Advertisement

Net Neutrality and Quality of Service

  • Eitan Altman
  • Julio Rojas
  • Sulan Wong
  • Manjesh Kumar Hanawal
  • Yuedong Xu
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 75)

Abstract

2010 has witnessed many public consultations around the world concerning Net neutrality. A second legislative phase that may follow, could involve various structural changes in the Internet. The status that the Internet access has in Europe as a universal service evolves as the level of quality of service (QoS) to be offered improves. If guarantees on QoS are to be imposed, as requested by several economic actors, it would require introducing new indicators of quality of services, as well as regulation legislation and monitoring of the offered levels of QoS. This tendency in Europe may change the nature of the Internet from a best effort network to, perhaps, a more expensive one, that offers guaranteed performance. This paper presents an overview of the above issues as well as an overview of recent research on net-neutrality, with an emphasis on game theoretical approaches.

Keywords

Internet Access Content Provider Public Consultation Network Neutrality Side Payment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    ARCEP, Neutralité des réseaux: Les actes du colloque (2010), http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8652
  3. 3.
    Wong, S., Altman, E., Rojas-Mora, J.: Internet access: Where law, economy, culture and technology meet. Computer Networks 55(2) (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drucker, J.: Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $ 60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes, October 21(2010) published in Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html
  5. 5.
    Ministère de l’Économie, de l’industrie et de l’emploi. Consultation publique sur la neutralité du Net. telecom.gouv.fr, June 21 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Internet World Stats. Internet users in the european union, June 30 (2010), http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats9.htm
  7. 7.
    Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. COMCAST Corporation (Petitioner) v. Federal Communications Commission and USA (Respondents) and NBC Universal, et al. (Intervernors), 600 F.3d 642 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zelnik, P., Toubon, J., Cerutti, G.: Creation et Internet. Technical report, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, République Française (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ducourtieux, C.: Le patron de Google reçu par Nicolas Sarkozy. Le Monde.fr, September 9 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Federal Communications Commission. Report and Order, FCC 10-201 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission: Information Society and Media Directorate-General. Report on the public consultation on the open Internet and net neutrality in Europe (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ayrault, J.-M., et al.: Proposition de loi N 3061 relative à la neutralité de l’internet (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kroes, N.: Who pays what? Broadband for all and the future of Universal Service Obligations (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directives 2009/136/EC, 2002/22/EC, 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the CouncilGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Commission A Digital Agenda for Europe (COM(2010) 245) (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda del Reino de España Proyecto de Ley de Economía Sostenible (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ministry of Transport and Communications of Finland Decree on the minimun rate of a funcional Internet access as a universal service (732/2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Commission Telecom Reform 2009: Commission Declaration on Net Neutrality (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wong, S., Rojas-Mora, J., Altman, E.: Public Consultations on Net Neutrality 2010. In: Proc. of NetCoop 2010, Ghent, Belguim (November 2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Altman, E., Bernhard, P., Caron, S., Kesidis, G., Rojas-Mora, J., Wong, S.L.: A Study of Non-Neutral Networks with Usage-based Prices. In: The 3rd ETM Workshop, Amsterdam (2010), Longer version: INRIA research report 00481702Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Altman, E., Hanawal, M.K., Sundaresan, R.: Non-neutral network and the role of bargaining power in side payments. In: NetCoop, Ghent, Belgium (November 2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Altman, E., Legout, A., Xu, Y.D.: Network Non-neutrality Debate: An Economic Analysis. In: IFIP Networking 2011, Valencia, Spain (May 2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Caron, S., Kesidis, G., Altman, E.: Application neutrality and a paradox of side payments. In: The 3rd Int. Workshop on Re-Architecting the Internet (ReArch 2010), Philadelphia, USA, November 30 (2010); collocated with ACM CoNEXTGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winter, E.: The Shapley value. In: Aumann, R.J., Hart, S. (eds.) The Handbook of Game Theory, ch. 53, vol. 3. North-Holland (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hahn, R., Wallsten, S.: The Economics of Net Neutrality. The Berkeley Economic Press Economists’ Voice 3(6), 1–7 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ma, T.B., Chiu, D.M., Lui, J.C.S., Misra, V., Rubenstein, D.: Interconnecting eyeballs to content: A shapley value perspective on ISP peering and settlement. In: Proc. of ACM NetEcon 2008, pp. 61–66 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ma, T.B., Chiu, D.M., Lui, J.C.S., Misra, V., Rubenstein, D.: On cooperative settlement between content, transit and eyeball internet service providers. In: Proc. of ACM CoNext 2008, New York, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nash, J.F.: The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18, 155–162 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kelly, F.P., Maulloo, A., Tan, D.: Rate control in communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability. J. Oper. Res. Society 49, 237–252 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saavedra, C.: Bargaining, power and the net neutrality problem. Presented at NEREC Research Conference on Electronic Communications, Edcole Polytechnique, September 11-12 (2009) (manuscript)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Musacchio, J., Schwartz, G., Walrand, J.: A two-sided market analysis of provider investment incentives with an application to the net-neutrality issue. Review of Network Economics 8(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Odlyzko, A.: Internet pricing and history of communications. Computer Networks 36(5-6), 493–518 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Njoroge, P., Ozdagler, A., Stier-Moses, N., Weintraub, G.: Investment in two-sided markets and the net-neutrality debate. Decision, Risk, and Operations Working Papers Series, DRO-2010-05. Columbia Business School (July 2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kesidis, G., Das, A., de Veciana, G.: On Flat-Rate and Usage-based Pricing for Tiered Commodity Internet Services. In: Proc. CISS. Princeton (March 2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Economides, N.: Net Neutrality, Non-Discrimination and Digital Distribution of Content Through the Internet. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 4(2), 209–233 (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cheng, H.K., Bandyopadyay, S., Guo, H.: The debate on Net Neutrality: A policy Perspective. Information Systems Research, March 1 (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Economides, N., Tag, J.: Net Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-Sided Market Analysis. NET Institute Working Paper No. 07-45, SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1019121
  39. 39.
    Hande, P., Chiang, M., Calderbank, R., Rangan, S.: Network Pricing and Rate Allocation with Content Provider Participation. In: Proc. of IEEE Infocom 2009, pp. 990–998 (2009)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang, Z.L., Nabipay, P., Odlyzko, A.: Interaction, Competition and Innovation in a Service-Oriented Internet: An Economic Model. In: Proc. of IEEE Infocom 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hermalin, B.E., Katz, M.L.: The Economics of product-line restrcitions with an applications to the neutrality debate. AEI-brookings joint center for regulatory studies, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1003391
  42. 42.
    Economides, N., Hermalin, B.E.: The Economics of Netwotk Neutrality. NET Institute Working Papers, No.10-25, http://works.bepress.com/economides/38/
  43. 43.
    Choi, J.P., Kim, B.C.: Net neutrality and Investment incentives. To appear in Rand Journal of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jan, K., Lukas, W.: Network Neutrality and Congestion-Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Service Innovation, Broadband Investment and Regulation, MPRA Paper No. 22095 (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shapley, L.S.: A Value for n-person Games. In: Kuhn, H.W., Tucker, A.W. (eds.) Contributions to the Theory of Games, volume II. Annals of Mathematical Studies, vol. 28, pp. 307–317. Princeton University Press (1953)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Binmorme, K.: Game theory, a very short introduction. Oxford Univ. Press (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eitan Altman
    • 1
  • Julio Rojas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sulan Wong
    • 1
    • 3
  • Manjesh Kumar Hanawal
    • 1
    • 4
  • Yuedong Xu
    • 4
  1. 1.INRIA Sophia AntipolisRoute des LuciolesFrance
  2. 2.Dept. of Econ. and Bus. Sci.Univ. of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Dept. of LawUniv. of CoruñaA CoruñaSpain
  4. 4.LIAUniversity of AvignonAvignonFrance

Personalised recommendations