The word INTERNET TV (IPTV) is recommended to be written in capitalized letters in Korea. When do you capitalize a word or a sentence in a paragraph It may be probably when you need to emphasize something important or something extraordinary. INTERNET TV is that something in Korea. Extremely important but ignored.
As implied above, Korea has not launched an INTERNET TV service yet. What a shame on Korea, the number one country in broadband to service supply ratio. INTERNET TV is a new but already commercialized technology in other countries with broadband networks. The service enables Internet users and TV-watchers to enjoy TV programs and Internet access simultaneously on a TV screen by using the Internet Protocol network.
Thus experts who come to Korea to attend forums on information technology, or IT, tend to raise an embarrassing question, "Korea has no Internet TV" And they do not hesitate to add "That is ridiculous. Why" INTERNET TV is an Achilles' heel of Korean IT. When you touch it, experts in IT, journalists or professors, shut their mouths and indicate that they do not want to talk about it. They are just murmuring that INTERNET TV SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ALREADY.
In Korea, the INTERNET TV agenda has long been put on the shelf unsettled. Debate on the hot potato has been boiling over, but no solution has yet been found. As a matter of fact, INTERNET TV is like a microwave dinner for Korea. Once Korea decides to provide the service, it will take no time at all to implement. Countries with solid broadband networks can start INTERNET TV with no sweat.
France, Canada, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Italy, and China are among the countries providing IPTV. Why not Korea For a long time there has been no leadership to implement IPTV programming. As we know, IPTV is a combination of broadcasting and broadband service. This means that two big powers, broadcasting and broadband providers, are both eager to hold the hegemony.
When the broadcasting side tries to move their hand the broadband side says no, and vise versa. It appears that they are mirror opposites that can never agree. Analyzing the rhetoric that both sides use is not helpful. Broadband providers, for example KT and Hanaro Telecom, emphasize that IPTV is not a broadcasting service but an additional communication service. Their point is that the development of broadband technology gave birth to IPTV.
They also proclaim that all the TV sets in homes will function just as computer monitors, adding that traditional TV sets will disappear in the near future. That means we can divide the TV screen into several segments so that we can watch TV programs, check e-mails, and enjoy broadband services and banking services simultaneously.
That is why broadband worriers claim that IPTV is not a TV, but a brand new service coming from the Internet technology pyramid. Therefore, they think it is ridiculous for the broadcasting sides to say that IPTV is part of TV services, thus they call on lawmakers to legislate regulations in favor of the broadband side to help them run their new business. KT and Hanaro Telecom also demand that the law should be made as soon as possible.
Market analysts have been warning that broadband business can see a crisis soon if it fails to find a new market. In Korea, broadband providers have remained in a deep depression as the broadband market has become saturated. The growth rate is below 5% in the market with more than 200 providers competing.
Broadband companies deny the speculation that they try to defeat their counterparts by taking advantage of broadband services which have grown to the extent to swallowing the broadcasting world. They also say no to the indication that they will become a superpower by occupying the broadcasting business through broadband technology. KT, a leading broadband provider, has said that it is only interested in INTERNET TV business, not in the hegemony. KT has called upon the government to legislate a new law as soon as possible so that broadband providers can run INTERNET TV businesses.
Meanwhile on the broadcasting side KBS, MBC, SBS and cable TV are strongly against the stance the broadband sides take. They have said that no permission has to be allowed for broadband providers to stream TV programs on their INTERNET TV. Streaming TV programs means that INTERNET TV subscribers can watch the same programs at the same time as TV channel watchers. They regard INTERNET TV not as an independent broadband communication but as one of many TV technologies. They also emphasize that if broadband companies are permitted to air TV programs at the same time as broadcasters, there may come the time that the established broadcasting business can face red ink on their revenue sheets and the public purpose that TV has fulfilled will be harmed.
Cable TV suppliers are absolutely against the introduction of INTERNET TV at the moment. They said that if broadband giants like KT start an INTERNET TV business they cannot survive the competition. To run INTERNET TV, they pointed out, players have to equip themselves with quality broadband networks with financial plans. In this aspect, cable TVs are far behind. They are still small in size and short in finances.
They suggested that possible players should stand at the same starting line by giving up all the upper hand. This means that broadband giants should set up independent companies to run INTERNET TV and open broadband networks to cable TVs equally. They also demand that the broadband side be under the guidelines of the Broadcasting Committee. The Broadcasting Committee is a constitutional organization that controls all TV programs. Broadband providers have refused to be controlled by the Committee.
The Committee is also reluctant to permit the broadband side to supply INTERNET TV services if they refuse to stick to the guidelines. The Committee worries that independent broadband providers would control the programs arbitrarily while cable TV does not. Under the current law the broadcasting companies should keep the guidelines the Committee has set. That is why broadband providers have refused to tie themselves down with the guidelines.
The confrontation has also occurred between the Committee and the Ministry of Information and Communication. The Committee tends to represent the interests of the broadcasting side while the MIC protects the broadband side. The MIC has insisted that new laws should focus on the power shift of technology that INTERNET TV creates. The future networks will be all IP (Internet Protocol) and enable wired telephone services and TV broadcasting to use the IP network.
As the rivals fail to narrow their differences, the legislation of the laws regarding INTERNET TV has been delayed. The Coordinating Committee of Government Administration affiliated to the Prime Minister's Office tried to bridge the gap, but in vain. It appears to be impossible that the new law would be born within the lame duck presidency of Roh Moo-hyun. In these circumstances, the investment into INTERNET TV still bears no children.
KT, for example, has put a huge amount of money into the early launch of IPTV. The giant is ready to start it at any time if the law is ready. The KT IPTV Center in Youido, Seoul, is in a get-set position. Hanaro Telecom, LG Dacom and LG Powercom are also on their mark to run forward. And hundreds of equipment makers and content producers are waiting for the moment the law is to be declared.
Whatever it may be, MIC or the Committee, it is agreed that INTERNET TV services will create a new market. It will be a breakthrough to revitalize the nose-diving IT economy. It will attract a lot of investment and consumption from both suppliers and consumers. The benefit INTERNET TV will provide is, for sure, huge for both sides. Who should take the hegemony is not that important. The priority should be put on the benefit and profit that IPTV gives to all.
The agenda of converging the MIC and the Committee into one organization, in this sense, is the right direction forward. By doing so, Korean IT can be compensated for the time the confrontation has wasted so far. The converged organization will be efficient to boost the IPTV market and to make policy for business circles. However, the environment is not favorable for IPTV because the presidential election is just around the corner. It may be impossible to see the declaration of the IPTV law within the coming six months. Amid presidential election turmoil the agenda on the shelf would be forgotten.
But one thing for sure is that IPTV will be on show next year when a new President takes office. Experts predict that the new leader can tackle the agenda. We hope that INTERNET TV will not have to be written in capitalized letters next year. It is really ridiculous that INTERNET TV is not on air yet in Korea, the country with the highest penetration of wired and wireless broadband internet, 3G mobile cell phones, portable digital TV, online virtual games and everything else.
The two authors of the book Digital Korea portrayed Korea as the only country where the future is now visible. The absence of INTERNET TV is really a shame on Korea.
