The ongoing debate over net neutrality covers a broad set of issues related to the regulation of public networks. In two ways, we extend an idealized usage-priced game-theoretic framework based on a common linear demand-response model. First, we study the impact of "side payments" among a plurality of Internet service (access) providers and content providers. In the non-monopolistic case, our analysis reveals an interesting "paradox" of side payments in that overall revenues are reduced for those that receive them. Second, assuming different application types (e.g., HTTP web traffic, peer-to-peer file sharing, media streaming, interactive VoIP), we extend this model to accommodate differential pricing among them in order to study the issue of application neutrality. Revenues for neutral and non-neutral pricing are compared for the case of two application types.
In @cite_10 , the authors address whether local ISPs should be allowed to charge remote CPs for the right'' to reach their end users (again, this is the side payment issue). Through study of a two-sided market, they determine when neutrality regulations are harmful depending on the parameters characterizing advertising rates and consumer price sensitivity As in @cite_12 , the outcome essentially depends on end users' price sensitivity, but here it is furthermore related to CP (advertising) revenues. .
@cite_10 @cite_12
2165616869 2006549632 2949398319 2000244192
This paper studies economic utilities and quality of service (QoS) in a two-sided non-neutral market where Internet service providers (ISPs) charge content providers (CPs) for the content delivery. We propose new models that involve a CP, an ISP, end users and advertisers. The CP may have either a subscription revenue model (charging end users) or an advertisement revenue model (charging advertisers). We formulate the interactions between the ISP and the CP as a noncooperative game for the former and an optimization problem for the latter. Our analysis shows that the revenue model of the CP plays a significant role in a non-neutral Internet. With the subscription model, both the ISP and the CP receive better (or worse) utilities as well as QoS in the presence of the side payment at the same time. With the advertisement model, the side payment impedes the CP from investing on its contents. We address whether local ISPs should be allowed to charge content providers, who derive advertising revenue, for the right to access end-users. We compare two-sided pricing where such charges are allowed to one-sided pricing where they are prohibited. By deriving provider equilibrium actions (prices and investments), we determine which regime is welfare-superior as a function of a few key parameters. We find that two-sided pricing is more favorable when the ratio between parameters characterizing advertising rates and end-user price sensitivity is either low or high. Unlike telephone operators, which pay termination fees to reach the users of another network, Internet Content Providers (CPs) do not pay the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) of users they reach. While the consequent cross subsidization to CPs has nurtured content innovations at the edge of the Internet, it reduces the investment incentives for the access ISPs to expand capacity. As potential charges for terminating CPs' traffic are criticized under the net neutrality debate, we propose to allow CPs to voluntarily subsidize the usagebased fees induced by their content traffic for end-users. We model the regulated subsidization competition among CPs under a neutral network and show how deregulation of subsidization could increase an access ISP's utilization and revenue, strengthening its investment incentives. Although the competition might harm certain CPs, we find that the main cause comes from high access prices rather than the existence of subsidization. Our results suggest that subsidization competition will increase the competitiveness and welfare of the Internet content market; however, regulators might need to regulate access prices if the access ISP market is not competitive enough. We envision that subsidization competition could become a viable model for the future Internet. This paper develops a game-theoretic model based on a two-sided market framework to compare Internet service providers’ (ISPs) investment incentives, content providers’ (CPs) participation, and social welfare between neutral and non-neutral network regimes. We find that ISPs’ investments are driven by the trade-off between softening consumer price competition and increasing revenues from CPs. Specifically, investments are higher in the non-neutral regime because it is easier to extract revenue through appropriate CP pricing. On the other hand, participation of CPs may be reduced in a non-neutral network due to higher prices. The net impact of non-neutrality on social welfare is determined by which of these two effects is dominant. Overall, we find that the non-neutral network is always welfare superior in a “walled-gardens” model, while the neutral network is superior in a “priority lanes” model when CP-quality heterogeneity is large. These results provide useful insights that inform the net-neutrality debate.