Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
162 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Towards Equitable Peering: A Proposal for a Fair Peering Fee Between ISPs and Content Providers (2310.04641v2)

Published 7 Oct 2023 in cs.NI

Abstract: Disagreements over peering fees have risen to the level of potential government regulation. ISPs assert that content providers should pay them based on the volume of downstream traffic. Transit providers and content providers assert that consumers have already paid ISPs to transmit the content they request and that peering agreements should be settlement-free. Our goal is to determine the fair payment between an ISP and an interconnecting network. We consider fair cost sharing between two Tier-1 ISPs, and derive the peering fee that equalizes their net backbone transportation costs. We then consider fair cost sharing between an ISP and a transit provider. We derive the peering fee that equalizes their net backbone transportation costs, and illustrate how it depends on the traffic ratio and the amount of localization of that content. Finally, we consider the fair peering fee between an ISP and a content provider. We derive the peering fee that results in the same net cost to the ISP, and illustrate how the peering fee depends on the number of interconnection points and the amount of localization of that content. We dispense with the ISP argument that it should be paid regardless of the amount of localization of content.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (33)
  1. Federal Communications Commission, “\capitalisewordsProtecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601,” 2015.
  2. ——, “\capitalisewordsRestoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 311,” 2018.
  3. ——, “\capitalisewordsReport on the Future of the Universal Service Fund, Report, WC Docket No. 21-476,” 2022.
  4. C. Gahnberg, N. de Guzman, A. Robachevsky, and A. I. S. Wan, “Internet impact brief: South korea’s interconnection rules,” Internet Society, 2022.
  5. Axon Partners Group, “\capitalisewordsEurope’s internet ecosystem: socio-economic benefits of a fairer balance between tech giants and telecom operators,” 2022.
  6. “Berec preliminary assessment of the underlying assumptions of payments from large caps to isps,” Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, 2022.
  7. A. Nikkhah and S. Jordan, “Analysis of the requirements of settlement-free interconnection policies,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, pp. 1–1, 2023.
  8. L. Gyarmati, M. Sirivianos, and N. Laoutaris, “Sharing the cost of backbone networks: Simplicity vs. precision,” in 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM Workshops.   IEEE, 2012, pp. 171–176.
  9. C. Dovrolis, “The evolution and economics of internet interconnections,” Submitted to Federal Communications Commission, 2015.
  10. Y. Tan, I. R. Chiang, and V. S. Mookerjee, “An economic analysis of interconnection arrangements between internet backbone providers,” Operations research, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 776–788, 2006.
  11. R. T. Ma, “Pay or perish: The economics of premium peering,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 353–366, 2017.
  12. X. Wang, Y. Xu, and R. T. Ma, “Paid peering, settlement-free peering, or both?” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 585–594, 2021.
  13. S. Patchala, S. Lee, C. Joo, and D. Manjunath, “On the economics of network interconnections and its impact on net neutrality,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 4789–4800, 2021.
  14. C. Courcoubetis, L. Gyarmati, N. Laoutaris, P. Rodriguez, and K. Sdrolias, “Negotiating premium peering prices: A quantitative model with applications,” ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1–22, 2016.
  15. D. Zarchy, A. Dhamdhere, C. Dovrolis, and M. Schapira, “Nash-peering: A new techno-economic framework for internet interconnections,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2018-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 403–408.
  16. A. Dhamdhere, C. Dovrolis, and P. Francois, “A value-based framework for internet peering agreements,” in 2010 22nd International Teletraffic Congress (lTC 22).   IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–8.
  17. R. T. Ma, “Internet transport economics: Model and analysis,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Symposium on Theory, Algorithmic Foundations, and Protocol Design for Mobile Networks and Mobile Computing, 2020, pp. 291–300.
  18. I. Castro and S. Gorinsky, “T4p: Hybrid interconnection for cost reduction,” in 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM Workshops.   IEEE, 2012, pp. 178–183.
  19. A. Ahmed, Z. Shafiq, H. Bedi, and A. Khakpour, “Peering vs. transit: Performance comparison of peering and transit interconnections,” in 2017 IEEE 25th International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP).   IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–10.
  20. P. K. Dey and M. Yuksel, “Peering among content-dominated vertical isps,” IEEE Networking Letters, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 132–135, 2019.
  21. T. Böttger, F. Cuadrado, G. Tyson, I. Castro, and S. Uhlig, “Open connect everywhere: A glimpse at the internet ecosystem through the lens of the netflix cdn,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 28–34, 2018.
  22. A Netflix briefing paper, “\capitalisewordsA cooperative approach to content delivery,” Accessed March 8, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openconnect.netflix.com/Open-Connect-Briefing-Paper.pdf
  23. T. Jitsuzumi, “Economic impact of asymmetric paid peering: Implications of the netflix vs. sk broadband dispute,” SK Broadband Dispute (August 1, 2022), 2022.
  24. S. Lee, D. Manjunath, and C. Joo, “On the economics effects of cdn-mediated delivery on content providers,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 2022.
  25. X. Wang and R. T. Ma, “On private peering agreements between content and access providers: a contractual equilibrium analysis,” Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–32, 2020.
  26. PeeringDB, “\capitalisewordsThe Interconnection Database,” Retrieved from https://www.peeringdb.com/. Accessed February 6, 2022.
  27. United States Census Bureau, “\capitalisewordsVintage county population estimates totals,” Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/research/evaluation-estimates/2020-evaluation-estimates/2010s-counties-total.html. Accessed January 26, 2022.
  28. ——, “\capitalisewordsThe U.S. Gazetteer Files,” Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/time-series/geo/gazetteer-files.2021.html. Accessed January 26, 2022.
  29. A. Nikkhah and S. Jordan, “Should large isps apply the same settlement-free peering policies to both isps and cdns?” in 2023 IEEE 20th Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), 2023, pp. 384–391.
  30. ——, “Requirements of settlement-free peering policies,” in GLOBECOM 2022 - 2022 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2022, pp. 3617–3622.
  31. V. Valancius, C. Lumezanu, N. Feamster, R. Johari, and V. V. Vazirani, “How many tiers? pricing in the Internet transit market,” in SIGCOMM, 2011, pp. 194–205.
  32. A. Nikkhah and S. Jordan, “Are the settlement-free peering policy requirements for isps and cdns based on network costs?” in TPRC50: The 50th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy, 2022.
  33. ——, “A two-sided model of paid peering,” Telecommunications Policy, p. 102352, 2022.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now