skip to main content
research-article

Negotiating Premium Peering Prices: A Quantitative Model with Applications

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 April 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We have developed a novel methodology for deriving bandwidth prices for premium direct peering between Access ISPs (A-ISPs) and Content and Service Providers (CSPs) that want to deliver content and services in premium quality. Our methodology establishes a direct link between service profitability, for example, from advertising, user and subscriber loyalty, interconnection costs, and finally bandwidth price for peering. Unlike existing work in both the networking and economics literature, our resulting computational model, built around Nash bargaining, can be used for deriving quantitative results comparable to actual market prices. We analyze the U.S. market and derive prices for video, that compare favorably with existing prices for transit and paid peering. We also observe that the fair prices returned by the model for high-profit/low-volume services such as search, are orders of magnitude higher than current bandwidth prices. This implies that resolving existing (fierce) interconnection tussles may require per service, instead of wholesale, peering between A-ISPs and CSPs. Our model can be used for deriving initial benchmark prices for such negotiations.

References

  1. AFP. 2011. Number of Internet users worldwide reaches 2 bln: UN. http://ccm.net/news/17541-number-of-internet-users-worldwide-reaches-2-bln-un.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. AOL. 2014. Q2 2014 Quarterly Earnings Summary. http://ir.aol.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=147895&p==quarterlyearnings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Statistic Brain. 2014. Social Networking Statistics. http://www.statisticbrain.com/social-networking-statistics/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Cisco. 2012. Visual Networking Index, 2011-2016. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/cisco-visual-networking-index-forecast-and-methodology-2011%E2%80%932016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. D. Clark, J. Wroclawski, K. R. Sollins, and R. Braden. 2005. Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s internet. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 13, 3 (June 2005), 462--475. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. CMT - Comision del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones. June 2010. Local loop unbundling prices. http://www.cmt.es/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Cole, V. Gkatzelis, and G. Goel. 2013. Mechanism design for fair division: Allocating divisible items without payments. In Proceedings of ACM EC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. comScore. 2012. comScore Releases November 2012 U.S. https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2012/12/comScore-Releases-November-2012-US-Online-Video-Rankings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. comScore. 2014a. comScore Releases March 2014 U.S. Online Video Rankings. https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2014/4/comScore-Releases-March-2014-US-Online-Video-Rankings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. comScore. 2014b. comScore Releases March 2014 U.S. Search Engine Rankings. https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2014/4/comScore-Releases-March-2014-U.S.-Search-Engine-Rankings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Los Angeles Times. 2014. Netflix users watching 92 minutes a day, but YouTube remains king. http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-netflix-streaming-20140926-story.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Dhamdhere and C. Dovrolis. 2010. The internet is flat: Modeling the transition from a hierarchy to a peering mesh. In Proceedings of CoNEXT ’10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. ESpanix. 2012. Peering prices. http://www.espanix.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Facebook. 2014. Q1 2014 Quarterly Earnings Summary. http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=842071.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. fiercewireless.com. 2013. Transit Prices Fall Sharply. http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/ip-transit-prices-fall-sharply.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole. 1991. Game Theory. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Google. 2014. Q2 2014 Quarterly Earnings Summary. https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2014Q2_google_earnings_slides.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Leichtman Research Group. 2012. About 580,000 Add Broadband in the Third Quarter of 2012. http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/111412release.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. A. Gupta, L. Vanbever, M. Shahbaz, S. P. Donovan, B. Schlinker, N. Feamster, J. Rexford, S. Shenker, R. Clark, and E. Katz-Bassett. 2014. SDX: A software defined internet exchange. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM’14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. hashtags.org. 2013. Infographic Shows How Much Time You Spend On Social Media. https://www.hashtags.org/research/polls-surveys-quizzes/infographic-shows-how-much-time-you-spend-on-social-media/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Z. B. Houidi and H. Pouyllau. 2012. The price of tussles: Bankrupt in cyberspace?. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Pricing and Incentives in Networks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. IAB. 2013. IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report, 2013 Full Year Results. http://www.iab.net/media/file/IAB_Internet_Advertising_Revenue_Report_FY_2013.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Yahoo! Inc. 2014. Q2 2014 Quarterly Earnings Summary. https://investor.yahoo.net/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=859937.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. ITU. 2011. Measuring the Information Society. http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/backgrounders/general/pdf/5.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. R. Kohavi, R. Longbotham, D. Sommerfield, and R. M. Henne. 2009. Controlled experiments on the Web: Survey and practical guide. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 18, 1 (Feb. 2009), 140--181. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10618-008-0114-1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. S. S. Krishnan and R. K. Sitaraman. 2012. Video stream quality impacts viewer behavior: Inferring causality using quasi-experimental designs. In Proceedings of ACM IMC ’12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Craig Labovitz, Scott Iekel-Johnson, Danny McPherson, Jon Oberheide, and Farnam Jahanian. 2010. Internet inter-domain traffic. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM ’10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. N. Laoutaris and P. Rodriguez. 2008. Good things come to those who (can) wait or how to handle delay tolerant traffic and make peace on the internet. In Proceedings of ACM HotNets-VII.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. A. Lodhi, A. Dhamdhere, and C. Dovrolis. 2012. GENESIS: An agent-based model of interdomain network formation, traffic flow and economics. In Proceedings of INFOCOM ’12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. R. T. B. Ma, D. M. Chiu, J. C. S. Lui, V. Misra, and D. Rubenstein. 2010. Internet economics: The use of Shapley value for ISP settlement. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 18, 3 (2010), 775--787. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Microsoft. 2013. Q2 2013 Quarterly Earnings Summary. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2013-Q2/press-release-webcast.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. J. Musacchio, G. Schwartz, and J. Walrand. 2009. A two-sided market analysis of provider investment incentives with an application to the net-neutrality issue. Rev. Network Econ. 8, 1 (March 2009), 22--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Nielsen. 2010. What Americans Do Online: Social Media And Games Dominate Activity. http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2010/what-americans-do-online-social-media-and-games-dominate-activity.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Nielsen. 2012a. May 2012 -- Top U.S. Web Brands. http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2012/may-2012-top-u-s-web-brands-and-news-websites.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Nielsen. 2012b. September 2012: Top U.S. Online Video Sites and Sports Brands. http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2012/september-2012-top-u-s-online-video-sites-and-sports-brands.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Nielsen. 2013. “Binging” is the new viewing for Over-The-Top Streamers. http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/binging-is-the-new-viewing-for-over-the-top-streamers.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. W. B. Norton. 2012. The Internet Peering Playbook: Connecting to the Core of the Internet. DrPeering Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. A. Odlyzko. 2004. Pricing and architecture of the Internet: Historical perspectives from telecommunications and transportation. In Proceedings of TPRC ’04.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. ReelSeo. 2013. And Hulu's Average CPM in 2013 is… http://www.reelseo.com/hulu-cpm-2013/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Sandvine. 2014. Global Internet Phenomena Report. https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internet-phenomena/2014/1h-2014-global-internet-phenomena-report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. socialfresh.com. 2012. Should Facebook be worried about Google Plus? https://www.socialfresh.com/facebook-google-plus/9223372036854775807/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. TeleInfo. 2012. Top 10 Telecommunication Service Provider Companies in the world in 2012. http://teleinfobd.blogspot.gr/2012/05/top-10-telecommunication-service.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. The New York Times. 2013. Ad Blocking Raises Alarm Among Firms Like Google. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/technology/ad-blocking-raises-alarm-among-firms-like-google.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. variety.com. 2014. Netflix Hikes U.S. Streaming Plan by $1 per Month for New Members. http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-hikes-u-s-streaming-plan-by-1-per-month-1201176323/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. VG24/7. 2013. NPD Online Gaming 2013 report: https://www.vg247.com/2013/05/02/npd-report-shows-an-increase-in-online-gamers-and-time-spent-online/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Y. Wu, H. Kim, P. H. Hande, M. Chiang, and D. H. K. Tsang. 2011. Revenue sharing among ISPs in two-sided markets. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM ’11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. ZDNet. 2006. Google's Marissa Mayer: Speed wins. http://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-marissa-mayer-speed-wins/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
    ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 16, Issue 2
    April 2016
    150 pages
    ISSN:1533-5399
    EISSN:1557-6051
    DOI:10.1145/2909066
    • Editor:
    • Munindar P. Singh
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Copyright © 2016 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 14 April 2016
    • Accepted: 1 January 2016
    • Revised: 1 September 2015
    • Received: 1 January 2015
    Published in toit Volume 16, Issue 2

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader