Network Neutrality and Congestion Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Content Variety, Broadband Investment and Regulation

We study departures from network neutrality through implementing a quality of service tiering regime in which an Internet service provider charges for prioritization on a nondiscriminatory basis. We find that quality of service tiering may be more efficient in the short run because it better allocates the existing network capacity and in the long run because it provides higher investment incentives due to the increased demand for priority services by the entry of new congestion sensitive content providers. Which network regime is the most efficient depends on the distribution of congestion sensitivity among content providers, but a guideline is that the regime that provides higher incentives for infrastructure investments is more efficient in the long run.

[1]  Thomas M. Lenard,et al.  Net Neutrality or Net Neutering: Should Broadband Internet Services Be Regulated , 2006 .

[2]  Barbara van Schewick Towards an Economic Framework for Network Neutrality Regulation , 2005, J. Telecommun. High Technol. Law.

[3]  David McDysan,et al.  QoS and Traffic Management in IP and ATM Networks , 1999 .

[4]  Benjamin E. Hermalin,et al.  NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW , 2010 .

[5]  M. Armstrong Competition in Two-Sided Markets ¤ , 2005 .

[6]  Hal J. Singer,et al.  The Economics of 'Wireless Net Neutrality' , 2007 .

[7]  R. Hahn,et al.  The Economics of Net Neutrality , 2006 .

[8]  Carl Mitcham,et al.  "All Things Considered," National Public Radio, December 4, 2002 , 2003 .

[9]  Nicholas Economides,et al.  The Incentive for Non-Price Discrimination by an Input Monopolist , 1998 .

[10]  Benjamin E. Hermalin,et al.  The Economics of Product-Line Restrictions with an Application to the Network Neutrality Debate , 2007, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[11]  J. Choi,et al.  Net Neutrality and Investment Incentives , 2008, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[12]  Wenyu Dou,et al.  Will Internet Users Pay for Online Content? , 2004, Journal of Advertising Research.

[13]  Hong Guo,et al.  The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[14]  Mark A. Jamison,et al.  Getting What You Pay for: Analyzing the Net Neutrality Debate , 2008 .

[15]  Joacim Tåg,et al.  Net Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-Sided Market Analysis , 2007 .

[16]  U. Ronnen,et al.  Minimum Quality Standards, Fixed Costs, and Competition , 2011 .

[17]  Jon Crowcroft,et al.  Net neutrality: the technical side of the debate: a white paper , 2007, CCRV.

[18]  N. Economides,et al.  Network Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-Sided Market Analysis , 2012 .

[19]  J. Rochet,et al.  Two-sided markets: a progress report , 2006 .

[20]  J. Sidak A Consumer-Welfare Approach to Network Neutrality Regulation of the Internet , 2006 .

[21]  Matthew Shum,et al.  Monopoly Quality Degradation and Regulation in Cable Television , 2005, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[22]  Øystein Foros,et al.  Access Pricing, Quality Degradation, and Foreclosure in the Internet , 2003 .

[23]  Rada Y. Chirkova,et al.  Queuing Systems , 2018, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[24]  C. S. Yoo Beyond Network Neutrality , 2005 .

[25]  Lawrence Lessig The Future of Ideas , 2001 .

[26]  Florian Schutt Network Neutrality: A Survey of the Economic Literature , 2010 .

[27]  Timothy J. Brennan,et al.  Net Neutrality or Minimum Quality Standards: Network Effects vs. Market Power Justifications , 2010, Network Neutrality and Open Access.

[28]  Gregory L. Rosston,et al.  Local Broadband Access: Primum Non Nocere or Primum Processi? A Property Rights Approach , 2003 .

[29]  Tim Wu,et al.  Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination , 2003, J. Telecommun. High Technol. Law.

[30]  Tim Wu,et al.  Keeping the Internet Neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate , 2007 .