“Have you watched Squid Game already?” Chances are that you have been asked this question in the last few weeks. The record-breaking Korean thriller by Netflix is the most-watched show in 90 different countries and is expected to be the most popular show ever from Netflix. But believe it or not, the massive success of the show is causing Netflix problems. SK Broadband, a South Korean internet service provider (ISP) has sued the streaming giant to pay for the costs from increased network traffic and maintenance of the server. Moreover, the show is believed to be the leading cause of Korean citizens having to deal with slow internet according to SK Broadband.
Before going into the details, let us first present the principle of net neutrality. The term net neutrality was first introduced in 2003 by Tim Wu, who was the Columbia University media law professor at the time. the concept is an extension of the concept of a common carrier, which is used to describe the responsibilities of communication system providers. A common carrier is basically obligated to provide the specific service to the general public without discrimination, being that the service is a necessity for public participation. Examples of such services and goods are telecommunication and electricity. Emerging from this concept, network neutrality is the principle that ISP’s are obliged to treat all internet traffic equally and restrain from discriminating against specific users, platforms, applications, content, websites, source addresses, or any actor within the internet realm. This promotes the democratization of the internet by enhancing the freedom of information exchange and prevents ISP’s to obstruct, slow down or impose charges for specific online content.
Now back to Netflix. The streaming server has been an advocate of net neutrality since the rise of the discussion. As the promotion of democratizing the internet and avoid discrimination sounds very appealing to many, a lot of criticism exists. Opponents of net neutrality argue that a handful of large-scale users of the net like Netflix and Facebook abuse the principle. In some cases, 3% of the users are responsible for 80% of the internet traffic, without paying extra fees. In the case of Netflix in South Korea, the Seoul Court ruled in favor of the ISP SK Broadband, arguing that SK Broadband provides service at a cost and it is reasonable for them to charge Netflix something in return for the service. Netflix has filed its own lawsuit against SK Broadband last year in the ongoing debate. According to Netflix, the expenses of increased network traffic are covered by the contractual obligations of users of SK Broadband and it is up to the end-user to decide what they want to do with the service. However, Netflix’s stance on net neutrality has been somewhat arbitrary. The streaming service is known to have slightly different opinions now and then when it favors the company itself. For example, in the United States, where ISP’s are no longer ‘common carriers’ since 2017 under the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Netflix pays a fee to ISP Comcast Corp for faster streaming speeds, jeopardizing net neutrality by doing so.
This leaves us with a few questions. First, should we protect net neutrality to avoid censorship and discrimination of internet usage, even at the cost of a handful of companies enjoying the lion’s share of the cake? And if not, how do we guarantee the freedom of information exchange without ISP’s acting as the gatekeepers of the usage and content of the internet?
References:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596112001450
