Does anyone know why it's so expensive there?
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
200 points (99.0% liked)
Games
32409 readers
922 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Lack of net neutrality is a huge part of it. Korean ISPs bill sites like twitch for the data they use.
This is good ammo for the fight for Net Neutrality, honestly.
IIRC, South Korea charges an import tax for foreign media. It’s part of why Korea has become a sort of media powerhouse, with K-pop, K-dramas, K-comics, etc… Those things are much cheaper in SK because they’re all local and aren’t being charged that extra tax. So they’re naturally very popular in SK because they’re much cheaper. Sort of a positive feedback loop where the media is cheaper so people consume more of it, which makes the media popular enough to survive on its own outside of Korea as well.
It's not about media or taxes, it's about inflated fees for traffic period. It's regulatory capture (which Korea has a long history of) and subsequent collusion by Korean ISPs. Prohibitively expensive to run a streaming service like that even if you have local datacenters to reduce international transit fees (because you still have to connect to the local ISPs who will still charge you). https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/08/17/afterword-korea-s-challenge-to-standard-internet-interconnection-model-pub-85166
Edit: To be clear, this sort of situation is about the only one where to effectively have a streaming service, you'd need to use peer to peer and make it "come from inside the house", so to speak. Even their local streaming services are over the barrel and only the ISPs themselves could actually make an affordable streaming service.
It's interesting that it's still classified as foreign media even if the streamers could be local. Wonder if there'll be a Korean twitch competitor that comes out of this.
There is AfreecaTV. I don't think Twitch was a big competitor to them locally in the first place. At least from the little I know about it, so take that with an extra train of salt.
Supposedly that service is P2P, so that's how they operate without the fees.
That and they are a Korean company as far as I know.
They sponsor a Starcraft 1 League in Korea at least.
Love me some ASL.
I do too. But I always get behind and have to binge it to get back up to date.
Currently binging Season 14. So I'll hopefully be up to date around christmas again.
So, if the ISP eventually deployed cgnat and broke P2P, they'll going to be screwed, right?
I imagine they have CGNAT already. But you can run servers that only assist users to establish a connection handshake from behind CGNAT, then all traffic happens peer to peer.
Now, whether the ISPs can get away with blocking that handshake is another story...
you can use p2p services behind cgnat, like how do you think torrent works?
I'm behind cgnat myself and I can download but can't seed. If everyone is behibd cgnat the swarm would be dead fast. In Korea, there are only 3 ISPs and if they collude to use cgnat with client isolation, they can kill these P2P scheme used by streaming site and boost their profit sharing revenue.
not sure where you're getting that from, all you need is some server to establish connections via and then it works mostly fine
We're still taking about Korean ISP charging streaming company for bandwidth, right? If the streaming service setup some TURN servers to help people behind cgnat, then they'll going to get charged by the ISP because the traffic originate from TURN servers operated by the streaming service instead of peer-to-peer traffics among users. These ISPs rejected Netflix offers to put their caching servers inside their network afterall, so the TURN servers will have to be located outside their network and thus subject to the bandwidth charge.
SPNP - Sending Network Party Pays
The party that creates the traffic pays the operating costs.
Damn I didn’t know it was 10x the cost. Crazy how a company that size still can’t handle the fees.
more a matter of “don’t wanna” than “can’t”
It says they operated at a loss in SK. If that's true, I wouldn't wanna, either.
load more comments
(20 replies)
I also didn’t know that South Korea charges extra for foreign content providers which is also pretty aggressive.
Yeah, and it all started from a lawsuit between SK Telecom and Netflix because in 2020 people watching Squid Games in Korea used an unprecedented amount of bandwidth. Reuters article
Most telecom providers make deals with the big platforms regarding payment, but I guess S. Korea really wants Afreeca to be the only player in the streaming space. It could also be chaebol shenanigans.
There's no "don't wanna" unless there's a "can't" due to not being able to make a profit. If they could they would. It's simple as that.
Companies don't just want to make a profit, they want to make the largest profit. Plenty of businesses turn down profitable ventures in pursuit of more lucrative returns.
While true, that's not exactly relevant when it's a choice between losing a lot of money and not losing a lot of money.
load more comments
(2 replies)
10x the cost of what tho? They just say "most other countries", but tahts just spin and essentially meaningless without more data
That is surprising forthcoming from them.
view more: next ›