Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7472/jksii.2020.21.5.9

Interconnection Fee or Access fee? - Focusing on ISP-CP settlement dispute -  

Cho, Dae-Keun (Graduate School of Public Policy, Sogang University)
Publication Information
Journal of Internet Computing and Services / v.21, no.5, 2020 , pp. 9-20 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study redefines the networks' connection behaviors and the terms confusion over the settlement in Netflix-SK Broadband's dispute through domestic and foreign legal references. Conflict parties, academics and the media use the terms "interconnection fee" or "Access fee" without uniformity, and in some cases mixes for strategic purposes. The use of different terms for the same phenomenon (or vice versa) has a high need for research in that it makes it difficult to reach a unified approach to the problem, to discuss it productively and rationally, and, moreover, to resolve disputes. Therefore, this study cross-referenced/analyzed terms related to network utilization and connectivity, namely "Use", "Access", "Interconnection" and thus cost-related terms as a counter-pay. In addition, it suggests that interconnection fees and access fees should be used separately, and allows them to function as a starting point in resolving future ICT sector issues. As a result of this study, the price against the network access/use between Netflix and SK Broadband is access fee or retail price, and proposes to be used uniformly in the term "interconnection fee" only for fees incurred in interconnection between ISPs that possess or operate networks.
Keywords
Access; Interconnection; Internet; Interconnection fee; Price;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 CCEJ ICT Commission, "The Korea Fair Trade Commission and the Korea Communications Commission should be more proactive than the courts on traffic disputes and network access fee discrimination cases between domestic and foreign telecom operators!", CCEJ Statement, 2020.
2 TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS ACT [Enforcement Date 11. Jun, 2020.] [Act No.16824, 10. Dec, 2019., Partial Amendment] Article 22-7
3 Cannon, Robert. "Where Internet Service Providers and Telephone Companies Compete: A Guide to the Computer Inquiries, Enhanced Service Providers and Information Service Providers." Commlaw Conspectus, vol. 9, pp.49-69, 2001.
4 Nuechterlein, J. E., & Weiser, P. J., "Digital crossroads: American telecommunications policy in the Internet age.", p.670, MIT Press Books, 1., 2007
5 Besen, S. M., & Israel, M. A., "The evolution of Internet interconnection from hierarchy to "Mesh": Implications for government regulation.", Information Economics and Policy, vol 25, No.4, pp. 235-245, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2013.07.003   DOI
6 Clark, D. D., Lehr, W., & Bauer, S., "Interconnection in the Internet: the policy challenge". p.24, TPRC. 2011.
7 Jahn, E., & Prufer, J., "Transit versus (paid) peering: Interconnection and competition in the Internet backbone market", p.25, TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2006-033, CentER Discussion Paper No. 2006-122, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5905822004.
8 Kende, M., "The digital handshake: connecting Internet backbones". CommLaw Conspectus, vol.11, pp.45-70. 2003.
9 Kende, M., "Overview of recent changes in the IP interconnection ecosystem". p.62, Analysys Mason, 2011.
10 Paltridge, S., "Internet traffic exchange: Developments and policy", p.75, OECD Digital Economy Papers 34, OECD, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1787/236767263531
11 Norton, W. B., "A business case for ISP peering.", p.11, White Paper (v1.3), 2002
12 Ahmed, A., Shafiq, Z., Bedi, H., & Khakpour, A. "Peering vs. transit: Performance comparison of peering and transit interconnections.", In 2017 IEEE 25th International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), IEEE, pp.1-10. 2017.
13 Zarchy, D., Dhamdhere, A., Dovrolis, C., & Schapira, M. "Nash-peering: A new techno-economic framework for internet interconnections.", n IEEE INFOCOM 2018-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), IEEE, pp.403-408, 2018.
14 Courcoubetis, C., Sdrolias, K., & Weber, R., "Network neutrality [Paid peering: Pricing and adoption incentives]", Journal of Communications and Networks, vol.18, No.6, pp.975-988. 2016.   DOI
15 Bafna, S., Pandey, A., & Verma, K., "Anatomy of the Internet Peering Disputes." arXiv preprint arXiv: 1409.6526, 2014.
16 Rose, G., "The Economics of Internet Interconnection: Insights from the Comcast-Level3 Peering Dispute." p.25, Technical report, Federal Communications Commission. 2011.
17 ACM, "IP interconnection in the Netherlands: a regulatory assessment.", p.69, The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets. 2015.
18 FCC, "Preserving the Open Internet", p.45, Federal Register, vol.76, No.185, FCC. 2011.
19 FCC, "Restoring Internet Freedom", p.71, Federal Register, vol.83, No.36, FCC. 2017.
20 IDA, "The Internet Protocol Transit and Peering Landscape in Singapore.", p.26, IDA Consultation Paper, IDA, 2015.
21 FCC, "Application of Charter Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., and Advance/Newhouse Partnership for Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order", p.348, FCC, 2016.
22 BEREC, "BEREC Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules.", p.45, BEREC, 2016.
23 Nikolinakos, N. T., "EU competition law and regulation in the converging telecommunications, media and IT sectors", p.698, Kluwer Law International BV., 2006.
24 McGarty, T. P., "Peering, Transit, Interconnection: Internet Access In Central Europe", p.32, MIT Internet & Telephony Consortium meeting in Cambridge, 2002.
25 Norton, W. B., "The Evolution of the U.S. Internet Peering Ecosystem", p.18, Equinix white papers, 2004.
26 Weller, D. and B. Woodcock, "Internet Traffic Exchange: Market Developments and Policy Challenges", p.75, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 207, OECD. 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k918gpt130q-en
27 Buyya, R., Pathan, A. M. K., Broberg, J., & Tari, Z., "A case for peering of content delivery networks.", p.4, IEEE Distributed Systems Online, 7(10), 3-3., 2006.   DOI
28 Kyung Sin Park, "Who's to blame if Netflix or Facebook slows down?", Opennet, 2020.
29 Eun Yeol Kim, "Standardizing Academic Terminology, Should it break down the barriers of interdisciplinary communication?", SNUNews, 2010.
30 National Assembly Secretariat, "Standardization Criteria for Legal Terms", Deputy Secretary-General for Legislative Affairs, 2004.
31 Kwang Young Lee, "The next target of SKB and Netflix network fee dispute is Google.", IT Chosun, 2019.
32 Won Ik Park, "The nature of network charges hidden in the 'Gahp-jil' frame.", Chosunbiz, 2020.