SKB-Netflix network usage fee 2nd round of lawsuit… The merchants right to claim compensation is also an issue. Why do you say you have to pay the toll when you didnt ask to pay it in the first place vs. its not an implicit no settlement agreement, if you generate traffic you cant handle, pay the fee
On the 16th, the second defense of the lawsuit was held for the network users who faced off with SK Broadband and Netflix. [Photo = Correspondent Jo Eun-soo]
On the 16th, the second trial of the second trial was held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul for network use charges between SK Broadband and Netflix.
On this day, Netflix and SK Broadband held oral arguments for about 20 minutes, followed by the judge asking questions about what the two sides would answer in the third argument.
Netflix pointed out that SK Broadband is abusing its monopoly power and urging it to pay a kind of toll. He also argued that the principle of no settlement is because both parties connected networks equally through Open Connect.
However, this claim overturns the principle of net neutrality presented in the first trial and can be interpreted as meaning that Netflix is in the same position as the Internet provider due to OCA even though it is a content provider. Accordingly, SK Broadband dug into the fact that the Internet market is a two-sided market like a credit card, and both general users and CP users pay a certain fee.
◆ No settlement of peer-to-peer connections with Netflix OCA… agreement from the beginning
Netflix claimed that it decided not to settle costs when signing the initial contract with SK Broadband.
They explained that because there was no contract related to the network usage fee at the time, ▲ they reduced network connection costs through Open Connect, its own content delivery network provided by Netflix, and ▲ explained that the principle of no settlement is when both parties connect networks equally according to each others needs. .
In particular, he emphasized that SK Broadband, an Internet operator, is responsible for providing content through the Internet network.
A Netflix spokesperson said that SK Broadband, like many ISPs around the world, agreed to connect directly with Netflix through OCA without going through another ISP in the middle, because it is mutually beneficial.
Next, he said that the connection between Netflix and SK Broadband is also called peering. In principle, the one providing transit provides connectivity to the Internet and thus receives a fee, but peering means that both parties connect equally according to each others needs. Therefore, he said that it is a principle to be distinguished from transit and connect without paying a fee.
Netflix claims that SK Broadband claims that only peering is possible when CPs and ISPs peer together. They argued that even in accordance with the Bill & Keep principle, which has been a common practice, it is not possible to ask for a fee for using the network.
In addition, they emphasized that SK Broadband, an Internet service provider, is responsible for transmitting content through the Internet network. .
◆ SKB and CP are network users… Indistinguishable from end users
SK Broadband countered that there is no explicit or implied agreement not to pay for network use.
In addition, ▲ OCA is just a content delivery network internalized within the Netflix system ▲ ISP is closer to the road construction company rather than a courier service provider, and the CDN argues that it must pay a fee to the road construction company.
SK Broadband said that SK Broadband has made a significant investment as a key telecommunication service provider to build and manage the Internet network, and is providing access rights to CP, an additional telecommunication service provider, for a fee. He pointed out that the agreement was, of course, premised on the merits.
He added that the Ministry of Science and ICT also sees CP as a concept of a user standing on the other side of the general user, so there is no reason to treat CP differently from users.
In the structure of the Internet service market, they are just users who use the Internet the same way, saying that there is an end user who is a user on one side and a CP such as Netflix on the other side. He said it was the same structure.
Also, in this two-sided market, the ISP can and must receive payment from both the user and the CP to maintain this market. He said it would all be passed on to the same general consumer.
SK Broadband said that Netflix compared SK Broadband to a courier company, but this analogy is not appropriate. A CDN can be likened to a carrier, he said.
Next, SK Broadband can be compared to the Road Corporation, which has roads and road networks used by carriers for transportation. It is emphasized that this is not to facilitate the transport of goods by carriers.
He also said that the content carrier CDN must of course pay road usage fees to the Korea Road Corporation, and the CDNs of other overseas CPs providing services in Korea are paying network usage fees to the domestic ISP of course.
In particular, SK Broadband pointed out that Netflix is also serving as a carrier by itself, and that OCA, which Netflix says, is an internalized CDN, which is acknowledging that they actually delivered content. He added that the fact that they have invested 1 trillion won in OCA, and that they will continue to invest in it in the future, shows that they also have an obligation.
As to the Bill & Keep settlement method claimed by Netflix, it is only one of the settlement methods between ISPs, and he countered that the plaintiffs could not be a legal basis for using the defendants network for free.
Bill & Keep settlement method is a method of mutually communicating traffic between ISPs that have a network, and if the ratio of traffic exchanged and the benefits obtained through network linkage are also similar, for the convenience of refers to the method of settlement.
Accordingly, it is explained that there is no room for application in this case, as the settlement method is not applicable to Netflix, the CP, unless Netflix is a key telecommunication service provider under the Telecommunications Business Act.
SKB-Netflix lawsuit log
◆ Added grounds for counterclaim of SKB merchants right to claim compensation… Netflix had no service.
The two sides also strongly opposed the establishment of the right to claim the refund of unfair profits raised by SK Broadband as a ground for counterclaim and the right to claim compensation from merchants.
SK Broadband filed a counterclaim against Netflix to claim the cost of network use in accordance with the law of unfair profit return under the Civil Act. In addition, the merchants right to claim compensation was added to the reason for the recent counterclaim. Article 61 of the Commercial Act stipulates that a merchant may at one time claim a substantial remuneration for an act for another person within the scope of its business.
SK Broadband said that SK Broadband is a merchant, and providing key telecommunication services for Netflix is an act for others, and providing key telecommunication services to value-added telecommunication service providers as a key telecommunication service provider falls within the scope of business. Broadband claimed that Netflix could claim compensation under Article 61 of the Commercial Act.
In response, Netflix said that even though the first trial judged that undue advantage did not exist, the defendant still insisted that undue advantage was established. He also pointed out that in order for undue profit to be established, there must be some kind of damage to SK Broadband.
They added that SK Broadband added a claim that there may be legal undue gain or the merchants right to claim compensation, which is premised on providing any service to Netflix, but they argued that Netflix does not receive an exclusive internet network service.
The third hearing will be held on May 18th. On this day, both sides will explain each 30 minutes according to the courts order to prepare a technical presentation.
The court said that since this case contains a technical aspect and there is no precedent, it would be better to explain it in a little more detail through the presentation to understand the court.