Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

‘Unfair’ Discrimination in Two-sided Peering? Evidence from LINX

By Alessio D'Ignazio and Emanuele Giovannetti

Abstract

‘Unfair’ Discrimination in Two-sided Peering? Evidence from LINX Abstract: Does asymmetry between Internet Providers affect the “fairness” of their interconnection contracts? While recent game theoretic literature provides contrasting answers to this question, there is a lack of empirical research. We introduce a novel dataset on micro-interconnection policies and provide an econometric analysis of the determinants of peering decisions amongst the Internet Service Providers interconnecting at the London Internet Exchange Point (LINX). Our key result shows that two different metrics, introduced to capture asymmetry, exert opposite effects. Asymmetry in “market size” enhances the quality of the link, while asymmetry in “network centrality” induces quality degradation, hence “unfairer” interconnection conditions

Topics: Internet Peering, Two-sided Markets, Network Industries, Antitrust
Publisher: Faculty of Economics
Year: 2006
OAI identifier: oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/131678
Provided by: Apollo

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2002b) “The Art of Peering: The Peering Playbook”, Equinix Inc.
  2. (1999). 33 The importance of the network externality effect is also suggested by Baake and Wichmann
  3. (2005). A Geographic Directed Preferential Internet Topology Model”. doi
  4. (2000). A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation”, doi
  5. (1996). A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks”. doi
  6. (2002). Access Pricing, Quality Degradation and Foreclosure in the Internet”.
  7. (1997). An Analytical Model of Peering between Internet Service Providers”,
  8. (2005). Analysis of Internet Topology with a Three-Level Components Model”. doi
  9. (2004). Analyzing BGP Policies: Methodology and Tool”. doi
  10. (2000). BGP for Bankers (White Paper on Transactions and Valuation Associated with Inter-Carrier Routing of Internet Protocol Traffic)”, Packet Clearing House.
  11. (2002). Characterizing the Internet hierarchy from multiple vantage points.” doi
  12. (1999). Compatibility between Differentiated Networks”.
  13. (2003). Computing the Types of the Relationships between Autonomous Systems”. doi
  14. (2000). Connectivity in the Commercial Internet”. doi
  15. (2005). Explaining Internet Connectivity”. doi
  16. (2004). Inferring AS Relationships Beyond Counting Edges”
  17. (2005). Inferring AS Relationships: Dead End or Lively Beginning?” doi
  18. (2002). Interconnection, differentiation and bottlenecks in the Internet”. doi
  19. (2001). Internet Interconnection Agreements”, Final Project Report, S1646: Information Economics.
  20. (2001). On Inferring Autonomous System Relationships in the Internet.” In doi
  21. (2004). On the Evaluation of AS Relationship Inferences.” doi
  22. (2004). Optimizing Interconnection Policies”. Computer networks 46, doi
  23. (2003). Private Peering among Internet Backbone Providers”, WUSTL: Working Paper n.
  24. (2006). The Economics of the Internet Backbone”, forthcoming in doi
  25. (2003). The Evolution of the U.S. Internet Peering Ecosystem.” SHIMBEL, A.
  26. (2004). Transit versus (Paid) Peering: Interconnection and Competition in the Internet Backbone Market”, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.