Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Internet Cost Reduction Using Internet Exchange Point: A Case Study of Internet Network of Thailand

  • 28 Accesses

Abstract

The Internet is very important in everyday life. The costs of Internet service in most countries are still high, especially in developing countries that have the rapid growth of Internet usage. There are many factors affecting the Internet cost. However, some factors can be controlled to reduce the internet cost. This work studies the structure of the Internet cost and also proposes the utilization of the IXP network model to reduce the cost, where the Internet network of Thailand is used as a case study. Mathematical models were derived for the current Internet network and also the proposed Internet network model. The historical data were used to demonstrate the cost performance of the proposed network model. The results show that the proposed network model can reduce the Internet costs of the country by about 2.5 times while all ISPs gain benefits from the proposed network model. The proposed network model can be applied to other countries that have the same situation as the Internet network of Thailand while political and business campaigns need to support the proposed network model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

References

  1. 1.

    Finn, B., & Yang, D. (2009). Communications under the seas: The evolving cable network and its implications. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

  2. 2.

    Doran, N. (1999). Shedding new light on the wired world. Physics World, 12(7), 45–45.

  3. 3.

    Linge, N., & Burns, B. (2016). The cable that wired the world. ITP Journal, 10, 1–11.

  4. 4.

    ESCAP UN. (2016). Technical report a pre-feasibility study on the Asia-Pacific information superhighway in the ASEAN sub-region: Conceptualization , international traffic and quality analysis, network topology design and implementation model, ESCAP of UN.

  5. 5.

    Krisetya, M., Lairson, L., & Mauldin, A. (2018). Global Internet Map 2018. https://global-internet-map-2018.telegeography.com/. Accessed 8 Apr 2019.

  6. 6.

    Winther, M. (2006). Tier I ISPs: What they are and why they are important (pp. 1–13). IDC. https://www.us.ntt.net/downloads/papers/IDC_Tier1_ISPs.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2018.

  7. 7.

    Huston, G. (1998). Interconnection, peering, and settlements. In G. Huston (Ed.), ISP survival guide (pp. 1–29). New York: Wiley.

  8. 8.

    Chatzis, N., Smaragdakis, G., Feldmann, A., & Willinger, W. (2013). There is more to IXPs than meets the Eye Nikolaos. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 43(5), 19–28.

  9. 9.

    Weiss, M. B., & Shin, S. J. (2004). Internet interconnection economic model and its analysis: Peering and settlement. Netnomics, 6(1), 43–57.

  10. 10.

    Xu, K., Duan, Z., Zhang, Z.-L., & Chandrashekar, J. (2004). On properties of internet exchange points and their impact on as topology and relationship. In N. Mitrou, K. Kontovasilis, G. N. Rouskas, I. Iliadis, & L. Merakos (Eds.), Networking 2004 (pp. 284–295). Berlin: Springer.

  11. 11.

    Coucheney, P., Maillé, P., & Tuffin, B. (2014). Network neutrality debate and isp inter-relations: Traffic exchange, revenue sharing, and disconnection threat. NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking, 15(3), 155–182.

  12. 12.

    Metz, C. (2001). Interconnecting ISP networks. IEEE Internet Computing, 5(2), 74–80.

  13. 13.

    Altmann, J., & Goel, D. (2006). Economizing ISP interconnections at internet exchange points. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 10(2), 21–34.

  14. 14.

    Liebsch, M., & Yousaf, F. Z. (2013). Runtime relocation of cdn serving points–enabler for low costs mobile content delivery. In 2013 IEEE wireless communications and networking conference (WCNC) (pp. 1464–1469).

  15. 15.

    Chatzis, N., Smaragdakis, G., Böttger, J., Krenc, T., & Feldmann, A. (2013). On the benefits of using a large ixp as an internet vantage point. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on internet measurement conference (pp. 333–346), ser. IMC ’13. New York, USA.

  16. 16.

    Huston, G. (1999). ISP survival guide: strategies for running a competitive ISP. River Street: Wiley.

  17. 17.

    Besen, S. M., & Israel, M. A. (2013). The evolution of internet interconnection from hierarchy to mesh: Implications for government regulation. Information Economics and Policy, 25(4), 235–245.

  18. 18.

    Gregori, E., Improta, A., Lenzini, L., & Orsini, C. (2011). The impact of ixps on the as-level topology structure of the internet. Computer Communications, 34(1), 68–82.

  19. 19.

    Ma, R. T. B., Chiu, D. M., Lui, J. C. S., Misra, V., & Rubenstein, D. (2010). Internet economics: The use of shapley value for ISP settlement. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 18(3), 775–787.

  20. 20.

    Di Bartolomeo, M., Di Battista, G., di Lallo, R., & Squarcella, C. (2015). Is it really worth to peer at ixps? A comparative study. In 2015 IEEE symposium on computers and communication (ISCC) (pp. 421–426).

  21. 21.

    Altmann, J. J. (2000). A reference model of internet service provider businesses definitions of roles of Stakeholders. In ICTEC 2000. 3rd international conference on telecommunication and electronic commerce (p. 9), no. Dallas, Texas. ICTEC.

  22. 22.

    Faratin, P., Clark, D., Gilmore, P., Bauer, S., Berger, A., & Lehr, W. (2007). Complexity of Internet Interconnections: Technology, incentives and implications for policy. In TPRC’ 07 (pp. 1–31).

  23. 23.

    O’Keefe, A. (2017). The difference between layer 3 and layer 2 networks–wideband. https://www.wideband.net.au/blog/difference-layer-3-layer-2-networks/. Accessed 2 Aug 2018.

  24. 24.

    IIRS Team, N. (2018). Network Technology Lab (NTL), Thailand Domestic Internet Exchange. http://internet.nectec.or.th/webstats/bandwidth.iir?Sec=bandwidth. Accessed 2 Aug 2018.

  25. 25.

    Palasri, S. (1999). The history of the internet in Thailand. Network Startup Resource Center (p. 1999). Oregon: University of Oregon.

  26. 26.

    NBTC (2019). NBTC’s History. https://www.nbtc.go.th/. Accessed 12 Apr 2019.

  27. 27.

    Krisetya, M., Lairson, L., Mauldin, A., & Stronge, T. (2017). Global Internet Map 2017. https://global-internet-map-2017.telegeography.com/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.

  28. 28.

    BKNIX (2019). BKNIX | Bangkok Neutral Internet eXchange. https://bknix.co.th/. Accessed 25 Oct 2019.

  29. 29.

    VNNIC, Vietnam Internet Network Information Center (VNNIC). https://vnnic.vn/. Accessed 12 Oct 2019.

  30. 30.

    ITU (2017). ITU | ICT Prices 2017. https://www.itu.int/net4/ITU-D/ipb/. Accessed 25 Oct 2019.

  31. 31.

    Cattelecom (2019). Cattelecom Internet Prices. https://www.cattelecom.com/cat/cat-internet. Accessed 25 Oct 2019.

  32. 32.

    NBTC (2017). Office of The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Taweesak Samanchuen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muttitanon, W., Samanchuen, T. Internet Cost Reduction Using Internet Exchange Point: A Case Study of Internet Network of Thailand. Wireless Pers Commun (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-020-07198-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Internet exchange point
  • Internet interconnection
  • Internet cost reduction
  • Cost modeling