Sponsored Data with ISP Competition

We analyze the effect of sponsored data platforms when Internet service providers (ISPs) compete for subscribers and content providers (CPs) compete for a share of the bandwidth usage by the customers. Our analytical model is of a full information, leader-follower game. ISPs lead and set prices for sponsorship. CPs then make the binary decision of sponsoring or not sponsoring their content on the ISPs. Lastly, based on both of these, users make a two-part decision of choosing the ISP to which they subscribe, and the amount of data to consume from each of the CPs through the chosen ISP. User consumption is determined by a utility maximization framework, the sponsorship decision is determined by a non-cooperative game between the CPs, and the ISPs set their prices to maximize their profit in response to the prices set by the competing ISP. We analyze the pricing dynamics of the prices set by the ISPs, the sponsorship decisions that the CPs make and the market structure therein, and the surpluses of the ISPs, CPs, and users. We show that inter ISP competition does not inhibit ISPs from extracting a significant fraction of the CP surplus. Moreover, the ISPs often have an incentive to significantly skew the CP marketplace in favor of the most profitable CP.

[1]  Jacques Crémer,et al.  Connectivity in the Commercial Internet , 2003 .

[2]  Richard T. B. Ma Pay or Perish: The Economics of Premium Peering , 2017, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[3]  Qiong Wang,et al.  Economic models of sponsored content in wireless networks with uncertain demand , 2013, 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS).

[4]  Patrick Maillé,et al.  Analysis of Sponsored Data Practices in the Case of Competing Wireless Service Providers , 2019, Network Games, Control, and Optimization.

[5]  P. Baake,et al.  On the economics of Internet peering , 1999 .

[6]  H. Varian Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach , 1987 .

[7]  Sangtae Ha,et al.  Sponsoring mobile data: An economic analysis of the impact on users and content providers , 2015, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM).

[8]  John Musacchio,et al.  A Two-Sided Market Analysis of Provider Investment Incentives with an Application to the Net-Neutrality Issue , 2009 .

[9]  Ankur A. Kulkarni,et al.  An Existence Result for Hierarchical Stackelberg v/s Stackelberg Games , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[10]  D. Manjunath,et al.  Zero Rating: The Power in the Middle , 2019, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[11]  Costas Courcoubetis,et al.  Special article [paid peering: pricing and adoption incentives] , 2016, J. Commun. Networks.

[12]  Dan Wang,et al.  Sponsored Data Plan , 2015, SIGMETRICS.

[13]  H. Hotelling Stability in Competition , 1929 .

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

[15]  Bruno Jullien,et al.  Internet Regulation, Two-Sided Pricing, and Sponsored Data ∗ , 2016 .

[16]  J. Tirole The Theory of Industrial Organization , 1988 .

[17]  Pablo Rodriguez,et al.  Negotiating Premium Peering Prices , 2016, ACM Trans. Internet Techn..

[18]  Robert Somogyi,et al.  The Economics of Zero-Rating and Net Neutrality , 2016 .

[19]  Richard T. B. Ma Subsidization Competition: Vitalizing the Neutral Internet , 2014, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[20]  Sangtae Ha,et al.  TUBE: time-dependent pricing for mobile data , 2012, SIGCOMM '12.