Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling the dynamic interactions of agents in the provision of network infrastructure

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although next-generation information network infrastructure is prerequisite for continued economic growth, the United States is losing ground in important areas relative to peer countries. Businesses and regulators have grown concerned that the U.S. lacks the correct regulatory and business incentives to upgrade the existing network. Due to the complex and dynamic nature of the interdependencies in the ICT value network, traditional methods of public policy and management analysis have proven inadequate to fully understand the issues and possible solutions. This paper discusses a novel Genetic Programming (GP) approach to the problem. Although only a first step towards addressing the problem, the GP discovered several interesting results stemming from the complex interactions. For example, telecommunications companies would actually be hurt by the option to charge discriminatory prices but application providers would benefit.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aschauer, D. (1989). Is public expenditure productive? Journal of Monetary Economics, 23(2), 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, J. M. (2007). Dynamic effects of network neutrality. International Journal of Communication, 1, 531–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, J. M., & DeMaagd, K. (2008). Network management practices and sector performance: A genetic programming approach. Paper presented at the 36th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Arlington, VA.

  • Beard, T. R., Ford, G., Koutsky, T., & Spiwak, L. (2006). Network neutrality and industry structure. Policy Paper No. 24. Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Policy Studies, Washington, D.C.

  • Beltrán, F., & Sharkey, W. W. (2009). Pricing strategies and welfare effects of competition between two next-generation platforms. Paper presented at the 37th Research Conference on Communications, Information, and Internet Policy, Arlington, VA.

  • Bongard, J. (1999). Coevolutionary Dynamics of a multi-population genetic programming system. 5th European Conference on Advances in Artificial Life.

  • Chang, H., Jamin, S., & Willinger, W. (2003). Internet connectivity at the AS-level: An optimization driven modeling approach. ACM SIGCOMM Workshop.

  • Choi, J., & Kim, B. (2008). Net neutrality and investment incentives. CESifo Working Paper Series No 2390.

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Draft commission recommendation on regulated access to next generation access networks (NGA). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, F., Parker, E., Colleran, E., & Gold, M. (1991). Telecommunications infrastructure and economic growth. Telecommunications Policy, 15, 529–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, G., Wong, M. L., & Lui, H. K. (2006). Machine learning for direct marketing response models: Bayesian networks with evolutionary programming. Management Science, 52, 597–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Long, J. B., & Summers, L. (1991). Equipment investment and economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 445–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, K., Gifford, R., Lenord, T., May, R., & Thierer, A. (2006). A skeptic’s primer on net neutrality regulation. Washington, DC: The Progress and Freedom Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economides, N., & Tåg, J. (2008). Net neutrality regulation: Quality of service, price discrimination and exclusive contracts. 36th Telecommunication Policy and Research Conference, Arlington, VA.

  • EIU. (2008). E-readiness rankings 2009. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elixmann, D., Dragan, I., Neumann, K.-H., & Plückebaum, T. (2008). The economics of next-generation access. Bad Honnef: WIK-Consult.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Regulators Group. (2008). ERG common statement on regulatory principles of IP-IC/NGN core: A work program towards a common position. ERG (08) 2 Final NGN IP-IC CS 081016. Brussels: European Regulators Group.

  • Fabrikant, A., Koutsoupias, E., & Papadimitriou C. H. (2002). Heuristically optimized trade-offs: A new paradigm for power laws in the Internet. Proceedings of ICALP.

  • Faloutsos, M., Faloutsos, P., & Faloutsos, C. (1999). On power-law relationships of the Internet topology. ACM SIGCOMM.

  • Faratin, P., Clark, D., Bauer, S., Lehr, W., Gilmore, P., & Berger, A. (2008). The growing complexity of Internet interconnection. Communications & Strategies, 72(4th quarter), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, J., & Weiser, P. J. (2003). Modularity, vertical integration, and open access policies: towards a convergence of antitrust and regulation in the internet age. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 17(1), 85–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felten, E. (2006). Nuts and bolts of network neutrality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, G., Koutsky, T., & Spiwak, L. (2006a). The Burden of network neutrality mandates on rural broadband deployment. Policy Paper No. 25. Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Policy Studies, Washington, D.C.

  • Ford, G., Koutsky, T., Spiwak, L. (2006b). The efficiency risk of network neutrality rules. Policy Bulletin No. 16. Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Policy Studies, Washington, D.C.

  • Ford, G., Koutsky, T., & Spiwak, L. (2006). Network neutrality and industry structure. Phoenix Center Policy Paper Number 24. Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Public Policy Studies, Washington, D.C.

  • Frieden, R. (2006). Network neutrality or bias? Handicapping the odds for a tiered and branded Internet. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Telecommunications Policy and Research Conference. Arlington, VA.

  • Frieden, R. (2007). Network neutrality and its potential impact on next generation networks. Working Paper. SSRN 1026635.

  • Ganley, P., & Allgrove, B. (2006). Net neutrality: a user’s guide. Computer Law & Security Report, 22(454), 463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadj-Alouane, A. B., & Bean, J. C. (1997). A genetic algorithm for the multiple-choice integer program. Operations Research, 45, 92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Wallsten, S. (2009). An economic perspective on a U.S. National Broadband Plan. Policy & Internet, 1(1), Article 5, retrieved December 7, 2009 from http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol1/iss1/art5.

  • Herman, B. (2007). Opening bottlenecks: on behalf of mandated network neutrality. Federal Communications Law Journal, 59, 107–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holme, P., Karlin, J., & Forrest, S. (2008). An integrated model of traffic, geography, and economy in the Internet. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 38(3), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocsis, V., & de Bijl, P. (2007). Network neutrality and the nature of competition between network operators. International Economics and Economic Policy, 4, 159–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koza, J. R. (1992). On the programming of computers by means of natural selection. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKie-Mason, J. K., & Varian, H. (1996). Some economics of the Internet. In W. Sichel (Ed.), Networks, infrastructure and the new task for regulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden, G., & Savage, S. (1998). CEE telecommunications investment and economic growth. Information Economics and Policy, 10, 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, S., & DeMaagd, K. (2004). Investigating the value of information and computational capabilities by applying genetic programming to supply chain management. In S. Kimbrough (Ed.), Formal models of electronic commerce. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noam, E. M. (2006). A third way for net neutrality. Financial Times, 29 August 2006.

  • Park, K., Kang, S., & Park, S. (1996). An integer programming approach to the bandwidth packing problem. Management Science, 42, 1277–1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrimali, G. (2008). Surplus extraction by network providers: implications for net neutrality and innovation. Telecommunications Policy, 32, 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Schewick, B. (2007). Towards an economic framework for network neutrality regulation. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 5, 329–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, S. (2008). Understanding international broadband comparisons. Washington, DC: Technology Policy Institute, December 11, 2009 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1136831.

  • Waters, M., & Sheppard, J. (1999). Genetic programming and co-evolution with exogenous fitness in an artificial life environment. Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

  • Waverman, L., & Dasgupta, K. (2009). Connectivity scorecard 2009. London: LECG and NokiaSiemens. Retrieved December 11, 2009 from http://www.connectivityscorecard.org.

  • Weiser, P. (2008). The next frontier for network neutrality. Administrative Law Review, 60, 273–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windhausen, J. (2006). Good fences make bad broadband: Preserving an open Internet through net neutrality. Washington, DC: Public Knowledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality and broadband discrimination. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 2, 141–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, C. (2005). Beyond network neutrality. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Law School.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Kurt DeMaagd & Johannes M. Bauer

Authors
  1. Kurt DeMaagd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes M. Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kurt DeMaagd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DeMaagd, K., Bauer, J.M. Modeling the dynamic interactions of agents in the provision of network infrastructure. Inf Syst Front 13, 669–680 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9244-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9244-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation