Netflix rejects payment based on OCA and Bill & Keep principle
SKB, OCA, unable to reduce domestic network cost burden… Bill & Keep cant be established, refute
SK Broadband and Netflix logo scheduled for the second hearing on May 18. ⓒ Each company [Dailyan = Reporter Choi Eun-soo] SK Broadband and Netflixs network users entered the second round of legal disputes. In the second trial, Netflix, which actually lost in the first trial, put forward the Open Connect Alliance and Bill and Keep principles developed by the two sides in a fierce legal battle over technical logic.
On the 16th, the Seoul High Court held the first trial date of the second trial for the non-existence of debt lawsuit filed by Netflix against SK Broadband and the lawsuit for the return of unfair profits filed by SK Broadband against Netflix. The hearing lasted about 1 hour and 20 minutes.
Previously, in the first trial, Netflix argued that it could pay for network use according to the basic internet principle that access is paid and transmission is free, and that it can pay for network use, but lost in fact. Accordingly, on this day, through the Bill and Keep principle and the Open Connect Alliance developed by the company, the network users claimed gratuitousness.
Netflix argued that Bill and Keep is the basic principle of the Internet, meaning that Internet service providers receive access fees from their Internet consumers to cover network costs.” There is no obligation to pay the network usage fee because it is the order of the Internet world that each content provider bears the cost even when the content provider and ISP connect without asking the other ISP for a fee.
In addition, in 2016, SK Broadband agreed to a direct connection through OCA with SK Broadband in Korea, and through this, SK Broadband reduced transmission costs and argued that mutual non-settlement is the principle based on the fact that it did not require payment of network usage fees at the time. did.
In addition, Netflix claimed that it could reduce the traffic cost borne by SK Broadband through OCA. OCA is a self-developed content delivery network, which means that a replica server is placed close to a telecommunication company to reduce data traffic.
He also argued that the unfair advantage claimed by SK Broadband was not legally established. In order to receive undue profits, the damage suffered by SK Broadband must be proven.
SK Broadband immediately refuted the plaintiffs arguments and emphasized that the important issue is who ultimately sends Netflixs content to consumers.
First, as for the plaintiffs claim that the unfair advantage requested by SK Broadband does not exist, the claim of the plaintiffs claim that there is no legal cause was reinforced by stating the merchants right to claim compensation under Article 61 of the Commercial Act.
Since it can be seen that Netflix is providing key telecommunications services based on the Telecommunications Business Act, it is to claim the right to claim compensation under Article 61 of the Commercial Act as a preliminary claim.
In addition, ISPs argued that, in accordance with the principle of the two-sided market, both users and CPs belong to the same user and should receive a fee.
He pointed out that OCA, which Netflix has repeatedly emphasized, does not reduce the network burden on ISPs at all, and refuted that Netflixs investment of 1.2 trillion won in OCA means that it is obligated to pay the network usage fee.
In addition, even if OCA is installed near SK Broadbands base station, various expenses such as rent and electricity are incurred in order to install it in the domestic network.
He countered that the Bill and Keep Internet Principle claimed by Netflix is not a basic Internet principle because it is one of the methods of settlement between ISPs. In order for the bill and keep principle to be applied, it is necessary to assume that the amount of traffic exchanged between ISPs is equal and the economic benefits resulting from it are equal.
In addition, regarding the claim that SK Broadband did not ask for network use when directly connected to Netflix in the past, there was no contract stipulating payment for network use. explained that
Shin-seop Kang, a lawyer at Sejong Law Firm, a legal representative for SK Broadband, met with reporters after the second trial on the same day and said that the court still had questions about various matters, and there was nothing new. Bill & Kip said that he was puzzled by the Internet principle, which is one of the methods of accounting.
The second hearing date for Netflix and SK Broadband will be held on May 18th. The two sides will hold a debate for 30 minutes each through presentations, etc.