Net Neutrality
NYU Law School Sponsored Group Pushes Net Neutrality Rules
WASHINGTON, December 29, 2009 – A New York University School of Law advocacy organization is heavily pushing proposed rules that would regulate internet access to support so-called Net neutrality principles.
WASHINGTON, December 29, 2009 – A New York University School of Law advocacy organization is heavily pushing proposed rules that would regulate internet access to support so-called Net neutrality principles.
The Institute for Policy Integrity, which describes itself as a non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to improving the quality of governmental decisionmaking, plans to release a report next week on the “economic consequences of putting a toll on the Internet.”
The study finds that “it could have serious negative impacts – altering the face of the Web by pricing content out.”
The Federal Communications Commission said the conclusion of the public comment period on its proposed open internet rules ends on January 14. Reply comments are due on March 5.
“The free and open Internet has shaped the last decade. But now, some large Internet service providers want to create a toll system that charges content providers like newspapers, bloggers and web site owners a fee to reach broadband subscribers,” according to an IPI email.
“This month, the federal government is considering rules to put into law the current state of play. Often referred to as “net neutrality,” this policy encourages a free and open Internet. But there are significant lobbying efforts to allow tolls to exist,” it reads.
IPI is currently partnering with a coalition led by Free Press and Consumers Union to support FCC efforts to “prevent internet service providers from discriminating against websites based on content.” The group states that it is “conducting research to show that this network neutrality rule is cost-benefit justified in economic terms.”
IPI, which was founded in the summer of 2008, counts former White House chief of staff, John Podesta and former Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs administrator, Sally Katzen, as advisory board members. The group was founded by Richard Revesz and Michael Livermore and has received support from the Hewlett Foundation and Rockefeller Family Fund.
While IPI supports open internet regulation, the proposed rules are controversial with numerous opponents as well.
Asia
Dae-Keun Cho: Demystifying Interconnection and Cost Recovery in South Korea
South Korean courts have rejected attempts to mix net neutrality arguments into payment disputes.

South Korea is recognized as a leading broadband nation for network access, use and skills by the International Telecommunications Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
South Korea exports content and produces platforms which compete with leading tech platforms from the US and China. Yet few know and understand the important elements of South Korean broadband policy, particularly its unique interconnection and cost recovery regime.
For example, most Western observers mischaracterize the relationship between broadband providers and content providers as a termination regime. There is no such concept in the South Korean broadband market. Content providers which want to connect to a broadband network pay an “access fee” like any other user.
International policy observers are paying attention to the IP interconnection system of IP powerhouse Korea and the lawsuit between SK Broadband (SKB) and Netflix. There are two important subjects. The first is the history and major regulations relating to internet protocol interconnection in South Korea. Regulating IP interconnection between internet service providers is considered a rare case overseas, and I explain why the Korean government adopted such a policy and how the policy has been developed and what it has accomplished.
The second subject is the issues over network usage fees between ISPs and content providers and the pros and cons. The author discusses issues that came to the surface during the legal proceedings between SKB and Netflix in the form of questions and answers. The following issues were identified during the process.
First, what Korean ISPs demand from global big tech companies is an access fee, not a termination fee. The termination fee does not exist in the broadband market, only in the market between ISPs.
In South Korea, content providers only pay for access, not termination
For example, Netflix’s Open Connect Appliance is a content delivery network. To deliver its content to end users in Korea, Netflix must purchase connectivity from a Korean ISP. The dispute arises because Netflix refuses to pay this connectivity fee. Charging CPs in the sending party network pay method, as discussed in Europe, suggests that the CPs already paid access fees to the originating ISPs and should thus pay the termination fee for their traffic delivery to the terminating ISPs. However in Korea, it is only access fees that CPs (also CDNs) pay ISPs.
In South Korea, IP interconnection between content providers and internet service providers is subject to negotiation
Second, although the IP interconnection between Korean ISPs is included in regulations, transactions between CPs and ISPs are still subject to negotiation. In Korea, a CP (including CDN) is a purchaser which pays a fee to a telecommunications service provider called an ISP and purchases a public internet network connection service, because the CP’s legal status is a “user” under the Telecommunications Business Act. Currently, a CP negotiates with an ISP and signs a contract setting out connection conditions and rates.
Access fees do not violate net neutrality
South Korean courts have rejected attempts to mix net neutrality arguments into payment disputes. The principle of net neutrality applies between the ISP and the consumer, e.g. the practice of blocking, throttling and paid prioritization (fast lane).
In South Korea, ISPs do not prioritize a specific CP’s traffic over other CP’s because they receive fees from the specific CP. To comply with the net neutrality principle, all ISPs in South Korea act on a first-in, first-out basis. That is, the ISP does not perform traffic management for specific CP traffic for various reasons (such as competition, money etc.). The Korean court did not accept the Netflix’s argument about net neutrality because SKB did not engage in traffic management.
There is no violation of net neutrality in the transaction between Netflix and SKB. There is no action by SKB to block or throttle the CP’s traffic (in this case, Netflix). In addition, SKB does not undertake any traffic management action to deliver the traffic of Netflix to the end user faster than other CPs in exchange for an additional fee from Netflix.
Therefore, the access fee that Korean ISPs request from CPs does not create a net neutrality problem.
Why the Korean model is not double billing
Korean law allows for access to broadband networks for all parties provided an access fee is paid. Foreign content providers incorrectly describe this as a double payment. That would mean that an end user is paying for the access of another party. There is no such notion. Each party pays for the requisite connectivity of the individual connection, nothing more. Each user pays for its own purpose, whether it is a human subscriber, a CP, or a CDN. No one user pays for the connectivity of another.
Dae-Keun Cho, PhD is is a member of the Telecom, Media and Technology practice team at Lee & Ko. He is a regulatory policy expert with more than 20 years of experience in telecommunications and ICT regulatory policies who also advises clients on online platform regulation policies, telecommunications competition policies, ICT user protection policies, and personal information protection. He earned a Ph.D. in Public Administration from the Graduate School of Public Administration in Seoul National University. This piece is reprinted with permission.
Request the FREE 58 page English language summary of Dr. Dae-Keun Cho’s book Nothing Is Free: An In-depth report to understand network usage disputes with Google and Netflix. Additionally see Strand Consult’s library of reports and research notes on the South Korea.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.
12 Days of Broadband
Gigi Sohn’s Political Purgatory and the Prospect of Reintroducing Net Neutrality Rules in 2023
If Sohn is sworn in, it would break the FCC’s party deadlock and allow the Democrats to potentially bring back net neutrality.
FCC
GOP Congresswoman Says FCC Puts Politics Over the Law
‘Our founders provided Congress with legislative authority to ensure lawmaking is done by elected officials, not unaccountable bureaucrats.’

WASHINGTON, October 28, 2022 – Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R–Wash., accused the Federal Communications Commission of politicized actions in excess of its statutory authority, in a letter sent in September and apparently released by the agency last week.
To prevent possible FCC overreach, McMorris Rodgers, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to provide a list of pending and expected rulemakings, and the congressional authorizations therefor. Rosenworcel responded earlier this month in a letter released with the congresswoman’s original correspondence.
The Washington Republican wrote that the Biden administration has been overly reliant on executive orders and cited recent Supreme Court precedent as evidence. McMorris Rodgers highlighted the Environmental Protection Agency’s loss in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Court invoked the “major questions doctrine,” a legal doctrine limiting of the executive branch’s ability to permissively interpret Congress’s statutory language. She also referenced the Court’s rejection of the Center for Disease Control’s eviction moratorium and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s vaccine or testing mandate.
“Our founders provided Congress with legislative authority to ensure lawmaking is done by elected officials, not unaccountable bureaucrats,” McMorris Rodgers wrote.
“I assure you the Committee and its members will exercise our robust investigative and legislative powers to not only forcefully reassert our Article I responsibilities, but to ensure the FCC under Democrat leadership does not continue to exceed Congressional authorizations,” she added.
Is net neutrality coming back?
In April 2021, McMorris Rodgers co-signed a letter with numerous congresspeople urging Rosenworcel to reject net neutrality, a policy supported by the chairwoman.
Today’s FCC is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, one commissioner short of the standard five. President Joe Biden nominated Gigi Sohn for the fifth spot, but her nomination is stalled due to Republican opposition in the Senate. Since Sohn supports net neutrality, some experts believe the FCC may once again pursue the policy should Sohn be confirmed.
-
Big Tech2 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast Announces Big Tech & Speech Summit on March 9
-
Broadband Mapping & Data4 weeks ago
As States Struggle to Challenge FCC Map, Local Communities Can Help Maximize BEAD Funding
-
Expert Opinion2 weeks ago
Jessica Dine: Broadband Networks Are Doing Well, Time to Shift to Adoption Gap
-
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
Biden Calls for Anti-Big Tech Action, CCIA Shows State Privacy ‘Patchwork,’ FCC Continues Robocall Fight
-
Broadband Roundup1 week ago
Meta Restores Trump’s Accounts, Alaska Uses AI for Mapping, Public Interest Model for Spectrum Policy
-
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
Committee on China, Dish Exec Leaving, New Fiber Broadband Board
-
Broadband Mapping4 weeks ago
What You Need to Know About the FCC’s Maps and the Challenge Process
-
5G4 weeks ago
CES 2023: Commissioner Starks Highlights Environmental Benefits of 5G Connectivity
1 Comment