For example, in America, it is taken for granted that you pay for both incoming and outgoing calls. Koreans, on the other hand, would find it preposterous. Why should the callee pay, when the caller is already paying for those minutes? It's the same situation, but reversed.
Would be entirely logical and sensible model.
The complaint is that ISPs are charging both sides. Hence the pro "net neutrality" position.
(Aside: "Net neutrality" is a terrible phrase. Obscures rather than illuminates the policy debate.)
Ask your parents or grandparents how expensive long distance or international calls used to be (and still are for landlines). It was dollars per minute, wholly untethered from actual costs.
That's what South Korea is doing here and it's a terrible idea
Look how cheap service can be in countries where it's cheap, then look at the USA/Canada. Neither of them have sender party networks pays yet they both increase network connection costs way beyond what's necessary since they have regional monopolies.
Basically why does a sender party network pays system lend itself to a monopoly, while rogers supporting entire businesses in Canada who have no alternative is not?
They don't. I have many broadband options.
This will always be an issue with SPNP. Anybody who doesn't want to pay is basically removed from the internet for customers of the ISP.
It gets even worse when ISPs own competitors to the senders service. Comcast owns Peacock; think about what relative subscription prices would be if they could charge Netflix for access to your connection, but Peacock gets it for free (even if they are required to pay, they are paying it to themselves).
Do the Big 3 telecom providers have a at least somewhat comparable service to Twitch or is this more or less the end of some of these channels and communities people have spent a ton of effort to build?
It has a somewhat ominous last line about South Korean attitudes towards personal broadcasting platforms from here[2]. Apparently South Korea is also one of the few countries where Pornography is illegal. But I saw conflicting accounts of who supports that politically and if it's really just a barrier for non-VPN traffic.
Knowing the age demographic that Twitch can attract, and that Twitch has very popular Pools, Hot Tubs, and Beaches[3] and Just Chatting[4] sections.
I'd be curious if that perspective has an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfreecaTV#Controversy
[2]https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/media/835746.html
[3]https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/pools-hot-tubs-and-...
Which is incorrect, though it is commonly framed by majority male-dominated communities. Korean law distinguishes pornography 성인물 from obscene material 음란물 and only legalizes pornography, and it's true that the line between them is quite blur, but most pornographic works are not considered obscene and can be legally imported if there is a demand.
The actual reason for these kind of complaints is that, most non-obscene pornographic works are already available and only considered illegal because of the copyright violation. People want a free porn, easy ways have been blocked for the obvious reason, and they say something about the freedom of expression but still don't want to pay for them. This absurd argument makes actual changes much harder.
> I'd be curious your thoughts if that plays an element in wanting streaming and internet service generally in the hands of a few companies, and not American ones.
I doubt Afreeca will be able to capture most streamers in exile. In fact it's clear to me that most will just go to YouTube, because when Twitch gave up with clips and stream archives, many if not most streamers moved them to YouTube instead. Naver's new service may find some niche but it's unlikely to match YouTube's existing offers.
Korean opinion would be almost the opposite of banning this. Right-wing Koreans hate feminism and love naked anime girls; imagine if online porn addict gamers were an actual political force and had terrorist groups. If a mobile game company adds a woman and her outfit isn't sexy enough or she's making hand signs that might possibly be feminism they'll invade their offices, demand the artist is fired, and it'll actually happen.
This happened /twice/ this year.