On December 06 2023 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Wow, very little notice. Streamers will need to switch over to YouTube asap in order to be ready. Also very weird that apparently S. Korea has laws on the books that says businesses have to pay their users bandwidths unlike say the ISP's here in the States. Makes me wonder what will happen to all the tournaments scheduled etc.
Also isn't Twitch owned by Amazon... there is no possible way the costs were that high for them to start to sweat it.
I don't think that's really how the regulations work AFAIK? It's kind of technical and complicated (same-size ISP's have to pay each other for the traffic they send each other or something like that). The consequence is that ISP's seem to be incentivized to place huge fees on content providers to recoup costs + their normal business motive of trying to make more money.
I'm sure there's a lot more nuance to this but I dunno enough about how global broadband networking works to elaborate.
On December 06 2023 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Wow, very little notice. Streamers will need to switch over to YouTube asap in order to be ready. Also very weird that apparently S. Korea has laws on the books that says businesses have to pay their users bandwidths unlike say the ISP's here in the States. Makes me wonder what will happen to all the tournaments scheduled etc.
Also isn't Twitch owned by Amazon... there is no possible way the costs were that high for them to start to sweat it.
It’s still a business though, even mega corps like Amazon wouldn’t want to stomach costs over a long period of time. It may be a show of power to the telecoms as well that they are prepared to pull out completely if the telecoms are not interested in cooperating.
Was twitch never popular in korea? or does this ahs to dfo more with the payment twitch needs to make towards ISP and also Korea protecting and giving preference to their national streaming services?
On December 06 2023 15:01 [Phantom] wrote: Was twitch never popular in korea? or does this ahs to dfo more with the payment twitch needs to make towards ISP and also Korea protecting and giving preference to their national streaming services?
Twitch was pretty popular in Korea!
It's my understanding that current measures are protectionist as a consequence of foreign content providers accounting for a huge proportion of the traffic in Korea, not necessarily because they're being specifically targeted due to being foreign (mind you, YouTube, Netflix, etc are all still operating in Korea despite the friction). AFAIK all the domestic services are subject to the same network usage fees, so I don't think we have a clear answer at the moment as to why specifically Twitch decided business was unsustainable.
In basic terms, Korean streamers will still be able to stream on Twitch via a VPN through Japan or elsewhere.
But, and this is a MASSIVE but, Korean streamers can no longer monetize on Twitch. All Partner/Affiliate contracts will end on February 27th, and they can't receive any payouts from Subs, Bits, or Ad revenue. Leaving Donations as the only remaining financial option, which is impractical.
In StarCraft terms, this hurts. But the real loss will be felt elsewhere. Variety streamers, Korean-centric games like Lost Ark & Eternal Return, and in particular League of Legends.
Starcraft on Twitch was an awesome time, but it seems better to move on. Youtube, Rumble and others all allow multiple platform streaming, which is also better. and I am not personally a fan of Twitch and the culture that have spawned around it.
On December 06 2023 19:25 ejozl wrote: Starcraft on Twitch was an awesome time, but it seems better to move on. Youtube, Rumble and others all allow multiple platform streaming, which is also better. and I am not personally a fan of Twitch and the culture that have spawned around it.
Agrees, twitch has some bad culture around it for sure.
On December 06 2023 15:40 Chris_Havoc wrote: In basic terms, Korean streamers will still be able to stream on Twitch via a VPN through Japan or elsewhere.
But, and this is a MASSIVE but, Korean streamers can no longer monetize on Twitch. All Partner/Affiliate contracts will end on February 27th, and they can't receive any payouts from Subs, Bits, or Ad revenue. Leaving Donations as the only remaining financial option, which is impractical.
In StarCraft terms, this hurts. But the real loss will be felt elsewhere. Variety streamers, Korean-centric games like Lost Ark & Eternal Return, and in particular League of Legends.
On December 06 2023 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Wow, very little notice. Streamers will need to switch over to YouTube asap in order to be ready. Also very weird that apparently S. Korea has laws on the books that says businesses have to pay their users bandwidths unlike say the ISP's here in the States. Makes me wonder what will happen to all the tournaments scheduled etc.
Also isn't Twitch owned by Amazon... there is no possible way the costs were that high for them to start to sweat it.
I don't think that's really how the regulations work AFAIK? It's kind of technical and complicated (same-size ISP's have to pay each other for the traffic they send each other or something like that). The consequence is that ISP's seem to incentivized to place huge fees on content providers + their normal business motive of trying to make more money.
I'm sure there's a lot more nuance to this but I dunno enough about how global broadband networking works to elaborate.
You are correct but the regulation isn't that shocking, it s actually been debated elsewhere. In the US and Canada the market is either big enough and/or the cost borne by the consumer is really high, so it s not so much a problem + there is extra lobbying power. But korea is a small very competitive market with cheap prices (relatively) for super fast speed, both mobile and home.
I m pretty sure twitch has other issues specifically in Korea that led them to the decision. If it were a systemic regulatory issue you d see way more pushback from other companies. It might just be a convenient excuse. That or the regulation has extra teeth when it comes to tax/content control
On December 06 2023 19:25 ejozl wrote: Starcraft on Twitch was an awesome time, but it seems better to move on. Youtube, Rumble and others all allow multiple platform streaming, which is also better. and I am not personally a fan of Twitch and the culture that have spawned around it.
Tbf it won’t affect BW much, most pros stream on Afreeca and Youtube and barely get any viewers on Twitch.
On December 06 2023 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Wow, very little notice. Streamers will need to switch over to YouTube asap in order to be ready. Also very weird that apparently S. Korea has laws on the books that says businesses have to pay their users bandwidths unlike say the ISP's here in the States. Makes me wonder what will happen to all the tournaments scheduled etc.
Also isn't Twitch owned by Amazon... there is no possible way the costs were that high for them to start to sweat it.
I don't think that's really how the regulations work AFAIK? It's kind of technical and complicated (same-size ISP's have to pay each other for the traffic they send each other or something like that). The consequence is that ISP's seem to incentivized to place huge fees on content providers + their normal business motive of trying to make more money.
I'm sure there's a lot more nuance to this but I dunno enough about how global broadband networking works to elaborate.
You are correct but the regulation isn't that shocking, it s actually been debated elsewhere. In the US and Canada the market is either big enough and/or the cost borne by the consumer is really high, so it s not so much a problem + there is extra lobbying power. But korea is a small very competitive market with cheap prices (relatively) for super fast speed, both mobile and home.
I m pretty sure twitch has other issues specifically in Korea that led them to the decision. If it were a systemic regulatory issue you d see way more pushback from other companies. It might just be a convenient excuse. That or the regulation has extra teeth when it comes to tax/content control
The ISPs are double dipping. They are making money by charging their customers money but they want their customers to use their service as little as possible (the gym membership strategy). ISPs tend to be local but the biggest CPs are international so the big local guy frequently wins.
ISPs in the US made the same excuses as well. But the likes of Google eventually tried their hand at being an ISP, which forced a competitive response out of the ISPs. Google rolling out 1 Gbps service to select areas forced the ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure as well.
On December 08 2023 00:02 Riner1212 wrote: gone are the sexy korean women showing cleveage
there's probably some industry lesson to be learned from the fact that AfreecaTV has way more of these types of streamers (and much laxer regulations), but none of the coomers in the west know about this.
On December 08 2023 00:02 Riner1212 wrote: gone are the sexy korean women showing cleveage
there's probably some industry lesson to be learned from the fact that AfreecaTV has way more of these types of streamers (and much laxer regulations), but none of the coomers in the west know about this.
speak for yourself. i've known about them for years.
You are correct but the regulation isn't that shocking, it s actually been debated elsewhere. In the US and Canada the market is either big enough and/or the cost borne by the consumer is really high, so it s not so much a problem + there is extra lobbying power. But korea is a small very competitive market with cheap prices (relatively) for super fast speed, both mobile and home.
I m pretty sure twitch has other issues specifically in Korea that led them to the decision. If it were a systemic regulatory issue you d see way more pushback from other companies. It might just be a convenient excuse. That or the regulation has extra teeth when it comes to tax/content control
Hello,
According to these guys : https://www.opennetkorea.org/ the cost of data delivery in south korea is much higher than elsewhere:
Not sure you won't see "more pushback from other companies", as there apparently have been lawsuits of kt vs facebook and netflix vs sk over network costs.
What do you mean by "in the usa the cost borne by the consumer is high so there is less of a problem"? Do us citizens pay different rates depending on the content consumed?
You are correct but the regulation isn't that shocking, it s actually been debated elsewhere. In the US and Canada the market is either big enough and/or the cost borne by the consumer is really high, so it s not so much a problem + there is extra lobbying power. But korea is a small very competitive market with cheap prices (relatively) for super fast speed, both mobile and home.
I m pretty sure twitch has other issues specifically in Korea that led them to the decision. If it were a systemic regulatory issue you d see way more pushback from other companies. It might just be a convenient excuse. That or the regulation has extra teeth when it comes to tax/content control
Not sure you won't see "more pushback from other companies", as there apparently have been lawsuits of kt vs facebook and netflix vs sk over network costs.
What do you mean by "in the usa the cost borne by the consumer is high so there is less of a problem"? Do us citizens pay different rates depending on the content consumed?
Not per content consumed but per data used, a lot of US plans (and Canada) are not for unlimited internet (blew my mind the first time) and i general plans are super pricy. Esp as opposed to France it s shocking. It is however changing and in most big cities now you do have unlimited plans.
What I meant by cheap prices in Korea is relatively to the quality (ultra low latency) and the data you get (mostly unlimited, also huge data on phone plans) the prices are good. The cost of data delivery is very high as you correctly stated but the video says cabling costs are low, and prices for consumers also low. At some point to maintain low consumer prices someone has to pay. I m not say the way they do it and their rates are good or the best way to do it, i m just saying it is not a shocking way to see it the way they do, esp since it essentially puts domestic operators vs foreign firms in most cases.
See it like this if you own a highway, wouldn't it be understandable that you d charge big truck companies who use it a lot more than regular cars? Or an airport would charge airlines more the more big planes land there?
EPT
