망중립성 이용자 포럼

Author Net Neutrality User Forum

9 volunteers’ co-writing & illustrating and lots of people’s review in Forum

Co-author

1. Summerz (summerz@gmail.com)

Blogger
Co-founder of “ournet.kr”
Member of “slownews.kr”
CEO of Koinlab Inc.

2. Minoci (skymap21@gmail.com)

Blogger (www.minoci.net)
Co-founder of “ournet.kr”
Member of “slownews.kr”

3. KANG, Jeong-Soo (berlinlog@gmail.com )

Ph.D.

Researcher, Communication Research Institute of Yonsei - University
Blogger (www.berlinlog.com)

4. Jang, HyeYeong(superrabbit@me.com)

Multi-media Artist, Internet Activist

5. Park Lee, Se-Yoon

Visual Artist, Internet Activist, Member of “slownews.kr”

6. Kim, Borami (squ24n@gmail.com)

Attorney of Law, a Member of the Korean Bar Association,
Adjunct Professor, Korea University Law School

7. CHUN, Eung-Hwi (ehchun@gmail.com)

Executive Director, The Green Consumer’s Network, Chairperson of OpenNet
Consumer Activist

8. KANG, Jang-Mook (mooknc@gmail.com or redsea@dongguk.ac.kr)

Ph.D.

Professor, Electronic Commerce Research Institute of Dongguk University
CTO, Korea Institute for Evaluation in Technology and Management

9. OH, Kil-Young (eclaw@hanmail.net)

Ph. Jur.

Professor, Dept. of Police Administration, Shingyeong University

Table of Contents and Abstract

Introduction

Net Neutrality User Forum Introduction p.8

Co-author Introduction p.18

Recommendation by Chun, Kilnam p.22

Prepace by Jang, Hyeyoung p. 26

Cartoons “Mango” (Mango means a cat to guard the network, the symbol of Net Neutrality User Forum) by Park Lee, Se-Yoon p.36

End Users Raise Issues

Telecom Companies and Their Gangs (Summerz) p.48

Many people don't know what net neutrality is and why it is so important. People even don't care about it because it seems that net neutrality is simply a matter between wireless telecommunications companies and some content providers. Furthermore, it looks so difficult to understand. In fact, it's not. It's so easy to comprehend what net neutrality means if you see the ex parte history of Korean wireless communication, which was written by the strong bond between wireless telecommuncation companies, newspapers and the regulator.

We Are the 'End-user': Internet Governance from the Perspective of Net Neutrality User Forum (Minoci) p. 68

The issue of Net neutrality is the battle between those who have the network - internet service providers, ISP - and those who have not - end-users. We are all end-users, while ISPs are very few. The few are trying to control all. The government should act as a reasonable moderator, but it does not. Even it supports the ISPs. This is completely wrong. As modern democratic states recognize the sovereignty of their people, the rights of the end-users must be exercised on the Internet. The Net Neutrality User Forum is established for that. And this is the Internet governance. Power to the End-User!

Net Neutrality from Economics Perspective

Pricing structure and Transparency on Wireless Internet Network Market (Kang, Jeongsoo ) p.96

Achieving social consensus and economic rules of the Internet is the first step to ensure innovation and sustainable development of the Internet. This article examines economic aspects of net neutrality in the context of a two-sided markets model and the rent-seeking theory.

Net Neutrality from Regulation Perspective

Problems on Korean Net Neutrality Debates (Kim, Borami) p. 120

One of the biggest problems with the net neutrality issue in Korea is that telecom companies and the regulators (Korean Communications Commission, KCC) have argued that they don’t have to disclose any information related to policy decision-making processes until recently. To examine these problems, we first review the basic technological principles of the Internet and the current situations in the US and the EU regarding net neutrality, and then analyze the problems with the laws currently in force in Korea: the Korean Telecommunications Business Act. The Korean Telecommunications Business Act prescribes the "principle of no unreasonable blocking and no unreasonable discrimination" to be able to be applied to the net neutrality issue. Given the situation in Korea where broadband carriers are classified as common carriers, and the fact that Korea’s telecommunication industry is oligopolistic, application of ex-ante regulation based on the Telecommunications Business Act is a necessity. But KCC declared that the settlement of the net neutrality issue should be left to the market. The "Net Neutrality User Forum(NN User Forum)" have asked KCC several times to allow them to participate in the policy decision-making process and to provide related information. However, KCC denied the requests saying that it didn’t keep any records of the advisory meetings which have been held as many as 38 times. Moreover, KCC released controversial "traffic management policy" documents in hard-copy form ,deliberately, to make it difficult to spread. So NN User Forum had to convert the hard-copy documents into digital documents by typing and posting them to our blog: nnforum.kr. As soon as the KCC discovered the documents online, an official from KCC ordered not to disclose the documents and to delete the posting. NN User Forum have emphasized that the KCC should be open and transparent. It is a very important factor regarding the net neutrality issue.

The Evolution of Internet Ecology & The Issue of Internet Interconnection in Korea: In the Context of Net Neutrality Policy Discussion (Chun, Eung-Hwi) p.156

How to sort out the problem of the explosive increase in data traffic on the internet network depends on which pattern of internet interconnection and financial settlements could be adopted. However, due to this phenomenon of data traffic increase, network enterprises are trying to justify the necessity of network traffic management and moving away from the principle of net neutrality. Moreover, in Korea, internet connectivity service providers with their own backbone network have been classified as common carriers which need to be regulated by governmental authorities since 2004. Accordingly, the structure of internet interconnection has also been formed by the government on the basis of government rules for interconnection because interconnection was a duty of common carriers, although there was already a neutral internet exchange service initiated by a public organization beforehand. Consequently, internet backbone markets, including internet exchange and internet connectivity service markets of ISPs, and even the server farm market, have been monopolized and vertically integrated by three large incumbent backbone providers. Due to these reasons, even though content or application providers have sufficed the demands of end users, those ISPs which retained the major content or application providers including so-called search service or portal service companies, could not get the status of peering with large-size backbone networks. Still most content and application service providers are paying off part of the transit fees of their ISPs depending on their occupied bandwidth of the leased lines. And mostly, the ISPs are also backbone providers and their server farms are usually these ISPs’ affiliated companies. Naturally most of the costs have maintained the level of monopoly pricing. Nevertheless, recently, those network entrepreneurs are arguing the need for a price rise on the pretext of data traffic increase. But, in the cases of other countries with an unregulated market competition environment, those patterns of internet connectivity have changed into “partial transit” and/or “paid peering” as data traffic has increased. And even in such conditions, the additional pricing of “paid peering” has never been beyond the level of transit fee in a competitive market. Therefore, despite the increase in data traffic, a transit fee rise or artificial network management can not be justified even in distorted market conditions formed by governmental regulation. Rather, natural evolution of internet connectivity pattern and the introduction of a new financial settlement mechanism should be sought.

Net Neutrality from the Perspective of Privacy

Technological debates on Net Neutrality and DPI (Kang, Jangmook) p. 194

I deal with the threat of invasion of privacy which is caused by DPI (Deep Packet Inspection, also called complete packet inspection and Information extraction) in this chapter.

Especially I focus on why the Internet is damaged by this specific function - or service - of DPI based on technologies, i.e. scan port, stateful packet tool, packet loss or drop, packet delay, Ethernet sniffer or wireless sniffer, protocol analyzer or packet sniffer, etc.). As the Internet has been included in other communication services such as IP-TV, broadcasting, mVoIP, cable TV, telephone, and radio, the Internet monitoring technology is easily abused to surveille citizen’s private life. This chapter is all about how the feature and the fundamental of that technology are contrary to the freedom of the Internet at its beginning, why we should keep internet neutrality, and how important DPI Policy of Privacy is.

On the Illegality of DPI in the Net Neutrality Context (Oh, Kil-Young) p.224

DPI(Deep Packet Inspection) issue has mainly been considered as a matter of packet-wiretapping so far. That is why it might seem to be slightly unusual to connect DPI and net neutrality issue together. However, these days DPI is not just a simple technical issue since DPI have variously been adjusted and adopted for several purposes to abuse network. Now where massive network abuse and violence appear it is easy to find DPI related issues. Net neutrality violation is no exception either. DPI explicitly shows its indiscriminate and violent nature related to the issue. This chapter consists of two parts: First, the seriousness of DPI issue is discussed with some illustrations and metaphors. And then technical explanation of DPI and legal interpretation follow. The last part analizes how DPI actually violates the principles of the internet and the constitutional order.

Questions Left

Cartoon : Net Neutrality Love Story by Jang, Hyeyoung p.252

Index p.264

Terminology p. 272