Delivery Consolidation and Service Competition Among Internet Service Providers

References

• Anderson, N. Peering problems: Digging into the Comcast/Level 3 grudgematch. Ars Technica. December 10, 2010. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/comcastlevel3/
   Google Scholar
• Ante, S.E., and Schatz, A. 2010. Web-traffic spat over Netflix highlights new tensions. Wall Street Journal, November 30.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, M. Network interconnection in telecommunications. Economic Journal, 108, 448 (1998), 545–564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badasyan, N., and Chakrabarti, S. A simple game-theoretic analysis of peering and transit contracting among Internet service providers. Telecommunications Policy, 32, 1 (2008), 4–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, U. Bill-and-keep vs. cost-based access pricing revisited. Economics Letters, 86, 1 (2005), 107–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besen, S.; Milgrom, P.; Mitchell, B.; and Srinagesh, P. Advances in routing technologies and Internet peering agreements. American Economic Review, 91, 2 (2001), 292–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cambini, C., and Valletti, T.M. Network competition with price discrimination: “Bill-and-keep” is not so bad after all. Economics Letters, 81, 2 (2003), 205–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, H.K.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; and Guo, H. The debate on Net neutrality: A policy perspective. Information Systems Research, 22, 1 (2011), 60–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, J.P.; Jeon, D.-S.; and Kim, B.-C. Internet interconnection and network neutrality. (No. 753). Institute of Industrial Economics, Toulouse, France, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Clemons, E. Business models for monetizing Internet applications and Web sites: Experience, theory, and predictions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 2 (2009), 15–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemons, E., and Madhani, N. Regulation of digital businesses with natural monopolies or third-party payment business models: Antitrust lessons from the analysis of Google. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 3 (2011), 43–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, G. The discriminatory incentives to bundle in the cable television industry. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 6, 1 (2008), 41–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du, A.Y.; Geng, X.; Gopal, R.D.; Ramesh, R.; and Whinston, A.B. Capacity provision networks: Foundations of markets for sharable resources in distributed computational economies. Information Systems Research, 19, 2 (2007), 126–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Economides, N. The economics of the Internet backbone. In S. Majumdar et al. (eds.), Handbook of Telecommunications Economics, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Economides, N., and Katsamakas, E. Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry. Management Science, 52, 7 (2006), 1057–1071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Economides, N., and Tåg, J. Network neutrality on the Internet: A two-sided market analysis. Information Economics and Policy, 24, 2 (2012), 91–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gans, J.S., and King, S.P. Using ‘bill and keep’ interconnect arrangements to soften network competition. Economics Letters, 71, 3 (2001), 413–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, H., and Easley, R. Broadband coverage, content innovation, and the network neutrality debate. Working paper, 2013. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2134085.
   Google Scholar
• Guo, H.; Cheng, H.K.; and Bandyopadhyay, S. Net neutrality, broadband market coverage, and innovation at the edge. Decision Sciences, 43, 1 (2012), 141–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, H.; Cheng, H.K.; and Bandyopadhyay, S. Broadband network management and the Net neutrality debate. Production and Operations Management, 22, 5 (2013), 1287–1298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, H.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; Cheng, H.; and Yang, Y.-C. Net neutrality and vertical integration of content and broadband services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 2 (2010), 243–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hau, T.; Burghardt, D.; and Brenner, W. Multihoming, content delivery networks, and the market for Internet connectivity. Telecommunications Policy, 35, 6 (2011), 532–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, L., and Walrand, J. Pricing and revenue sharing strategies for Internet service providers. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 24, 5 (2006), 942–951.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosanagar, K.; Chuang, J.; Krishnan, R.; and Smith, M.D. Service adoption and pricing of content delivery network (CDN) services. Management Science, 54, 9 (2008), 1579–1593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jahn, E., and Prüfer, J. Interconnection and competition among asymmetric networks in the Internet backbone market. Information Economics and Policy, 20, 3 (2008), 243–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennet, D.M., and Ralph, E.K. Efficient interconnection charges and capacity-based pricing. International Economics and Economic Policy, 4, 2 (2007), 135–158.
   Google Scholar
• Korilis, Y.A., and Orda, A. Incentive compatible pricing strategies for QoS routing. Networks and Spatial Economics, 4, 1 ( March 2004), 39–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laffont, J.-J.; Rey, P.; and Tirole, J. Network competition: I. Overview and nondiscriminatory pricing. RAND Journal of Economics, 29, 1 (1998), 1–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laffont, J.-J.; Marcus, S.; Rey, P.; and Tirole, J. Internet Peering. American Economic Review, 91, 2 (2001), 287–291.
   Google Scholar
• Lahiri, A.; Dewan, R.; and Freimer, M. The disruptive effect of open platforms on markets for wireless services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 3 (2011), 81–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, R.T.B.; Chiu, D. M.; Lui, J.C.S.; Misra, V.; and Rubenstein, D. On cooperative settlement between content, transit and eyeball Internet service providers. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) 19, 3, 802–815.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantena, R., and Saha, R. Co-opetition between differentiated platforms in two-sided markets. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29, 2 (2012), 109–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mérel, P.R., and Sexton, R.J. Kinked-demand equilibria and weak duopoly in the Hotelling model of horizontal differentiation. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 10, 1 (April 2010), DOI:10.2202/1935-1704.1619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Njoroge, P.; Ozdaglar, A.; Stier-Moses, N.; and Weintraub, G. Investment in two sided markets and the net neutrality debate. Columbia Business School DRO (Decision, Risk and Operations) Working Paper No. 2010-05, October 2012. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1641359.
   Google Scholar
• Pallis, G., and Vakali, A. Insight and perspectives for content delivery networks. Communications of the ACM, 49, 1 (2006), 101–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrimali, G., and Kumar, S. Bill-and-keep peering. Telecommunications Policy, 32, 1 (2008), 19–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamos, K.; Pallis, G.; Vakali, A.; and Dikaiakos, M.D. Evaluating the utility of content delivery networks. Proceedings of the 4th edition of the UPGRADE-CN workshop on Use of P2P, GRID and agents for the development of content networks. New York: ACM Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Tan, Y.; Chiang, I.R.; and Mookerjee, V.S. An economic analysis of interconnection arrangements between Internet backbone providers. Operations Research, 54, 1, (2006), 776–788.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, M.B., and Shin, S.J. Internet interconnection economic model and its analysis: Peering and settlement. Netnomics, 6, 1 (2004), 43–57.
   Google Scholar