gaming)
And known for censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_South_K...
The non-mutable shutter sounds exist for a reason, a good reason at that. It's not an oppressive policy.
Requiring phone numbers to sign up or activate accounts is increasingly common outside Korea as well.
Requiring phone numbers to sign up or activate accounts is increasingly common outside Korea as well.
Sure it exists for a good reason, but the solution may be worse than the problem.
Don't take creepshots of people in public and mandatory shutter sounds will no longer be a thing.
"Oppressive" policies exist because people can't behave. Simple as that.
"Oppressive" policies exist because people can't behave. Simple as that.
I wish it were more oppressive actually, like maybe they could arrest and charge people who take upskirt photos instead of tacitly accepting that it's normal and trying to make it impossible.
What's so bad about shutter sounds? Isn't it just mildly annoying?
> - You have to have a phone number to sign up for any type of account. (Hasn’t discouraged any toxicity either.)
It turns out that this is pretty much the case everywhere these days, doesn't seem to be exclusive to a particular country.
It turns out that this is pretty much the case everywhere these days, doesn't seem to be exclusive to a particular country.
Netflix made a deal with SK Broadband[0] after they were sued[1].
[0]: https://about.netflix.com/en/news/sk-telecom-sk-broadband-an...
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/skorea-broadb...
[0]: https://about.netflix.com/en/news/sk-telecom-sk-broadband-an...
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/skorea-broadb...
1. "Cross-Connect" fees when you connect 2 or more networks into any of your device (paid separately of ISP subscription)
2. Monopoly of "3 ISPs" that protected by law (No newcomers can join)
This all brings up to up-to 100 times expensive internet than Europe in Korea. (not Residential, but for CPs. Residential internet services are cheaper, but if you operate any servers your service will be terminated.) fyi, I kinda estimate the twitch should pay upto 300K USD/mo. (if they got lucky and got "domestic business deal") to just make sure their service up and running
This all brings up to up-to 100 times expensive internet than Europe in Korea. (not Residential, but for CPs. Residential internet services are cheaper, but if you operate any servers your service will be terminated.) fyi, I kinda estimate the twitch should pay upto 300K USD/mo. (if they got lucky and got "domestic business deal") to just make sure their service up and running
What was the argument for assessing the fees? A lot of internet traffic is to them, so they should pay South Korean telecom companies/ISPs because...?
They do. You either pay Transit pricing or have settlement free peering (as in everyone pays his costs and the data exchange is free; as long as certain requirements are met).
Thing is: charging the data center/content provider above global average pricing and also charging the end customer for the same service again.
Thing is: charging the data center/content provider above global average pricing and also charging the end customer for the same service again.
From what I can tell, it's related to network usage fees from ISPs, i.e basically anti-net neutrality. From a year half ago:
From https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220421000740
> YouTube threatens to cut down investments in Korea over ‘network usage fee’ bill
>Proposed revisions will require global content providers to pay network fees to local Internet service providers
> The planned revision to the Telecommunications Business Act -- also known as the ‘network usage fee’ bills -- would require global content providers to sign mandatory contracts with local Internet service providers such as KT and SK Broadband to standardize obligations to pay fees for using their networks
And from: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/skorea-broadb...
> South Korean Internet service provider SK Broadband has sued Netflix (NFLX.O) to pay for costs from increased network traffic and maintenance work because of a surge of viewers to the U.S. firm's content, an SK spokesperson said on Friday.
> The move comes after a Seoul court said Netflix should "reasonably" give something in return to the internet service provider for network usage, and multiple South Korean lawmakers have spoken out against content providers who do not pay for network usage despite generating explosive traffic.
Twitch also deleted recorded VOD content of Twitch Korean streamers last year for what they said was a different regulation:
https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1590532134011564032
From https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220421000740
> YouTube threatens to cut down investments in Korea over ‘network usage fee’ bill
>Proposed revisions will require global content providers to pay network fees to local Internet service providers
> The planned revision to the Telecommunications Business Act -- also known as the ‘network usage fee’ bills -- would require global content providers to sign mandatory contracts with local Internet service providers such as KT and SK Broadband to standardize obligations to pay fees for using their networks
And from: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/skorea-broadb...
> South Korean Internet service provider SK Broadband has sued Netflix (NFLX.O) to pay for costs from increased network traffic and maintenance work because of a surge of viewers to the U.S. firm's content, an SK spokesperson said on Friday.
> The move comes after a Seoul court said Netflix should "reasonably" give something in return to the internet service provider for network usage, and multiple South Korean lawmakers have spoken out against content providers who do not pay for network usage despite generating explosive traffic.
Twitch also deleted recorded VOD content of Twitch Korean streamers last year for what they said was a different regulation:
https://twitter.com/zachbussey/status/1590532134011564032
> The move comes after a Seoul court said Netflix should "reasonably" give something in return to the internet service provider for network usage, and multiple South Korean lawmakers have spoken out against content providers who do not pay for network usage despite generating explosive traffic.
Why not charge the end user? That seems like it would be more fair, easier to implement, and require no regulation. Makes it seem like they have other motives.
Why not charge the end user? That seems like it would be more fair, easier to implement, and require no regulation. Makes it seem like they have other motives.
> Why not charge the end user?
The entire country is a single market, with 3 major cellular carriers and a handful of broadband carriers all competing for the same population. The competition is so cutthroat, they even publish monthly reports of which ISP stole how many customers from whom.
Obviously, no ISP wants to be the first to charge the end user more, or become known as the one that throttles YouTube, and risk losing hundreds of thousands of customers in an instant. Much easier to make the whole thing look like a business disagreement.
Note that it is always SK Broadband that whines the loudest about foreign video streaming platforms. Other ISPs like KT are sitting on bigger undersea cables, so they can afford to absorb much more bandwidth without resorting to reputation-destroying surcharges.
The entire country is a single market, with 3 major cellular carriers and a handful of broadband carriers all competing for the same population. The competition is so cutthroat, they even publish monthly reports of which ISP stole how many customers from whom.
Obviously, no ISP wants to be the first to charge the end user more, or become known as the one that throttles YouTube, and risk losing hundreds of thousands of customers in an instant. Much easier to make the whole thing look like a business disagreement.
Note that it is always SK Broadband that whines the loudest about foreign video streaming platforms. Other ISPs like KT are sitting on bigger undersea cables, so they can afford to absorb much more bandwidth without resorting to reputation-destroying surcharges.
That sounds backwards. If competition were actually cutthroat, no ISP could easily demand payment from Twitch, because then Twitch would just say "Due to the unreasonable demand, Twitch streams will be throttled for SK Telecom users to 360p," and the other ISPs would advertise like hell: "Come to us and enjoy Twitch in its full HD glory!"
The fact that it doesn't happen is a strong indication that the competition is lukewarm, especially considering that Korean antitrust laws are pretty much toothless and companies collude all the time.
The fact that it doesn't happen is a strong indication that the competition is lukewarm, especially considering that Korean antitrust laws are pretty much toothless and companies collude all the time.
That's why SK Broadband (not to be confused with SK Telecom, a much more popular ISP that shares little infrastructure with SK Broadband) goes to the government and whines about evil foreign companies clogging up their pipes. They can't make the first move in the market, unless everyone else is required to do the same.
Korean telcos do collude all the time, but even here, a surcharge for consumers who were previously promised unlimited data is not something they can get away with.
Korean telcos do collude all the time, but even here, a surcharge for consumers who were previously promised unlimited data is not something they can get away with.
If I have to pay more to access one service than another, that's against the idea of net neutrality(making services equitably easy to access).
I don't understand how net neutrality applies in the opposite case though. If the hosting party is paying relative to their usage, how does that have anything to do with my access as an end user?
I don't understand how net neutrality applies in the opposite case though. If the hosting party is paying relative to their usage, how does that have anything to do with my access as an end user?
I'm suggesting that users pay for data by the byte, similar to how users pay for mobile data in most countries. I don't see how that violates nn.
Wow Korea's gaming market is a economy in it's own.
I recently watched the opening ceremony for the finals and it blew me away how much effort went into the production for this event.
Worlds 2023 Finals Opening Ceremony https://youtu.be/AH8A79BrTEY?si=x5K0GcO-lrS89XEl
I recently watched the opening ceremony for the finals and it blew me away how much effort went into the production for this event.
Worlds 2023 Finals Opening Ceremony https://youtu.be/AH8A79BrTEY?si=x5K0GcO-lrS89XEl
That's just how Riot does Worlds now, it's not specific to Korea. I was at last year's Worlds in San Francisco and it looked like it had a similar production value.
Twitch shutting down in Korea will most likely not stop Riot Games to keep hosting the World Championship in Korea.
Also, from what I understand, Twitch is marginal in Korea, since they have their own alternative streaming platforms.
Also, from what I understand, Twitch is marginal in Korea, since they have their own alternative streaming platforms.
> Also, from what I understand, Twitch is marginal in Korea, since they have their own alternative streaming platforms.
This is incorrect, Twitch has been very popular in Korea.
This is incorrect, Twitch has been very popular in Korea.
Do you know what's the audience share of AfreecaTV and Twitch in Korea? I can't find the information.
> 트위치는 지난 2017년 7월 국내 서비스를 시작해 지난해부터는 기존 1위 업체인 아프리카TV를 따라잡는 수준으로 점유율을 높였다. 빅데이터 플랫폼 '모바일 인덱스'에 따르면 올해 1월 기준 트위치의 국내 월간활성이용자(MAU)는 약 246만명으로 아프리카TV(230만명)보다 높은 것으로 나타났다.
Twitch 2.46 million, Afreeca 2.3 million.
Twitch 2.46 million, Afreeca 2.3 million.
after some discussion with my friends I agree this seems to be the case
I'm sorry this is irrelevant to the current discussion, but you replied to one of my comments a couple weeks ago, and I can't reply there, so I'm leaving a response here.
Regarding Sam Altman's Long-con at Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/comment/c...
Click "Single Comment Thread" to get the context of his comment.
Regarding Sam Altman's Long-con at Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/comment/c...
Click "Single Comment Thread" to get the context of his comment.
This was a great outdoor set and stage for the finals of an Overwatch tournament over 5 years ago.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/162821713?t=0h11m0s
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/162821713?t=0h11m0s
Actually found a pretty good source on what the Korean rules are (hint - it is about paid peering).
This is somewhat biased (it's from a Spanish telecom - actually editing this again, the style choice + date formatting makes me think it is from a Korean trade group/telecom but the only source I can find for this is Telefonica. Likely from the Korean telecom industry itself...).
Just haven't really seen a comment linking to anything substantial about the actual plans/rules/etc in Korea.
https://www.telefonica.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/202...
This is somewhat biased (it's from a Spanish telecom - actually editing this again, the style choice + date formatting makes me think it is from a Korean trade group/telecom but the only source I can find for this is Telefonica. Likely from the Korean telecom industry itself...).
Just haven't really seen a comment linking to anything substantial about the actual plans/rules/etc in Korea.
https://www.telefonica.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/202...
The accompanying blog post makes it clear that this is from the Korean Telecommunications Operators Association, and has the explicit goal of "debunking" "myths" (read: inconvenient truths) about Korean telcos.
https://www.telefonica.com/en/communication-room/blog/myths-...
Here's the Internet Society brief they appear to be responding to:
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/05/old-rules-in-ne... (summary)
https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2022/internet-... (full doc)
https://www.telefonica.com/en/communication-room/blog/myths-...
Here's the Internet Society brief they appear to be responding to:
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/05/old-rules-in-ne... (summary)
https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2022/internet-... (full doc)
A corrupt Spanish organization, trying to support a corrupt Korean organization, only brings more credence to the argument that SPNP was a bad idea.
Telefonica's blog is amazing. They come out and say the outrageous things giant telecoms believe: that internet service should be 1) people pay them and then they get to connect to 2) the select group of websites and services that also pay telefonica.
There's a very good reason that the U.S. net neutrality orders banned these kinds of fees starting in 2010, and again in 2015. California's net neutrality law also bans access fees
There's a very good reason that the U.S. net neutrality orders banned these kinds of fees starting in 2010, and again in 2015. California's net neutrality law also bans access fees
Every time the topic of net neutrality comes up here, the anti-NN crowd says “all the pro-NN points are just scaremongering, there’s no evidence that any of that bad stuff about ISP favoritism would actually happen”. Well, here’s the evidence. Korea doesn’t have NN, and now Twitch is pulling out (and YouTube is halting investment, according to one sibling comment) because the ISPs gouged it to death.
Net neutrality should be mandatory and non-negotiable.
Net neutrality should be mandatory and non-negotiable.
Twitch is pulling because transit is ridiculously expensive. What good would net neutrality be for Twitch if they could not afford transit.
It's not transit. Transit is about taking your data across a network to some other network or networks. These are access fees aka termination fees demanded to deliver data to a networks own customers on net.
Net neutrality bans access fees as a kind of blocking and throttling.
Twitch's servers almost certainly directly connected with the three largest ISPs in Korea. And Korea has a regulation that requires them to pay those networks and it looks like the fees that were demanded were way too high. And that's what you get in an economic system where monopolists (ISPs have a terminating monopoly over there) are allowed to set prices.
Net neutrality bans access fees as a kind of blocking and throttling.
Twitch's servers almost certainly directly connected with the three largest ISPs in Korea. And Korea has a regulation that requires them to pay those networks and it looks like the fees that were demanded were way too high. And that's what you get in an economic system where monopolists (ISPs have a terminating monopoly over there) are allowed to set prices.
>It's not transit
Transit costs 10x what it costs elsewhere. You can't just neglect a 10x price increase when the cost sending video to users in the bulk of the expense of offering twitch in korea
Transit costs 10x what it costs elsewhere. You can't just neglect a 10x price increase when the cost sending video to users in the bulk of the expense of offering twitch in korea
Because transit is expensive due to peering fees that Korean ISPs charge? Net Neutrality rules in 2015 did govern peering (but not nearly as much as other aspects of the internet).
How does this have anything to do with net neutrality?
From what I can see, twitch is a business that benefits from the fact that most internet companies don't actually have to pay for internet connection services relative to their usage.
They're mad that forcing them to pay relative to their usage breaks their business model that relies on being subsidised by other internet usage and users, how does that have anything to do with net neutrality?
If anything wouldn't it be more in line with net neutrality to require that servicss that use more of the internet infrastructure pay for it instead of being subsidised by users of other services/sites?
From what I can see, twitch is a business that benefits from the fact that most internet companies don't actually have to pay for internet connection services relative to their usage.
They're mad that forcing them to pay relative to their usage breaks their business model that relies on being subsidised by other internet usage and users, how does that have anything to do with net neutrality?
If anything wouldn't it be more in line with net neutrality to require that servicss that use more of the internet infrastructure pay for it instead of being subsidised by users of other services/sites?
Someone in Korea who wants the data twitch has, and pays their ISP for access to (among other things, twitch), can no longer access the data twitch has.
If the ISP is acting in the interests of its customers, it would make it as cheap as possible for twitch to send the data that its customers want.
If a business you are dealing with makes money some way other than by charging you for the service they provide, you're not their customer, you're their product.
If the ISP is acting in the interests of its customers, it would make it as cheap as possible for twitch to send the data that its customers want.
If a business you are dealing with makes money some way other than by charging you for the service they provide, you're not their customer, you're their product.
Here's some context: when Amazon bought Twitch, it basically took that IP and created Amzon Interaction Video Services ("IVS") [1] as a live streaming solution within AWS. IVS is also the basis for Kick.
Amazon and Twitch frequently talk about how Twitch is unprofitable and use it as an excuse to increase ad density. lower creator rev share, etc. Thing is, their unfprfitability is largely an accounting trick. Let's asy the compute cost for a stream is $50 and the ad revenue is $80 but there are two points in between: IVS and Twitch. Amazon could charge $50 for IVS and Twitch is super-profitable. Amazon could charge $90 for IVS and Twitch is losing money even though IVS is hugely profitable.
The reason I bring this up is that I'm skeptical about Amazon's claims of Twitch in Korea being unprofitable just like I'm skeptical of all of Amazon's statements regarding Twtich profitability. South Korea is a developed nation with robust netowrk infrastructure. I doubt egress bandwidth from South Korea is particularly expensive. If it is, Amazon is a large enough company to solve that with their own backhaul. AWS has a region in South Korea so encoding shouldn't be an issue.
In the last 2-3 years we've had a slew of reports from the likes of CVS and Walmart blaming theft on unprofitability in closing stores. This was and is a lie. It's used to mask rising costs, poor inventory management and bad execution.
So when I see an announcement like this I really have to ask "what failure is Amazon/Twitch really hiding?" because I'm convinced there is one.
[1]: https://aws.amazon.com/ivs/
Amazon and Twitch frequently talk about how Twitch is unprofitable and use it as an excuse to increase ad density. lower creator rev share, etc. Thing is, their unfprfitability is largely an accounting trick. Let's asy the compute cost for a stream is $50 and the ad revenue is $80 but there are two points in between: IVS and Twitch. Amazon could charge $50 for IVS and Twitch is super-profitable. Amazon could charge $90 for IVS and Twitch is losing money even though IVS is hugely profitable.
The reason I bring this up is that I'm skeptical about Amazon's claims of Twitch in Korea being unprofitable just like I'm skeptical of all of Amazon's statements regarding Twtich profitability. South Korea is a developed nation with robust netowrk infrastructure. I doubt egress bandwidth from South Korea is particularly expensive. If it is, Amazon is a large enough company to solve that with their own backhaul. AWS has a region in South Korea so encoding shouldn't be an issue.
In the last 2-3 years we've had a slew of reports from the likes of CVS and Walmart blaming theft on unprofitability in closing stores. This was and is a lie. It's used to mask rising costs, poor inventory management and bad execution.
So when I see an announcement like this I really have to ask "what failure is Amazon/Twitch really hiding?" because I'm convinced there is one.
[1]: https://aws.amazon.com/ivs/
It's not the actual cost. It's the Korean regulatory requirement that sending networks pay. That's why Cloudflare moved most CDN content out of S. Korea to Japan, and why Facebook did the same, and why Netflix sued SK Broadband.
The demanded fees are outrageous.
The demanded fees are outrageous.
Why are they outrageous? I've yet to see a reason that Netflix/twitch/etc. having to pay for the infrastructure they profit massively from is a bad thing.
If they have to pay a larger share, it means that services that don't use as much can be charged a much more reasonable rate.
If they have to pay a larger share, it means that services that don't use as much can be charged a much more reasonable rate.
> Why are they outrageous?
Because the price is a very large multiple of market prices.
The Korean ISPs are using their termination monopoly to rent seek.
> I've yet to see a reason that Netflix/twitch/etc. having to pay for the infrastructure they profit massively from is a bad thing.
Netflix/twitch/etc. already pay for their global infrastructure to bring services to Korea.
Korean ISPs are already paid by their users for the Korean infrastructure. It is totally unreasonable for Korean ISPs to be double dipping for something they have already paid for.
It is not Netflix/twitch/etc that are originating the traffic, but Korean end users REQUESTING the traffic. The Korean end users paid for Internet access, the Korean ISPs should deliver.
To reiterate, the Internet is not a PUSH medium. The Internet is a PULL medium.
In the good all days, all content was hosted in the US. Is that what the Korean ISPs want to go back to? Are they itching for doing all that investment into billion dollar subsea cable systems?
> If they have to pay a larger share, it means that services that don't use as much can be charged a much more reasonable rate
How about no?
Market prices for bandwidth are a fraction of a penny per gigabyte.
A fraction of a penny isn’t a problem, but Korean ISPs price gouging is.
Because the price is a very large multiple of market prices.
The Korean ISPs are using their termination monopoly to rent seek.
> I've yet to see a reason that Netflix/twitch/etc. having to pay for the infrastructure they profit massively from is a bad thing.
Netflix/twitch/etc. already pay for their global infrastructure to bring services to Korea.
Korean ISPs are already paid by their users for the Korean infrastructure. It is totally unreasonable for Korean ISPs to be double dipping for something they have already paid for.
It is not Netflix/twitch/etc that are originating the traffic, but Korean end users REQUESTING the traffic. The Korean end users paid for Internet access, the Korean ISPs should deliver.
To reiterate, the Internet is not a PUSH medium. The Internet is a PULL medium.
In the good all days, all content was hosted in the US. Is that what the Korean ISPs want to go back to? Are they itching for doing all that investment into billion dollar subsea cable systems?
> If they have to pay a larger share, it means that services that don't use as much can be charged a much more reasonable rate
How about no?
Market prices for bandwidth are a fraction of a penny per gigabyte.
A fraction of a penny isn’t a problem, but Korean ISPs price gouging is.
If Twitch profited massively why would they leave?
10x for data seems insane. Wondering if anyone has more context on what these costs are, and why they're so high.
Thanks. It doesn't immediately seem like charging the person sending traffic is a bad idea, as theoritically the costs should come out the same, so this seems like it's primarily an issue with regulatory capture. The article also mentions that Korea hasn't been investing in their infrastructure, but I find it hard to believe they're really that far behind every other country. Really sad that it seems like Korean users will be cut off from major platforms.
Sending Party Network Pays in telecom world is awful. The telecom you pay has a monopoly over accessing you, so they can charge whatever they want to terminate calls/data.
Ask your parents or grandparents how expensive long distance or international calls used to be (and still are for landlines). It was dollars per minute, wholly untethered from actual costs.
That's what South Korea is doing here and it's a terrible idea
Ask your parents or grandparents how expensive long distance or international calls used to be (and still are for landlines). It was dollars per minute, wholly untethered from actual costs.
That's what South Korea is doing here and it's a terrible idea
Isn't what you describe exactly how all ISPs work.
Look how cheap service can be in countries where it's cheap, then look at the USA/Canada. Neither of them have sender party networks pays yet they both increase network connection costs way beyond what's necessary since they have regional monopolies.
Basically why does a sender party network pays system lend itself to a monopoly, while rogers supporting entire businesses in Canada who have no alternative is not?
Look how cheap service can be in countries where it's cheap, then look at the USA/Canada. Neither of them have sender party networks pays yet they both increase network connection costs way beyond what's necessary since they have regional monopolies.
Basically why does a sender party network pays system lend itself to a monopoly, while rogers supporting entire businesses in Canada who have no alternative is not?
>The telecom you pay has a monopoly over accessing you
They don't. I have many broadband options.
They don't. I have many broadband options.
You have only one broadband company active at a time, the website you visit doesn't have a choice but to pay that company so it doesn't have any option to haggle for it. I hope you see how this creates perverse incentives.
> Really sad that it seems like Korean users will be cut off from major platforms.
This will always be an issue with SPNP. Anybody who doesn't want to pay is basically removed from the internet for customers of the ISP.
It gets even worse when ISPs own competitors to the senders service. Comcast owns Peacock; think about what relative subscription prices would be if they could charge Netflix for access to your connection, but Peacock gets it for free (even if they are required to pay, they are paying it to themselves).
This will always be an issue with SPNP. Anybody who doesn't want to pay is basically removed from the internet for customers of the ISP.
It gets even worse when ISPs own competitors to the senders service. Comcast owns Peacock; think about what relative subscription prices would be if they could charge Netflix for access to your connection, but Peacock gets it for free (even if they are required to pay, they are paying it to themselves).
You don't believe it's a sign of a failed market when an ISP charges both their customers and companies like Twitch for the same data transfer?
I don't deny that this is double dipping, but our intuitions about double dipping might not be universal.
For example, in America, it is taken for granted that you pay for both incoming and outgoing calls. Koreans, on the other hand, would find it preposterous. Why should the callee pay, when the caller is already paying for those minutes? It's the same situation, but reversed.
For example, in America, it is taken for granted that you pay for both incoming and outgoing calls. Koreans, on the other hand, would find it preposterous. Why should the callee pay, when the caller is already paying for those minutes? It's the same situation, but reversed.
Do you imagine people approve of having to pay for incoming spam calls? The idea is near-universally disliked, excepting telephone companies and politicians.
[deleted]
South Korean ISPs may have market failures, but it seems like in this case they wouldn't be able to do this without the regulation. This is all guessing based on context, but it seems like they don't want to play the risky game of blocking traffic, so companies could just ignore any bill they get sent. By having this regulation they can send a bill and have the courts enforce it if the company wants to do business in South Korea.
No not really. It cost something to host the pipe to customer, customer should bear this cost. And then it also cost something to allow access and utilization of ISP network. Reasonably this should be paid by whoever sends the data. If the sender owns a network they could negotiate peering contract where data send to each other is offset and then after some period either one pays to either.
Would be entirely logical and sensible model.
Would be entirely logical and sensible model.
Who pays to ship a physical package? Sender, receiver, or both?
Sender, and receiver pays them to pay that. So in this scenario the users of Twitch should pay for the sender to be able to send data. I see no reason why Twitch would not be charging for using their service in this scenario. And then viewer can pay for it.
The next logical step: customer gets free ISP.
The complaint is that ISPs are charging both sides. Hence the pro "net neutrality" position.
(Aside: "Net neutrality" is a terrible phrase. Obscures rather than illuminates the policy debate.)
The complaint is that ISPs are charging both sides. Hence the pro "net neutrality" position.
(Aside: "Net neutrality" is a terrible phrase. Obscures rather than illuminates the policy debate.)
I think charging sending party for data is not unreasonable model. In balanced network you could offset it with received data. And thus bill on whatever side send more. Would be entirely reasonable design.
The comment about helping migrate streamers and their communities to another platform stood out to me in the OP. But presumably Korean streamers and viewers came to Twitch because they offer a superior service or reach or ad rate.
Do the Big 3 telecom providers have a at least somewhat comparable service to Twitch or is this more or less the end of some of these channels and communities people have spent a ton of effort to build?
Do the Big 3 telecom providers have a at least somewhat comparable service to Twitch or is this more or less the end of some of these channels and communities people have spent a ton of effort to build?
No. They did try with OTT services with some success, but no comparable live streaming services exist AFAIK. Rather conveniently though, Naver, the biggest portal service in Korea, announced a game streaming service set to be released in 2024. I guess Naver did know something about a windup of Twitch in Korea months ago?
Is afreeca not a korean twitch?
Afreeca is not associated with telcos.
Afreeca has an interesting controversy section on their Wiki[1] detailing various social problems.
It has a somewhat ominous last line about South Korean attitudes towards personal broadcasting platforms from here[2]. Apparently South Korea is also one of the few countries where Pornography is illegal. But I saw conflicting accounts of who supports that politically and if it's really just a barrier for non-VPN traffic.
Knowing the age demographic that Twitch can attract, and that Twitch has very popular Pools, Hot Tubs, and Beaches[3] and Just Chatting[4] sections.
I'd be curious if that perspective has an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfreecaTV#Controversy
[2]https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/media/835746.html
[3]https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/pools-hot-tubs-and-...
[4]https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/just-chatting
It has a somewhat ominous last line about South Korean attitudes towards personal broadcasting platforms from here[2]. Apparently South Korea is also one of the few countries where Pornography is illegal. But I saw conflicting accounts of who supports that politically and if it's really just a barrier for non-VPN traffic.
Knowing the age demographic that Twitch can attract, and that Twitch has very popular Pools, Hot Tubs, and Beaches[3] and Just Chatting[4] sections.
I'd be curious if that perspective has an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfreecaTV#Controversy
[2]https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/media/835746.html
[3]https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/pools-hot-tubs-and-...
[4]https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/just-chatting
> Apparently South Korea is also one of the few countries where Pornography is illegal.
Which is incorrect, though it is commonly framed by majority male-dominated communities. Korean law distinguishes pornography 성인물 from obscene material 음란물 and only legalizes pornography, and it's true that the line between them is quite blur, but most pornographic works are not considered obscene and can be legally imported if there is a demand.
The actual reason for these kind of complaints is that, most non-obscene pornographic works are already available and only considered illegal because of the copyright violation. People want a free porn, easy ways have been blocked for the obvious reason, and they say something about the freedom of expression but still don't want to pay for them. This absurd argument makes actual changes much harder.
> I'd be curious your thoughts if that plays an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones.
I doubt Afreeca will be able to capture most streamers in exile. In fact it's clear to me that most will just go to YouTube, because when Twitch gave up with clips and stream archives, many if not most streamers moved them to YouTube instead. Naver's new service may find some niche but it's unlikely to match YouTube's existing offers.
Which is incorrect, though it is commonly framed by majority male-dominated communities. Korean law distinguishes pornography 성인물 from obscene material 음란물 and only legalizes pornography, and it's true that the line between them is quite blur, but most pornographic works are not considered obscene and can be legally imported if there is a demand.
The actual reason for these kind of complaints is that, most non-obscene pornographic works are already available and only considered illegal because of the copyright violation. People want a free porn, easy ways have been blocked for the obvious reason, and they say something about the freedom of expression but still don't want to pay for them. This absurd argument makes actual changes much harder.
> I'd be curious your thoughts if that plays an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones.
I doubt Afreeca will be able to capture most streamers in exile. In fact it's clear to me that most will just go to YouTube, because when Twitch gave up with clips and stream archives, many if not most streamers moved them to YouTube instead. Naver's new service may find some niche but it's unlikely to match YouTube's existing offers.
I think there are two modes of pornography control, either implemented as control for fractions of exposure or for conformity to a normalcy. Sinosphere default is mode 1 no-butt-naked, but SK with stronger Western influence has cohorts that supports the other mode, is how it shows to my eyes.
> Knowing the age demographic that Twitch can attract, and that Twitch has very popular Pools, Hot Tubs, and Beaches[3] and Just Chatting[4] sections.
Korean opinion would be almost the opposite of banning this. Right-wing Koreans hate feminism and love naked anime girls; imagine if online porn addict gamers were an actual political force and had terrorist groups. If a mobile game company adds a woman and her outfit isn't sexy enough or she's making hand signs that might possibly be feminism they'll invade their offices, demand the artist is fired, and it'll actually happen.
This happened /twice/ this year.
Korean opinion would be almost the opposite of banning this. Right-wing Koreans hate feminism and love naked anime girls; imagine if online porn addict gamers were an actual political force and had terrorist groups. If a mobile game company adds a woman and her outfit isn't sexy enough or she's making hand signs that might possibly be feminism they'll invade their offices, demand the artist is fired, and it'll actually happen.
This happened /twice/ this year.
One of the Korean alternatives to Twitch is AfeeecaTV, and it's already used by a lot of prominent players.
I think AfreecaTV avoids fees by being P2P.
I'm sure the service is still liable for traffic generated so if you are P2P and don't pay up to mandated monopolies you'll be blocked. Per the article, Twitch tried being P2P but it's still expensive.
ISPs have termination monopolies. They can charge what they like to reach their because there is literally no other path to them.
Termination fees lead to high prices and weird arbitrage games. The long distance phone system works this way, which is why it's still like $5 a minute to call India from the US, and "free conference call" systems set up in rural areas to juice incoming call revenue.
Termination fees lead to high prices and weird arbitrage games. The long distance phone system works this way, which is why it's still like $5 a minute to call India from the US, and "free conference call" systems set up in rural areas to juice incoming call revenue.
I wonder why Korea costs so much more for Twitch to run their service. Really interesting that they even experimented with peer-to-peer to solve it. Would like to see a write-up of why that didn't work. Honestly not even sure how that would have worked in the first place with live streaming. I guess you just inherently accept a lot more latency in trying to save money?
Basically, ISPs in Korea charge services extra fees based on the amount of traffic they generate.
The Korean government / ISPs justification for (effectively) removing net neutrality is that services such as Netflix/Twitch put an undue strain on the internet infrastructure that shouldn’t be borne by every user.
Of course while Netflix can raise prices to cover those fees, Twitch is free, so it can’t do the same.
I can see both sides of the argument here, but it is strange to me that the cost does not fall on consumers instead of the producers—the U.S. has had bandwidth caps for users for a several years.
The Korean government / ISPs justification for (effectively) removing net neutrality is that services such as Netflix/Twitch put an undue strain on the internet infrastructure that shouldn’t be borne by every user.
Of course while Netflix can raise prices to cover those fees, Twitch is free, so it can’t do the same.
I can see both sides of the argument here, but it is strange to me that the cost does not fall on consumers instead of the producers—the U.S. has had bandwidth caps for users for a several years.
There aren’t two sides to the argument… The ISP’s customer is paying to access that data, adding another fee to the originator of the data is double dipping, plain and simple.
I think it’s telling that generally the only network providers who can charge these fees are the ones with outsized market power - for example the largest ISPs in my country, such as Telstra and Optus don’t do any settlement free peering and charge everyone for transit to get bytes into their network. But the smaller ISP I’m on peers with Netflix and AWS and Microsoft and literally anyone who connects in to internet exchanges around the country, and funnily enough, even without charging content providers extra fees for data I’ve already paid for, my connection has better general performance, I pay a competitive fee compared to the other ISPs, and their network isn’t swamped by all the data…
I think it’s telling that generally the only network providers who can charge these fees are the ones with outsized market power - for example the largest ISPs in my country, such as Telstra and Optus don’t do any settlement free peering and charge everyone for transit to get bytes into their network. But the smaller ISP I’m on peers with Netflix and AWS and Microsoft and literally anyone who connects in to internet exchanges around the country, and funnily enough, even without charging content providers extra fees for data I’ve already paid for, my connection has better general performance, I pay a competitive fee compared to the other ISPs, and their network isn’t swamped by all the data…
> The Korean government / ISPs justification for (effectively) removing net neutrality is that services such as Netflix/Twitch put an undue strain on the internet infrastructure that shouldn’t be borne by every user.
Netflix/Twitch don't put any "strain on the internet infrastructure" since they don't just gratuitously blast terabytes of UDP traffic to Korean IP addresses or something. The _users_ who paid of _internet access_ are using their connection to... access the Internet! And most popular internet services are obviously consuming significant amount of traffic. The ISPs can introduce bandwidth usage limits or try to actively throttle the connections to particular services, but they just prefer to double dip and milk the businesses instead. Strange that I have to explain such things on HN of all places...
Netflix/Twitch don't put any "strain on the internet infrastructure" since they don't just gratuitously blast terabytes of UDP traffic to Korean IP addresses or something. The _users_ who paid of _internet access_ are using their connection to... access the Internet! And most popular internet services are obviously consuming significant amount of traffic. The ISPs can introduce bandwidth usage limits or try to actively throttle the connections to particular services, but they just prefer to double dip and milk the businesses instead. Strange that I have to explain such things on HN of all places...
I find it odd that twitch would rather shut down their service than simply stop offering a free tier. They already have an ad-free service called Twitch Turbo, surely enforcing usage in Korea wouldn't be prohibitively difficult.
This makes me think that they are trying to spark outrage.
I think that would decimate their user numbers, which is a bad deal for the streamers too since they make money on sponsorships/ads and based on audience size. Hard to grow an audience when folks have to pay for the service. No idea how much of an average size streamer's income is based on donations on stream compared to brand deals. I wouldn't expect the average user to both pay for a sub to twitch, and also donate to the streamers.
I won't pretend to know what Twitch knows, but watching for free is definitely integral to how Twitch acquires users.
I won't pretend to know what Twitch knows, but watching for free is definitely integral to how Twitch acquires users.
Doesn’t shutting off the service decimate their numbers more?
That's not obvious. If the pay-to-watch version of Twitch isn't viable, it will have no streamers and no users, but it will cost more than the we-no-longer-exist version.
A fixed price tier cannot cover the full cost of that user's variable stream usage.
Twitch is unable to charge per hr streamed - nobody would accept that pricing, esp. if it was originally free.
Removing twitch from korea is the best move, since koreans are the ones losing out - which hopefully as a democracy, they elect someone to change this sort of lobbying from the ISP industry.
Twitch is unable to charge per hr streamed - nobody would accept that pricing, esp. if it was originally free.
Removing twitch from korea is the best move, since koreans are the ones losing out - which hopefully as a democracy, they elect someone to change this sort of lobbying from the ISP industry.
It might work short-term, but without a free tier, can they get enough new customers to replace subscriber loss over time? Otherwise they'll just slowly bleed subscribers until it's no longer profitable to run transit to and CDNs in Korea.
Twitch's market share in Korea is very small. Domestic streaming services like Afreeca are the dominant player. If I had to guess, Twitch doesn't have enough users in Korea for a paywalled system to turn things profitable.
According to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167#38539479 Twitch is the most popular streaming service in Korea, just slightly ahead of Afreeca.
Twitch is free, so it can’t do the same.
[deleted]
I'm going purely off memory, but I recall vaguely that in Korea there are charges for the "push" side of network use, as well as the "pull" side. I can't recall if this is a government thing, or an ISP thing, or a confluence of both working together. I seem to recall Netflix becoming frustrated about this at some point.
Maybe someone can find more info, since I'm replying on a device that makes actually looking this up a little tricky.
Maybe someone can find more info, since I'm replying on a device that makes actually looking this up a little tricky.
In Korea, broadband consumers only pay for the size of the pipe (100Mbps, 500Mbps, 1Gbps, etc.) and not for transfer. It's been like this for the last 20+ years. Even mobile carriers have "unlimited" plans. Short of outright collusion, nobody would dare comes up with a different pricing structure. Everyone would flock to a competitor! Moreover, the population is shrinking. The ISPs have little hope of increasing revenue from the "pull" side, which probably explains why they keep trying to pile charges upon the "push" side.
It's common for consumer internet in many countries. What's different in Korea, dominance?
Market dominance is probably the reason.
Canada had crown ISPs that offered unlimited data plans, so telcos has to do the same to compete and the idea of a fixed cap internet plan is rodiculous.
When mobile data became popular there were no crown telcos anymore(other than SaskTel) so the prices started ridiculously high and were never brought down(other than in Saskatchewan)
Canada had crown ISPs that offered unlimited data plans, so telcos has to do the same to compete and the idea of a fixed cap internet plan is rodiculous.
When mobile data became popular there were no crown telcos anymore(other than SaskTel) so the prices started ridiculously high and were never brought down(other than in Saskatchewan)
> the idea of a fixed cap internet plan is rodiculous.
Why? As far as I understand in Canada there are genuine costs incurred per extra bit of data transferred.
Legal liability costs, peak congestion costs, etc...
It may be a very very tiny amount per bit, but when multiplied hundreds of billions of times, they become noticeable costs.
Why? As far as I understand in Canada there are genuine costs incurred per extra bit of data transferred.
Legal liability costs, peak congestion costs, etc...
It may be a very very tiny amount per bit, but when multiplied hundreds of billions of times, they become noticeable costs.
It's interesting that they're using the Twitch name rather than Amazon to announce this. The Twitch ASN (which, incidentally, is present at 3 Seoul IXPs) was renamed to "Amazon IVS" post-acquisition. https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/46489
The streamers and viewers that will be affected by this are Twitch users, not Amazon users, so of course it makes sense that this is Twitch announcing it to their userbase and not Amazon.
Customers of the Amazon AWS service AWS IVS will not be affected.
Customers of Twitch will be affected.
Customers of Twitch will be affected.
I'm curious about the operating costs. It seems like Twitch should be losing money, as YouTube does, but because Google/Amazon are gaining other non-monetary benefits that eventually become profits in other services, they keep them alive.
In order to help this they make all kinds of deals with governments. What I am getting at is without more information, I can't really tell if this is a good or bad thing. Companies that aren't profitable and use government to stay afloat should go out of business.
In order to help this they make all kinds of deals with governments. What I am getting at is without more information, I can't really tell if this is a good or bad thing. Companies that aren't profitable and use government to stay afloat should go out of business.
i'm going to guess that this is korean protectionism at work under the guise of valid regulation. look at the Apple location services, google maps, uber/lyft, etc. basically any industry that could have a "home grown" version gets some preferential treatment through some bs law or national security. for better or worse, chaebols own korea.
What about good old switcheroo logic where telecom needs to pay to be able to offer netflix and twitch to its users?
[deleted]
I blame Twitch's laziness. There is a competitor of Twitch in South Korea, namely AfreecaTV, and it is highly profitable. Why is AfreecaTV sustainable whereas Twitch is not? Because Twitch hasn't altered its business model while operating in the Korean market. The same network cost applies to both AfreecaTV and Twitch, so there can't be a fundamental restriction keeping Twitch from being profitable in South Korea.
One thing that makes AfreecaTV profitable is that it charges a fee for every donation happening in the platform. Twitch does not. AfreecaTV also uses a P2P network to reduce network cost. These policies may make the users and the streamers a bit annoyed, but it is still infinitely better than abandoning the service.
One thing that makes AfreecaTV profitable is that it charges a fee for every donation happening in the platform. Twitch does not. AfreecaTV also uses a P2P network to reduce network cost. These policies may make the users and the streamers a bit annoyed, but it is still infinitely better than abandoning the service.
Twitch being unprofitable is a smokescreen. After acquiring Twitch, Amazon gutted it of its infrastructure IP and transferred it to a subsidiary of AWS. Amazon can now decide how much they want to charge Twitch as an entity for the AWS services they now need, that’s where the unprofitability comes from.
Interestingly enough, they still run in Russia, where the market was probably the fraction of that of Korea, and now they neither run any ads nor have a painless paid subscription process.
The timeline is a bit confusing to me, since it only talks about disabling monetization for Korean users. Will they eventually be blocked from the service entirely?
I imagine Twitch will stop operating Korean CDNs. It wouldn't make much sense to geo-block all Korean IP addresses, but with minimum service I expect Korean viewers to drop off pretty quickly. If the networks are as badly configured as the internet articles claim they are, foreign internet uplinks wouldn't be able to sustain decent quality video streams for very long.
VPNs and such will always allow Koreans to watch Twitch content, but by taking money or paying out revenue, Twitch as a company would create certain expectations of service. Now, with no special effort put into Korean service, I expect Twitch to become essentially useless. Perhaps the Korean localisation team will slowly let more and more untranslated English strings slip into the UI, though they may decide to keep the Korean translations for the benefit Korean minorities outside of Korea.
VPNs and such will always allow Koreans to watch Twitch content, but by taking money or paying out revenue, Twitch as a company would create certain expectations of service. Now, with no special effort put into Korean service, I expect Twitch to become essentially useless. Perhaps the Korean localisation team will slowly let more and more untranslated English strings slip into the UI, though they may decide to keep the Korean translations for the benefit Korean minorities outside of Korea.
[deleted]
Service providers like anywhere, net neutrality be damned, run Deep Packet Inspection boxes that have no other purpose in life but to negotiate down your connections for whatever you do the ISP finds egregious.
For video, they generally reduce the video quality throughput, eventually reducing bitrate, causing buffering, and generally making your experience miserable unless Twitch, Youtube, etc pay the providers NOT to on behalf of their users. Cellcos particularly do this a lot to reduce quality so people aren't trying to watch 4k streams on a phone just because they can, it'll negotiate them down to what they feel is an acceptable like 480p, usually with some clause hidden in the fine print of your contract about acceptable use.
South Korea simply legitimized all their ISP's doing so, as much as Ajit Pai did repealing net neutrality for American ISP's as their puppet under Trump.
For video, they generally reduce the video quality throughput, eventually reducing bitrate, causing buffering, and generally making your experience miserable unless Twitch, Youtube, etc pay the providers NOT to on behalf of their users. Cellcos particularly do this a lot to reduce quality so people aren't trying to watch 4k streams on a phone just because they can, it'll negotiate them down to what they feel is an acceptable like 480p, usually with some clause hidden in the fine print of your contract about acceptable use.
South Korea simply legitimized all their ISP's doing so, as much as Ajit Pai did repealing net neutrality for American ISP's as their puppet under Trump.
> Service providers like anywhere, net neutrality be damned, run Deep Packet Inspection boxes that have no other purpose in life but to negotiate down your connections for whatever you do the ISP finds egregious.
Yeah, no.
Even Comcast stopped using DPI.
DPI is a scourge imposed mainly by US cell carriers on their customers. Wireline ISPs don’t need it.
Countries with working regulatory bodies do not have issues with DPI.
Instead, monopoly ISPs will run their peering links hot and force any content providers to buy paid peering directly.
Yeah, no.
Even Comcast stopped using DPI.
DPI is a scourge imposed mainly by US cell carriers on their customers. Wireline ISPs don’t need it.
Countries with working regulatory bodies do not have issues with DPI.
Instead, monopoly ISPs will run their peering links hot and force any content providers to buy paid peering directly.
The big Internet companies should probably all pull out of South Korea to send a message to the rest of the world about the outcomes of net neutrality.
>>> our network fees in Korea are still 10 times more expensive than in most other countries
What exactly are "network fees" in this context?
What exactly are "network fees" in this context?
Basically, if a Korean subscriber to a broadband network requests data from your app and you send it, you have to pay that person's ISP.
It's a terrible economic model that punishes peering. Cloudflare and Facebook moved most of their servers overseas to Japan. It's been a long running sh*t show, with lots of lawsuits between Netflix and S. Korea's biggest telecom.
And unfortunately EU Commissioner Thierry Breton wants to bring this model to the EU.
It's a terrible economic model that punishes peering. Cloudflare and Facebook moved most of their servers overseas to Japan. It's been a long running sh*t show, with lots of lawsuits between Netflix and S. Korea's biggest telecom.
And unfortunately EU Commissioner Thierry Breton wants to bring this model to the EU.
> It's a terrible economic model that punishes peering.
Isn't that how most international trade agreements work? You either have to pay the taxes to manufacture in the country of origin, or you have to pay the import fees for importing it.
I don't understand what benefit I get as a consumer or small developer from not having models like this. If Netflix is generating 32b in revenue and using a significant amount of bandwidth, shouldnt they have to pay for a larger portion of the infrastructure?
Isn't that how most international trade agreements work? You either have to pay the taxes to manufacture in the country of origin, or you have to pay the import fees for importing it.
I don't understand what benefit I get as a consumer or small developer from not having models like this. If Netflix is generating 32b in revenue and using a significant amount of bandwidth, shouldnt they have to pay for a larger portion of the infrastructure?
Netflix is paying for the infrastructure because for every byte that Netflix "pushes" there is a "pull" side who is paying for their residential internet access. What is the consumer paying the ISP for if the ISP is charging every service that the consumer is using more money separately?
I'm curious why peer-to-peer didn't work out for them
[deleted]
As an aside, isn't the name of the country South Korea? Has something changed that the preferred name is Korea?
The official name of the country is the Republic of Korea. However, it’s common to drop descriptors such as “Republic of” from country names, leaving only “Korea”. South Korea is an informal name, used only when it’s necessary to disambiguate from North Korea (officially, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), which in this case, it isn’t.
Wow, you would think that Amazon would just foot the internet bill for a company they now own. Especially since they basically own most of the infra.
I guess all it takes is a “10X” surcharge on fees to make even a multibillion dollar company weak at the knees.
I wonder if this is really just a chess move in Amazon’s playbook to get Korean government to bend the knee.
Raise awareness of how bad it is to operate in Korea. Threaten to cut services from country due to how prohibitively expensive it is. Korean citizens become outraged and put pressure on govt. Govt either bends to pressure from public or continues to bend for big ISPs.
Government is doomed either way. Public is fucked. Only winner is Amazon or Korean ISPs.
I guess all it takes is a “10X” surcharge on fees to make even a multibillion dollar company weak at the knees.
I wonder if this is really just a chess move in Amazon’s playbook to get Korean government to bend the knee.
Raise awareness of how bad it is to operate in Korea. Threaten to cut services from country due to how prohibitively expensive it is. Korean citizens become outraged and put pressure on govt. Govt either bends to pressure from public or continues to bend for big ISPs.
Government is doomed either way. Public is fucked. Only winner is Amazon or Korean ISPs.
What does "prohibitively expensive" mean for a company that's largest cost is paid to its parent company at a rate completely decided by the parent company?
Wouldn't anything that decreases the profit of twitch in South Korea be "prohibitively expensive" for an organization who's goal is to profit?
Wouldn't anything that decreases the profit of twitch in South Korea be "prohibitively expensive" for an organization who's goal is to profit?
Unfortunately, Europe, Brazil and India are all looking to emulate Korea's requirement that online services pay ISPs.
It's particularly bad in the E.U. where Commissioner Thierry Breton, a former telecom CEO, wants to shove it through despite overwhelming opposition, including from the EU's top telecom regulators (BEREC).