## Literature Review  
### OTT Services  
The success of OTT services is owed, in part, to the increase in the number of single-person households and their desire for highly personalized content. With the phenomena of cord-cutting, which circumvents paid broadcasting, and cord-shaving, which leverages alternate broadcasting venues, the demand for new and innovative OTT services will not likely decrease [10]. For many worldwide consumers, OTT services have replaced legacy subscription models. In Korea and China, consumers spend around USD 3 per month for high-definition OTT services with tailored recommendation systems [11]. Currently, the OTT market is dominated by giant companies such as Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, and Hulu, which account for approximately 75, 55, 44, and 32% of the US OTT market, respectively. As a whole, these firms currently account for 79% of the US market share [12]. Competitors are quickly entering the fray. Disney launched Disney+ in November 2019 after acquiring 21 st Century Fox, securing 50-million US subscribers as of July 2020 [13]. After acquiring Warner Media, AT&T launched HBO Max, which utilizes current and past HBO content, securing more than 34-million US subscribers as of June 2020 [14]. The rapidly changing OTT landscape presents both a crisis and an opportunity for conventional TV networks. Although it proves to be a disadvantage to extant strategies, it does provide an opportunity to enter new markets by providing OTT services using their current content and service supply chains [5]. Hulu, launched in 2008, dominates the market with content from FOX, NBC, and ABC [4]. In Korea, there are ~3-million monthly Wavve subscribers, which offers content from KBS, MBC, and SBS [15]. The market positions and strategies of ISPs are more complicated than those of legacy TV networks. ISPs that simultaneously provide IP-TV and internet services must install and maintain high-quality broadband infrastructures for both. Additionally, bundling strategies are required to prevent cord-cutting that would cancel IP-TV services in favor of OTT services alone [16]. In fact, in Korea, KT, which holds the highest share of the IP-TV market, is considering a strategy to create synergy through a partnership with Netflix. As such, Netflix could use the opportunity to expand their market further into Korea. KT has the largest number of wired network subscribers and can collect more subscribers and their abundant network usage fees by providing Netflix content [17]. With the gradual distribution of 5G, the number of customers using wireless OTT services is bound to grow. If stable QoS cannot be guaranteed, customer churn will be difficult to deal with. In particular, with the increase of the use of real-time video-streaming services (e.g., Twitch and Discord) stable services will forever be challenged [8; 18]. As mentioned, ISPs must be able to dynamically execute service degradation plans to minimize network-resource overconsumption while meeting the QoS needs of consumers. That is, it is essential to create a win-win situation for both ISPs and OTT providers. Based on assumptions of network neutrality, various studies have analyzed the complex pricing systems related to content providers, networks, and consumers. [PERSON] et al. [7] proposed a pricing plan that could guarantee QoS based on the Nash equilibrium. They showed that the direct sale of QoS by an ISP to a consumer achieved better results than selling QoS to an OTT provider. Based on the quality of experience (QoE), a model that would benefit all OTT providers, networks, and consumers was also proposed [19]. This study compared three methods: Providing better QoE to customers that paid more; satisfying QoS of the most profitable customers (MPC) to increase lifetime value; and providing fair QoE to all customers. Of these, the method of providing QoE to MPCs was found to be the most beneficial.