Traditionally, Internet Access Providers (APs) only charge end-users for Internet access services; however, to recoup infrastructure costs and increase revenues, some APs have recently adopted two-sided pricing schemes under which both end-users and content providers are charged. Meanwhile, with the rapid growth of traffic, network congestion could seriously degrade user experiences and influence providers' utility. To optimize profit and social welfare, APs and regulators need to design appropriate pricing strategies and regulatory policies that take the effects of network congestion into consideration. In this paper, we model two-sided networks under which users' traffic demands are influenced by exogenous pricing and endogenous congestion parameters and derive the system congestion under an equilibrium. We characterize the structures and sensitivities of profit- and welfare-optimal two-sided pricing schemes and reveal that 1) the elasticity of system throughput plays a crucial role in determining the structures of optimal pricing, 2) the changes of optimal pricing under varying AP's capacity and users' congestion sensitivity are largely driven by the type of data traffic, e.g., text or video, and 3) APs and regulators will be incentivized to shift from one-sided to two-sided pricing when APs' capacities and user demand for video traffic grow. Our results can help APs design optimal two-sided pricing and guide regulators to legislate desirable policies.
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. 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. 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. This article analyzes the effects of net neutrality regulation on investment incentives for Internet service providers (ISPs) and content providers (CPs), and their implications for social welfare. Concerning the ISPs' investment incentives, we find that capacity expansion decreases the sale price of the priority right under the discriminatory regime. Thus, contrary to ISPs' claims that net neutrality regulations would have a chilling effect on their incentive to invest, we cannot dismiss the possibility of the opposite. A discriminatory regime can also weaken CPs' investment incentives because of CPs' concern that the ISP would expropriate some of the investment benefits.