Krämer, Jan and Wiewiorra, Lukas (2009): Network neutrality and congestion sensitive content providers: Implications for service innovation, broadband investment and regulation.
This is the latest version of this item.
Download (584kB) | Preview
We consider a two-sided market model with a monopolistic Internet Service Provider (ISP), network congestion sensitive content providers (CPs), and Internet customers in order to study the impact of Quality-of-Service (QoS) tiering on service innovation, broadband investments, and welfare in comparison to network neutrality. We find that QoS tiering is the more ecient regime in the short-run. However it does not promote entry by new, congestion sensitive CPs, because the ISP can expropriate much of the CPs' surplus. In the long-run, QoS tiering may lead to more or less broadband capacity and welfare, depending on the competition-elasticity of CPs' revenues.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Network neutrality and congestion sensitive content providers: Implications for service innovation, broadband investment and regulation|
|English Title:||Network Neutrality and Congesition Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Service Innovation, Broadband Investment and Regulation|
|Keywords:||Telecommunications, Internet, Net Neutrality, Network Congestion, Two-Sided Market, Quality of Service, Innovation, Investment, Regulation, Internet Freedom Preservation Act|
|Subjects:||L - Industrial Organization > L5 - Regulation and Industrial Policy
L - Industrial Organization > L9 - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities > L96 - Telecommunications
D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
|Depositing User:||Jan Kraemer|
|Date Deposited:||04. Dec 2010 20:33|
|Last Modified:||30. Dec 2015 14:54|
Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics 37 (3), 668--691.
Brennan, T. (2010, June). Net neutrality or minimum quality standards: Network effects vs. market power justications. mimeo, Social Science Research Network.
Cerf, V. G. (2006, February 7). Hearing on Network Neutrality. Testimony before the United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Cheng, H. K., S. Bandyopadhyay, and H. Guo (2010). The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective. Information Systems Research
Choi, J. P. and B.-C. Kim (2010). Net neutrality and investment incentives. RAND Journal of Economics 41 (3), 446--471.
Crawford, G. and M. Shum (2007). Monopoly quality degradation and regulation in cable television. The Journal of Law and Economics 50, 181--219.
Crowcroft, J. (2007). Net neutrality: The technical side of the debate - a white paper. International Journal of Communication 1, 567--579.
Dou, W. (2004). Will internet users pay for online content? Journal of Advertising Research 44 (4), 349--359.
Economides, N. (1998). The incentive for non-price discrimination by an input monopolist. International Journal of Industrial Organization 16 (3), 271--284.
Economides, N. and J. Tåg (2008). Net neutrality on the internet: A twosided market analysis. mimeo, University of New York, School of Law.
European Commission (2009, December 18). Directive 2009/136/ec of the european parliament and of the council of 25 november 2009. Ocial Journal of the European Union L337, 11--36.
Fehrenbacher, K. (2010, August 5). Caught on video: Google ceo dishes on google wave, verizon & social strategy. Gigaom.com.
Foros, Ø., H. Kind, and L. Sørgard (2002). Access pricing, quality degradation, and foreclosure in the Internet. Journal of Regulatory Economics 22 (1), 59--83.
Genachowski, J. (2009, September 21). Preserving a free and open internet: A platform for innovation, opportunity, and prosperity. Speech at The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.
Hahn, R., R. Litan, and H. Singer (2007). The economics of wireless netneutrality. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 3, 399--451.
Hahn, R. and S. Wallsten (2006). The economics of net neutrality. The Berkeley Economic Press - Economists' Voice 3(6), 17.
Hermalin, B. and M. Katz (2007). The economics of product-line restrictions with an application to the network neutrality debate. Information Economics and Policy 19, 215--248.
Lambert, P. (2010, February 24). Vodafone and telefonica are overplaying their hand with google. Telecoms.com. last accessed on 12/08/2010.
Lee, R. and T. Wu (2009). Subsidizing creativity through network design: Zero-pricing and net neutrality. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 23 (3), 61--76.
Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas. Random House New York.
Lessig, L. (2002, October 1). The Government's Role in Promoting the Future of Telecommunications Industry and Broadband Deployment. Testimony before the United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
McDysan, D. (1999). QoS and trac management in IP and ATM networks. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY, USA.
O'Connell, P. (2005, November 7). At sbc, it's all about scale and scope. Businessweek.
Owen, B. and G. Rosston (2006). Local broadband access: Primum non nocere or primum processi? a property rights approach. In T. Lenard and R. May (Eds.), Net Neutrality or Net Neutering: Should Broadband Internet Services be Regulated, pp. 163--194. Springer US.
Rochet, J. and J. Tirole (2006). Two-sided markets: A progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics 37 (3), 645--667.
Ronnen, U. (1991). Minimum quality standards, fixed costs, and competition. The RAND Journal of Economics 22 (4), 490--504.
Schneibel, G. and C. Farivar (2010, April 7). Deutsche telekom moves against apple, google and net neutrality. Deutsche Welle.
Schuett, F. (2010). Network neutrality: A survey of the economic literature. Review of Network Economics 9 (2), Article 1.
Sharma, P. (2010, August 9). Winners, losers from the new net neutrality. The Source - Wall Street Journal.
Sidak, G. J. (2006a, February 7). Hearing on Network Neutrality. Testimony before the United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Sidak, J. (2006b). A Consumer-Welfare Approach to Network Neutrality Regulation of the Internet. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 2 (3), 349.
Sydell, L. (2006, April 25). Internet debate - preserving user parity. All Things Considered - National Public Radio, USA.
Sydell, L. (2007, September 19). Firms abandon online subscription plans. All Things Considered - National Public Radio, USA.
Van Schewick, B. (2006). Towards an economic framework for network neutrality regulation. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 5, 329.
Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 2, 141.
Wu, T. and C. Yoo (2007). Keeping the Internet Neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate. Federal Communications Law Journal 59 (3), 575--592.
Wyatt, E. (2010, August 4). Google and verizon near deal on web pay tiers. New York Times.
Yoo, C. (2005). Beyond network neutrality. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 19, 177.
Available Versions of this Item
Innovation through Discrimination!? A Formal Analysis of the Net Neutrality Debate. (deposited 10. Aug 2009 08:04)
Network Neutrality and Congesition-Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Service Innovation, Broadband Investment and Regulation. (deposited 31. Mar 2010 11:30)
Network Neutrality and Congestion-Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Service Innovation, Broadband Investment and Regulation. (deposited 16. Apr 2010 01:42)
- Network neutrality and congestion sensitive content providers: Implications for service innovation, broadband investment and regulation. (deposited 04. Dec 2010 20:33) [Currently Displayed]
- Network Neutrality and Congestion-Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Service Innovation, Broadband Investment and Regulation. (deposited 16. Apr 2010 01:42)
- Network Neutrality and Congesition-Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Service Innovation, Broadband Investment and Regulation. (deposited 31. Mar 2010 11:30)