인터넷 접속통신료 정산방식의 국제관행 조화방안에 대한 소고

The government has implemented a revised 「Administrative Rule on Internet Interconnection standard of telecommunication equipment」 since 2016. Through the amendment, the settlement method of interconnection charges between ISPs of the same rank was changed from settlement-free peering to mutual settlement peering. Internet access charges have been excessive in the past, which has increased since this revision, and Korea has become a country with increased network costs, which is very rare in the world. In this study, the validity of the revision of the settlement method was examined in the light of international standards. As a result, first of all, it is desirable that Internet interconnection fees between ISPs of the same rank are not settled with each other. According to a 2016 PCH(Packet Clearing House) survey, 99.98% of peering among ISPs worldwide is settlement-free peering. 99.98% had symmetric terms, in which each party gave and received the same conditions as the other. In addition, the change to the mutual settlement method prevented the competition for attracting the CAP and increased the access fee paid by the CAP, which caused an unfavorable structure in the competition of the overseas CAP. In order not only to be consistent with international standards but also to create a fair competitive environment in the market, peering between ISPs should be returned in settlement-free peering manner. Second, policy support is needed to secure international competitiveness of global networks. Domestic ISPs are not tier 1 operators internationally, so they have to pay excessive Internet Interconnection fee to smoothly provide global services such as Google to end-user. As a result, there was no choice but to find an alternative by installing a cache server for the global CAP. Considering the de-border of the Internet economy, which has no choice but to service the global CAP, a network policy for entering the first-tier international network is urgently needed. Third, the network cost transfer to the CAP should be prudent. This implies the possibility of net neutrality violation and therefore the regulatory need for the ISP to treat CAP differently should be considered.