Advertisement

A New Bilateral Arrangement between Interconnected Providers

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5539)

Abstract

Cost allocation between interconnected networks is based on measured traffic flows. This principle, however, does not provide a fair way for sharing costs. In this paper, a new bilateral model, called Differentiated Traffic-based Interconnection Agreement (DTIA) for intercarrier compensation is presented. In particular, the approach aims to determine the original initiator of a transmission by means of traffic differentiation into two types and to compensate the interconnection costs. Unlike the existing financial settlements, under which the payments are made based on the traffic flows, the proposed method suggests costs compensation according to the differentiated traffic flows. Further, in order to support the described payment scheme, a simple and scalable traffic management mechanism was designed. The results obtained from the comparative analysis showed that determination of a transmission initiator induces cost sharing between all parties and therefore, reduces the interconnection payments between providers.

Keywords

Interconnection arrangement intercarrier compensation Internet economics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Norton, W.: Internet Service Providers and Peering. Draft 2.5, Equinix White Papers (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Courcoubetis, C., Weber, R.: Pricing Communication Networks: Economics, Technology and Modeling. Wiley, Chichester (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huston, G.: Interconnection, Peering, and Settlement. Part II, Internet Protocol Journal 2(2), 2–23 (1999b)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norton, W.B.: A Business Case for ISP Peering (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kende, M.: The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), OPP Working Paper No. 32 (September 2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faratin, P., Clark, D., Gilmore, P., Bauer, S., Berger, A., Lehr, W.: Complexity of Internet Interconnections: Technology, Incentives and Implications for Policy. In: Thirty Fifth Telecommunication Policy Research Conference (TPRC) (September 2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laffont, J.J., Tirole, J.: Competition in Telecommunications. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Armstrong, M.: The Theory of Access Pricing and Interconnection. In: Cave, M.E., Mujumdar, S.K., Vogelsang, I. (eds.) Handbook of Telecommunications Economics, vol. 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Armstrong, M.: Competition in Two-sided Markets. RAND Journal of Economics (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeGraba, P.: Bill and Keep at the Central Office as the Efficient Interconnection Regime. FCC, OSP, Working Paper 33 (December 2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Federal Communications Commission. In the Matter of Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 01-92, April 27 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yoon, K.: Interconnection Economics of all-IP Networks. Review of Network Economics V 5 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laffont, J.J., Marcus, S., Rey, P., Tirole, J.: Internet Interconnection and the Off-net-cost Pricing Principle. RAND Journal of Economics 34(2), 370–390 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carter, M., Wright, J.: Interconnection in Network Industries. Review of Industrial Organisation (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carter, M., Wright, J.: Asymmetric Network Interconnection. Review of Industrial Organization 22(1), 27–46 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Besen, S., Milgrom, P., Mitchell, B., Srinagesh, P.: Advancing in Routing Technologies and Internet Peering Agreements. American Economic Review 91, 292–296 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davoyan, R., Altmann, J.: Investigating the Influence of Market Shares on Interconnection Settlements. In: Proceedings of IEEE Globecom (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davoyan, R., Altmann, J.: Investigating the Role of Transmission Initiator in Private Peering Arrangements. In: Proceedings of IFIP/IEEE IM. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2009) (accepted)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davoyan, R.: DTIA: Differentiated Traffic-based Interconnection Agreement. In: Proceedings of ISCIT. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stiller, B.: A survey of Charging Internet Services. In: Aidarous, S., Plevyak, T. (eds.) Managing IP Networks: Challenges and Opportunities, September. Wiley-IEEE Press (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huston, G.: Interconnection and Peering. Broad Band Satellite (November 2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Economides, N.: The Economics of Networks. International Journal of Industrial Organization 14(6), 673–699 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marcus, J.: Interconnection in an NGN Environment. In: Background paper for ITU Workshop on What rules for IP-enabled NGNs? (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huston, G.: ISP Survival Guide: Strategies for Running a Competitive ISP. Wiley, Chichester (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.TEMEP, School of Industrial and Management Engineering, College of EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySouth Korea

Personalised recommendations