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
2006549632 2138744708
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. Pricing content-providers for connectivity to end- users and setting connection parameters based on the price is an evolving model on the Internet. The implications are heavily debated in telecom policy circles, and some advocates of "Network Neutrality" have opposed price based differentiation in connectivity. However, pricing content providers can possibly subsidize the end-user's cost of connectivity, and the consequent increase in end-user demand can benefit ISPs and content providers. This paper provides a framework to quantify the precise trade-off in the distribution of benefits among ISPs, content-providers, and end-users. The framework generalizes the well-known utility maximization based rate allocation model, which has been extensively studied as an interplay between the ISP and the end-users, to incorporate pricing of content-providers. We derive the resulting equilibrium prices and data rates in two different ISP market conditions: competition and monopoly. Network neutrality based restriction on content-provider pricing is then modeled as a constraint on the maximum price that can be charged to content-providers. We demonstrate that, in addition to gains in total and end- user surplus, content-provider experiences a net surplus from participation in rate allocation under low cost of connectivity. The surplus gains are, however, limited under monopoly conditions in comparison to competition in the ISP market.