For what it's worth, Cloudfalre also pointed out the weird trend in Korean ISPs:<p>> South Korea is perhaps the only country in the world where bandwidth costs are going up. This may be driven by new regulations from the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, which mandate the commercial terms of domestic interconnection, based on predetermined “Tiers” of participating networks. This is contrary to the model in most parts of the world, where networks self-regulate, and often peer without settlement. The government even prescribes the rate at which prices should decrease per year (-7.5%), which is significantly slower than the annual drop in unit bandwidth costs elsewhere in the world. We are only able to peer 2% of our traffic in South Korea. [1]<p>> Today, however, there are six expensive networks (HiNet, Korea Telecom, Optus, Telecom Argentina, Telefonica, Telstra) that are more than an order of magnitude more expensive than other bandwidth providers around the globe and refuse to discuss local peering relationships. [1]<p>This post is from 2016 and now the Korean Goverenment passes the law that makes the fee even higher. The Korean Government keeps favoring their ISP over other internet companies.<p>[1]: <a href="https://blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world...</a>
I get the impression from reading this article that the proposed legislation would require websites to pay for <i>bandwidth</i>. Is this true? Because if so, it's absolutely <i>insane</i> - it would make DDoS attacks so much more effective by directly draining money from the target.
>><i>Undermining competition: Such a move would unfairly benefit large players, preventing smaller players who can’t pay these fees or shoulder equivalent obligations from competing against them. Limiting its application only to those content providers meeting certain thresholds of daily traffic volume or viewer numbers will not solve the problem as it deprives small players of opportunities to compete against the large ones.</i><p>Mozilla's open letter was issued in October, while the TBA revised regulations that were fleshed out in early September clarified that the thresholds for the additional content provider surcharges would trigger for content providers that account for "1 percent of domestic internet traffic and have more than 1 million daily users on average over a three-month period."[1]<p>The proposed amendment seems to <i>favour</i> smaller competitors and new entrants by increasing the regulatory burden for larger more successful content providers.<p>Unless I'm missing something, Mozilla might want to re-order their points and/or reword this first bullet.<p>[1] <a href="https://technology.inquirer.net/103809/korea-reveals-details-of-netflix-law" rel="nofollow">https://technology.inquirer.net/103809/korea-reveals-details...</a>