[IT백과] How are the connection fees and network usage fees mentioned by Google different?

Telecommunications*Broadcasting

[IT백과] How are the connection fees and network usage fees mentioned by Google different?

Digital Daily
Publication date 2024-10-14 15:34:27

Kim Kyung-hoon, President of Google Korea, giving a presentation at Google for Korea [ⓒ 구글코리아]

[디지털데일리 강소현기자] “I am paying a network connection fee (not a <a href="https://www.world-today-news.com/shortwave-cyber-%e2%80%8b%e2%80%8bsecurity-action-plan-blocked-mojeid-and-twilight-and-dawn-of-net-neutrality/" title="Shortwave: Cyber ​​Security Action Plan, blocked mojeID and twilight and dawn of net neutrality“>network usage fee)”

Following Google Korea President Kim Kyung-hoon’s remarks, attention is focused on the difference between ‘network usage fee’ and ‘network connection fee’.

CEO Kim Kyung-hoon responded to Rep. Lee Sang-hwi’s (People’s Power Party) question asking, “Are you paying network usage fees?” during the National Assembly audit of the Ministry of Science and ICT (hereinafter referred to as the Ministry of Science and ICT) held at the Sejong Government Complex of the National Assembly on the afternoon of the 8th, saying, “I am paying the connection fee.” . In other words, the argument is that since you are paying a connection fee, there is no need to pay a network usage fee.

Previously, CPs (content providers) such as Google divided network usage fees into connection fees and transmission fees, and CPs that pay admission fees (access fees) through a U.S. ISP (telecommunications service provider) to access the Internet pay a transmission fee equivalent to the content transmission cost to the domestic ISP. They said there was no reason to pay extra.

In particular, the concept of network neutrality was put forward in relation to transmission fees. Network neutrality is a concept that first appeared in the early 2000s while discussing the order of use of Internet networks, and means that traffic delivery should not be discriminated according to the amount of information transmitted.

In other words, it is argued that it is against the principles of net neutrality for an ISP to demand additional fees because it generates a lot of traffic despite paying a connection fee.

However, domestic ISPs maintain that access fees and network usage fees are completely different concepts. To understand the ISP’s claim, it is necessary to first look at how the process by which overseas CP’s content reaches domestic users has changed.

In the past, each user accessed the Internet through a domestic ISP (Tier 2) before watching content. Then, when you access the CP and click on the content you want to view, the content reaches domestic viewers through the submarine cable of a domestic ISP that has signed a contract with an overseas ISP (Tier 1) by paying a transit connection fee.

Transit refers to a method of delivering the other party’s traffic not only to one’s own network, but also to the networks of all ISPs around the world.

When a lower tier operator pays a transit fee to a higher tier operator and sends traffic, the upper tier ISP transmits traffic to Internet users around the world, including users connected to it.

In other words, from the perspective of an overseas CP, as long as it contracts with a higher-tier ISP, traffic can be delivered to a third ISP with which it has not signed a direct service agreement. The cost paid at this time is a kind of ‘connection fee’ that the CP refers to.

However, in the case of Transit, there was a disadvantage in that the image quality of the content was lost and the transmission speed was slowed in the process of going through multiple ISPs.

Accordingly, CPs began building cache servers near service countries. A cache server refers to a server that stores content in advance in a location close to the service country.

With the advent of these cache servers, the traffic delivery method also changed. Instead of distributing content by contracting with one high-ranking overseas ISP, the company began to secure content quality by connecting one-to-one with multiple ISPs through a cache server.

This traffic delivery method is called peering, and unlike transit, peering is conducted between operators of the same tier. Normally, in the case of peering connections, the principle is ‘mutual settlement’, but this is an area where there are conflicting opinions between CP and ISP. This is due to the premise of existing peering that a contract is concluded when the benefits obtained through interconnection are similar.

ISPs argue that, in rare cases, when there is a large difference in the amount of traffic exchanged between two operators, the party that generates the most traffic pays, even if connected through peering. This is because the traffic relationship between exchanges has become unbalanced due to the emergence of very large CPs.

According to ISPs, the distinguishing point of paid peering is the connection method at the Internet Exchange Point (IXP). IXP is a business that acts as a middleman between ISP and CP or between ISP and ISP. If you contract with IXP, you can exchange traffic with all other operators connected to the IXP.

For example, while direct one-to-one connection between 10 individual CPs such as Amazon, Netflix, and Google and SK Broadband costs a lot of line costs, connecting with one IXP operator connected to these operators can significantly reduce costs.

The connection method through this IXP is again divided into ‘public peering’, where several operators indirectly connect, and ‘private peering’, where two operators connect directly. Private peering occurs when the amount of traffic exchanged is significantly different, and traffic The position is that the party that generates the most should pay the cost.

In Korea, the conflict over network usage fees between ISPs and CPs has intensified, and this is closely related to the change in the interconnection notice of the Ministry of Science and ICT in 2016.

Looking at the standards for interconnection of telecommunication facilities under the Telecommunications Business Act, the principle is that connection fees are mutually settled between connection operators, except in cases where they are separately set. In other words, in Korea, peering connections are defined as ‘paid’.

For this reason, in a recent audit of the National Assembly’s Oversight and Defense Committee, Rep. Kim Woo-young (Democratic Party of Korea) responded to CEO Kim Kyung-hoon’s response that “we are paying a network connection fee (rather than a network usage fee)” and said, “Google’s expedient approach.”

Rep. Kim said, “When accessing from the United States, you have to pay a connection fee to an American ISP such as AT&T, and when providing content to users in Korea, you have to pay the cost of connecting to a Korean ISP and generating traffic in Korea,” adding, “The company’s legal “Are you giving that answer after sufficient consultation, or are you just giving an answer for convenience?” he asked.

Meanwhile, CEO Kim Gyeong-hoon said, “It was not a convenient answer, but an answer after looking into international agreements. We are a company with many other networks, including submarine cables, and we are using the network in accordance with a private contract between us and a domestic ISP.” “I know,” he said.