[Issue analysis] US to cancel net neutrality principle… Government in ‘dilemma’
[ Kang Eun Seong esther@ ] | 2017-12-18 10:43:14
Issue analysis, US to cancel net neutrality principle …And the Korean government’s policy?
[Digital Times, Kang Eun-seong] The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted on the dismissal of net neutrality regulation after voting on December 14 (local time). Especially, the government, which has said that it cannot overtake the global trend including the "Internet powerhouse USA", is not easy to follow the decision. It is a situation as one of the major reasons for adopting the principle of net neutrality in Korea.
According to the industry on December 17, although the US has abolished the principle of network neutrality, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Information (MIC) will have no significant change in policy direction for the time being. Song Jae-seong, director of the Korea Communications Policy Competition, said, "The abolition of US net neutrality is a bit different from the international trend, and the major nations such as Europe are strengthening the principle of network neutrality. There will not be a major change in domestic policy because the US has abolished the regulations. "
Analysts point out that the dismissal of net neutrality in the United States is an FCC deregulated deregulation policy. Professor Park Jae-cheon of Inha University said, "Regulation of network neutrality has defined network operators as `Title 2` and strictly pre-regulated them. This time, they abolished the regulation and changed their status to `Title 1` "We are moving to a target that is subject to post regulation."
Title 2 in US law is similar to Korea`s `telecommunications carrier`. It is a strong regulation that makes it possible to utilize the network as a public service by assigning various obligations to provide the network without discrimination. In Korea, KT, SK Telecom, and other telecom operators should be subject to government approval and approval or reporting procedures prior to the introduction of the payment system and additional business. Title 1 is similar to supplementary carriers in Korea. It is possible to expand the business freely without being subject to pre-regulation in business execution. There is also concern that net neutrality is `damaged`. It is now possible for American network operators to enter into contracts with Google or Facebook and provide "priority services" or "fast lane" services. Priority and fast-lane services are a service that allows airline passengers to take first-class seats on their way to the airplane. In other words, it is a kind of `discrimination` to favor a specific business operator, and there is concern about the net neutrality damage in this section.
However, analysts say that it is virtually impossible for US operators to slow down network speeds or to undermine consumer network speeds for ordinary Internet operators who are not paying high costs.
Professor Park stated, "The US FCC has shifted to post-regulation and has transferred the authority to regulate the communication to the Fair Trade Commission (FTC), the US Fair Trade Commission." He added, "It is not easy for operators to undermine the principle of network neutrality because the FTC`s strict punishment becomes difficult because it discriminates against users and ordinary operators by abusing the" superior position "that holds the network.
Meanwhile, another FTC expert said, "The regulations of the US FTC are several times stronger than those of the FTC, and the scale of civil litigation is enormous. If the post regulation is stronger than the FCC`s pre-regulation, it is strong and not weak. "
This is the reason why the Ministry of Information and Communication could not convert pre-regulation of domestic telecom operators into post-regulation like the US. Information and communication policy experts have asked whether the government has the policy capability to manage it when it moves to post regulation. "In the United States, the FCC and all other government agencies have all the capabilities and prepared for the postponement of the regulatory regime until the FCC makes the decision," said the expert. "But there are no telecom experts in the country to do this, The Ministry of Information and Communication said it would be difficult to manage both telecoms and Internet operators, which could confuse the market. He said, "In particular, there is no precedent in the history of the administration of the Republic of Korea, where the government has given the authority to regulate itself or transferred it to other ministries." Even if the government is afraid of regulatory authority, I will not do it. "
By Kang Eun Seong esther@
[ copyright ⓒ The Digitaltimes ]
[Digital Times, Kang Eun-seong] The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted on the dismissal of net neutrality regulation after voting on December 14 (local time). Especially, the government, which has said that it cannot overtake the global trend including the "Internet powerhouse USA", is not easy to follow the decision. It is a situation as one of the major reasons for adopting the principle of net neutrality in Korea.
According to the industry on December 17, although the US has abolished the principle of network neutrality, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Information (MIC) will have no significant change in policy direction for the time being. Song Jae-seong, director of the Korea Communications Policy Competition, said, "The abolition of US net neutrality is a bit different from the international trend, and the major nations such as Europe are strengthening the principle of network neutrality. There will not be a major change in domestic policy because the US has abolished the regulations. "
Analysts point out that the dismissal of net neutrality in the United States is an FCC deregulated deregulation policy. Professor Park Jae-cheon of Inha University said, "Regulation of network neutrality has defined network operators as `Title 2` and strictly pre-regulated them. This time, they abolished the regulation and changed their status to `Title 1` "We are moving to a target that is subject to post regulation."
Title 2 in US law is similar to Korea`s `telecommunications carrier`. It is a strong regulation that makes it possible to utilize the network as a public service by assigning various obligations to provide the network without discrimination. In Korea, KT, SK Telecom, and other telecom operators should be subject to government approval and approval or reporting procedures prior to the introduction of the payment system and additional business. Title 1 is similar to supplementary carriers in Korea. It is possible to expand the business freely without being subject to pre-regulation in business execution. There is also concern that net neutrality is `damaged`. It is now possible for American network operators to enter into contracts with Google or Facebook and provide "priority services" or "fast lane" services. Priority and fast-lane services are a service that allows airline passengers to take first-class seats on their way to the airplane. In other words, it is a kind of `discrimination` to favor a specific business operator, and there is concern about the net neutrality damage in this section.
However, analysts say that it is virtually impossible for US operators to slow down network speeds or to undermine consumer network speeds for ordinary Internet operators who are not paying high costs.
Professor Park stated, "The US FCC has shifted to post-regulation and has transferred the authority to regulate the communication to the Fair Trade Commission (FTC), the US Fair Trade Commission." He added, "It is not easy for operators to undermine the principle of network neutrality because the FTC`s strict punishment becomes difficult because it discriminates against users and ordinary operators by abusing the" superior position "that holds the network.
Meanwhile, another FTC expert said, "The regulations of the US FTC are several times stronger than those of the FTC, and the scale of civil litigation is enormous. If the post regulation is stronger than the FCC`s pre-regulation, it is strong and not weak. "
This is the reason why the Ministry of Information and Communication could not convert pre-regulation of domestic telecom operators into post-regulation like the US. Information and communication policy experts have asked whether the government has the policy capability to manage it when it moves to post regulation. "In the United States, the FCC and all other government agencies have all the capabilities and prepared for the postponement of the regulatory regime until the FCC makes the decision," said the expert. "But there are no telecom experts in the country to do this, The Ministry of Information and Communication said it would be difficult to manage both telecoms and Internet operators, which could confuse the market. He said, "In particular, there is no precedent in the history of the administration of the Republic of Korea, where the government has given the authority to regulate itself or transferred it to other ministries." Even if the government is afraid of regulatory authority, I will not do it. "
By Kang Eun Seong esther@