(C) TVStartup inc

SEOUL — The long-standing tension between South Korean cable TV operators (SOs) and Program Providers (PPs) has escalated into an all-out industry war. The dispute, centered on how content usage fees are calculated, now threatens to destabilize the nation's media ecosystem as both sides refuse to budge from their "extreme" positions.

The Core of the Conflict: A "Rule Change" rather than a Price Hike
On February 2, a coalition of major industry bodies, including the Korea Association of Content Providers and the PP Association, issued a joint statement condemning cable operators for "unilaterally imposing new fee structures without prior consultation."

Unlike previous disputes—such as the 2025 standoff between LG HelloVision and CJ ENM, which was a localized contract battle—this current conflict represents a fundamental shift in the industry's regulatory logic. Cable operators are proposing a new "linked fee system" that would:

Tie content fees directly to the SO's annual revenue performance.
Implement a "Correction Option" (cap): If a cable operator’s payout rate significantly exceeds the average rate paid by IPTV platforms, the fee would be forcibly lowered to match the industry average.

A Battle for Survival
The Cable TV operators (SOs) argue that these measures are a desperate necessity. With the rise of IPTV and Global OTT giants, cable revenue has plummeted. They claim their current content costs are disproportionately high compared to their shrinking market share, making the "correction" a matter of survival.

Conversely, Program Providers (PPs) view this as a death sentence for the creative industry. "If these new standards are forced through, the content ecosystem—especially for small-to-medium-sized networks—will collapse," the PP associations warned. They argue that content should be valued on its own merit and viewership, not by an arbitrary comparison to what IPTV platforms choose to pay.

The "Double Squeeze" on Content Creators
The timing of this fee reduction could not be worse for broadcasters. PPs are currently trapped in a "double squeeze":

Skyrocketing Production Costs: Competition with global platforms has driven up the price of talent and production.
Declining Ad Revenue: Traditional TV advertising is migrating to digital and social media platforms.
Industry experts warn that if cable revenue dries up, it will lead to a vicious cycle: reduced investment in shows, lower quality content, and a subsequent loss of platform competitiveness for the cable operators themselves.

Criticism of Government Inaction
As the conflict reaches its peak, the South Korean government—specifically the Korea Communications Commission (KCC)—is under fire for its "bystander" approach.

For years, the government has maintained that content fees are a "private contractual matter" to be settled by market forces. However, industry insiders point out the hypocrisy in this stance. "The government sets strict standards for frequency usage fees and network access fees," one official noted. "To leave content fees—the very lifeblood of the media industry—entirely to 'market autonomy' during a crisis is an abdication of responsibility."

Some analysts suggest that the SOs’ aggressive new "Correction Option" is actually a strategic move to force the government’s hand. By creating a situation that threatens the entire ecosystem, they may be trying to compel regulators to finally establish a unified, state-led guideline for content compensation.

Conclusion: An Uncertain Future
The standoff is more than a corporate disagreement; it is a collision between the survival strategy of a legacy platform (Cable TV) and the sustainability of the content industry. If a compromise is not reached soon, the damage will likely extend beyond individual companies, resulting in channel closures and a diminished variety of programming for South Korean viewers.