Abstract
Driven by the rapid growth of content traffic and the demand for service quality, Internet content providers (CPs) have started to bypass transit providers and connect with access providers directly via private peering agreements. This peering relationship often raises disputes, e.g., Netflix vs. Comcast, and is not well understood. In this paper, we build a peering contract model and propose the concept of contractual equilibrium, based on which we study the formation and evolution of peering contracts. By using market data, we emulate the strategic peering behavior of providers and shed light on the understanding of private peering agreements. We reveal that the superiority and market dominance of providers primarily determine their peering strategies. We show that 1) superior providers tend to engage in peering more aggressively, and 2) non-dominant CPs' optimal peering strategies are negatively correlated due to market cannibalism, while the dominant CP often behaves oppositely. Our findings help explain phenomena such as why Netflix and Comcast signed the first peering contract, and reason whether private peering contracts will strengthen in future.
- 2015. Why do Internet Transit Prices Drop? https://drpeering.net/FAQ/Why-do-Internet-Transit-Prices-Drop.phpGoogle Scholar
- 2020. Comcast CDN. https://www.comcasttechnologysolutions.com/content-delivery-network-cdn-solutionsGoogle Scholar
- 2020. Verizon Digital Media Services. https://www.verizondigitalmedia.com/technology/our-network/Google Scholar
- Vijay K Adhikari, Yang Guo, Fang Hao, Volker Hilt, Zhi-Li Zhang, Matteo Varvello, and Moritz Steiner. 2014. Measurement study of Netflix, Hulu, and a tale of three CDNs. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 23, 6 (2014), 1984--1997.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Coralio Ballester, Antoni Calvó-Armengol, and Yves Zenou. 2006. Who's who in networks. Wanted: The key player. Econometrica 74, 5 (2006), 1403--1417.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Eitan Berglas and David Pines. 1981. Clubs, local public goods and transportation models: A synthesis. Journal of Public Economics 15, 2 (1981), 141--162.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ken Binmore, Ariel Rubinstein, and Asher Wolinsky. 1986. The Nash bargaining solution in economic modelling. The RAND Journal of Economics 17, 2 (1986), 176--188.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jonas Björnerstedt and Johan Stennek. 2007. Bilateral oligopoly -- The efficiency of intermediate goods markets. International Journal of Industrial Organization 25, 5 (2007), 884--907.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- James M Buchanan. 1965. An economic theory of clubs. Economica 32, 125 (1965), 1--14.Google Scholar
- Jeremy I Bulow, John D Geanakoplos, and Paul D Klemperer. 1985. Multimarket oligopoly: Strategic substitutes and complements. Journal of Political economy 93, 3 (1985), 488--511.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Hyunseok Chang, Sugih Jamin, and Walter Willinger. 2006. To Peer or Not to Peer: Modeling the Evolution of the Internet's AS-Level Topology. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. 1--12. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 4, No. 3, Article 41. Publication date: December 2020. On Private Peering Agreements Between CPs and APs 41:21Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Cmcsa.com. 2014. Comcast 2013 Annual Report. Retrieved July 10, 2019, https://www.cmcsa.com/financials/annualreports.Google Scholar
- Ronald H Coase. 1960. The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics 3 (1960), 1--44.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Allan Collard-Wexler, Gautam Gowrisankaran, and Robin S Lee. 2019. 'Nash-in-Nash' bargaining: a microfoundation for applied work. Journal of Political Economy 127, 1 (2019), 163--195.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Richard Cornes and Todd Sandler. 1996. The theory of externalities, public goods, and club goods. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Costas Courcoubetis, Laszlo Gyarmati, Nikolaos Laoutaris, Pablo Rodriguez, and Kostas Sdrolias. 2016. Negotiating premium peering prices: A quantitative model with applications. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 16, 2 (2016), 14.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Costas Courcoubetis, Kostas Sdrolias, and Richard Weber. 2016. Pricing the fast-lanes: A qualitative study on the implications of paid peering agreements. In Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Conference on Communications. 1--6.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gregory S Crawford, Robin S Lee, Michael D Whinston, and Ali Yurukoglu. 2018. The welfare effects of vertical integration in multichannel television markets. Econometrica 86, 3 (2018), 891--954.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gregory S Crawford and Ali Yurukoglu. 2012. The welfare effects of bundling in multichannel television markets. American Economic Review 102, 2 (2012), 643--85.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Amogh Dhamdhere and Constantine Dovrolis. 2010. The Internet is flat: Modeling the transition from a transit hierarchy to a peering mesh. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Emerging network experiment and technology. Article No. 21.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- A. Dhamdhere, C. Dovrolis, and P. Francois. 2010. A value-based framework for Internet peering agreements. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Teletraffic Congress. 1--8.Google Scholar
- PaulWDobson and MichaelWaterson. 2007. The competition effects of industry -- wide vertical price fixing in bilateral oligopoly. International Journal of Industrial Organization 25, 5 (2007), 935--962.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Francisco Facchinei and Jong-Shi Pang. 2007. Finite-dimensional variational inequalities and complementarity problems. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
- P. Faratin, D. Clark, P. Gilmore, S. Bauer, A. Berger, and W. Lehr. 2007. Complexity of Internet Interconnections: Technology, Incentives and Implications for Policy. In Proceedings of the 35th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2115242.Google Scholar
- Benjamin Frank, Ingmar Poese, Yin Lin, Georgios Smaragdakis, Anja Feldmann, Bruce Maggs, Jannis Rake, Steve Uhlig, and Rick Weber. 2013. Pushing CDN-ISP collaboration to the limit. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 43, 3 (2013), 34--44.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jean Gabszewicz and Philippe Michel. 1997. Oligopoly equilibrium in exchange economies. In Trade, Technology And Economics : Essays in Honour of Richard G. Lipsey. 217--240.Google Scholar
- Andrea Galeotti, Sanjeev Goyal, Matthew O Jackson, Fernando Vega-Redondo, and Leeat Yariv. 2010. Network games. The review of economic studies 77, 1 (2010), 218--244.Google Scholar
- Linxin Gao. 2001. On inferring autonomous system relationships in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 9, 6 (December 2001), 733--745.Google Scholar
- Phillipa Gill, Martin Arlitt, Zongpeng Li, and Anirban Mahanti. 2008. The flattening Internet topology: natural evolution, unsightly barnacles or contrived collapse?. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement. 1--10.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Eric Griffith. 2019. Netflix vs. Hulu: Streaming Service Showdown. In PCMAG (24 Jan). https://sea.pcmag.com/hdtvshome- theatre/16277/netflix-vs-hulu-streaming-service-showdown.Google Scholar
- Sam Gustin. 2014. Netflix Pays Verizon in Streaming Deal, Following Comcast Pact. In Time (28 Apr). http://time.com/ 80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/.Google Scholar
- Laszlo Gyarmati, Nikolaos Laoutaris, Kostas Sdrolias, Pablo Rodriguez, and Costas Courcoubetis. 2014. From advertising profits to bandwidth prices: A quantitative methodology for negotiating premium peering. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 42, 3 (December 2014), 29--32.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nicolas Herbaut, Daniel Négru, Yiping Chen, Pantelis A Frangoudis, and Adlen Ksentini. 2016. Content delivery networks as a virtual network function: A win-win ISP-CDN collaboration. In 2016 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). IEEE, 1--6.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Orris Clemens Herfindahl. 1950. Concentration in the steel industry. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
- Kate Ho and Robin S Lee. 2017. Insurer competition in health care markets. Econometrica 85, 2 (2017), 379--417.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Kate Ho and Robin S Lee. 2019. Equilibrium provider networks: Bargaining and exclusion in health care markets. American Economic Review 109, 2 (2019), 473--522.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Henrick Horn and Asher Wolinsky. 1988. Bilateral monopolies and incentives for merger. The RAND Journal of Economics 19, 3 (1988), 408--419. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 4, No. 3, Article 41. Publication date: December 2020. 41:22 Xin Wang & Richard T. B. MaGoogle Scholar
Cross Ref
- Hulu.com. 2014. A Strong 2013. Retrieved July 10, 2019, https://www.hulu.com/advertising/a-strong-2013/.Google Scholar
- Geoff Huston. 1999. ISP Survival Guide: Stratagies for Running a Competitive ISP. John Wiley and Son, New York.Google Scholar
- Vitor Jesus, Rui L Aguiar, and Peter Steenkiste. 2011. Topological Implications of Cascading Interdomain. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of Communications 29, 9 (2011), 1848--1862.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Wenjie Jiang, Rui Zhang-Shen, Jennifer Rexford, and Mung Chiang. 2009. Cooperative content distribution and traffic engineering in an ISP network. In Proceedings of the eleventh international joint conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systems. 239--250.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ehud Kalai. 1977. Proportional solutions to bargaining situations: interpersonal utility comparisons. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 15, 7 (1977), 1623--1630.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Craig Labovitz, Scott Iekel-Johnson, Danny McPherson, Jon Oberheide, and Farnam Jahanian. 2011. Internet interdomain traffic. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 41, 4 (2011), 75--86.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jeffrey Lai, Qiang Fu, and Tim Moors. 2017. Using SDN and NFV to enhance request rerouting in ISP-CDN collaborations. Computer Networks 113 (2017), 176--187.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- A. Lodhi, A. Dhamdhere, and C. Dovrolis. 2014. Open peering by Internet transit providers: Peer preference or peer pressure?. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. 2562--2570.Google Scholar
- A. Lodhi, A. Dhamdhere, N. Laoutaris, and C. Dovrolis. 2015. Complexities in Internet Peering: Understanding the 'Black' in the 'Black Art'. In Proceedings of the 34th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. 1778--1786.Google Scholar
- R. Duncan Luce. 1959. Individual Choice Behavior. Oxford, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
- Victor Luckerson. 2014. Netflix's Disputes With Verizon, Comcast Under Investigation. In Time (13 Jun). https: //time.com/2871498/fcc-investigates-netflix-verizon-comcast/.Google Scholar
- Richard T. B. Ma. 2017. Pay or Perish: The Economics of Premium Peering. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of Communications 35, 2 (February 2017), 353--366.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Richard T. B. Ma, Dahming Chiu, John C.S. Lui, Vishal Misra, and Dan Rubenstein. 2011. On Cooperative Settlement Between Content, Transit and Eyeball Internet Service Providers. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 19, 3 (2011), 802--815.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Benjamin Mayo. 2016. Video streaming race heats up, Amazon now offers its Prime Video service independent of Prime subscription for $8.99/mo. In 9To5Mac (18 Apr).Google Scholar
- J Moré and Werner Rheinboldt. 1973. On P-and S-functions and related classes of n-dimensional nonlinear mappings. Linear Algebra Appl. 6 (1973), 45--68.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Angela Moscaritolo. 2019. Netflix and Chill Is About to Get More Expensive. In PCMAG (16 Jan). https://sea.pcmag. com/news/31120/netflix-and-chill-is-about-to-get-more-expensive.Google Scholar
- Parinaz Naghizadeh and Mingyan Liu. 2017. Provision of public goods on networks: on existence, uniqueness, and centralities. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 5, 3 (2017), 225--236.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John F Nash Jr. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 18, 2 (1950), 155--162.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Netflix.com. 2014. Netflix 2013 Annual Report. Retrieved July 10, 2019, https://www.netflixinvestor.com/financials/ annual-reports-and-proxies/default.aspx.Google Scholar
- Netflix.com. 2014. Open Connect. Retrieved July 10, 2019, https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/.Google Scholar
- Netflix.com. 2015. Netflix ISP Speed Index. Retrieved July 10, 2019, https://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/country/us/.Google Scholar
- Yew-Kwang Ng. 1973. The economic theory of clubs: Pareto optimality conditions. Economica 40, 159 (1973), 291--298.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ricardo V Oliveira, Beichuan Zhang, and Lixia Zhang. 2007. Observing the Evolution of Internet AS Topology. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 37, 4 (2007), 313--324.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Francesca Parise and Asuman Ozdaglar. 2019. A variational inequality framework for network games: Existence, uniqueness, convergence and sensitivity analysis. Games and Economic Behavior 114 (2019), 47--82.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- David P Reed, Donny Warbritton, and Douglas Sicker. 2014. Current Trends and Controversies in Internet Peering and Transit: Implications for the Future Evolution of the Internet. In Proceedings of the 42nd Research Conference on Communications, Information and Internet Policy. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2418770.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Felix Richter. 2013. Video Streaming Services Gain Popularity. In Statista (20 Sept). https://www.statista.com/chart/ 1477/adoption-of-video-streaming-services/.Google Scholar
- Ariel Rubinstein, Zvi Safra, and William Thomson. 1992. On the interpretation of the Nash bargaining solution and its extension to non-expected utility preferences. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 60, 5 (1992), 1171--1186.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Sandvine. 2018. Global Internet Phenomena Report. Retrieved July 10, 2019, https://www.sandvine.com/hubfs/ downloads/phenomena/2018-phenomena-report.pdf.Google Scholar
- Suzanne Scotchmer. 1985. Two-tier pricing of shared facilities in a free-entry equilibrium. The Rand Journal of Economics (1985), 456--472.Google Scholar
- Lloyd S Shapley. 1953. A value for n-person games. Contributions to the Theory of Games 2, 28 (1953), 307--317.Google Scholar
- Statista.com. 2017. Digital video penetration in the United States from 2013 to 2021. Retrieved Jan 15, 2019, https: //www.statista.com/statistics/271612/percentage-of-digital-video-viewers-in-the-united-states/. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 4, No. 3, Article 41. Publication date: December 2020. On Private Peering Agreements Between CPs and APs 41:23Google Scholar
- Statista.com. 2018. Leading Netflix markets worldwide in July 2018. Retrieved Jan 15, 2019, https://www.statista.com/ statistics/499844/netflix-markets-penetration/.Google Scholar
- Frederic P Sterbenz and Todd Sandler. 1992. Sharing among clubs: a club of clubs theory. Oxford Economic Papers 44, 1 (1992), 1--19.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Cisco Systems. 2017. Visual Networking Index.Google Scholar
- Yong Tan, I Robert Chiang, and Vijay S Mookerjee. 2006. An economic analysis of interconnection arrangements between Internet backbone providers. Operations research 54, 4 (2006), 776--788.Google Scholar
- Verizon.com. 2014. Verizon 2013 Annual Report. Retrieved July 10, 2019, https://www.verizon.com/about/investors/ annual-report.Google Scholar
- Xin Wang, Yinlong Xu, and T. B. Richard Ma. 2019. Paid Peering, Settlement-Free Peering, or Both?. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. 2564--2572.Google Scholar
- Tim Wu. 2003. Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law 2 (2003), 141--179.Google Scholar
- Edward Wyatt and Noam Cohen. 2014. Comcast and Netflix Reach Deal on Service. In The New York Times (23 Feb). https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html.Google Scholar
- Doron Zarchy, Amogh Dhamdhere, Constantine Dovrolis, and Michael Schapira. 2018. Nash-peering: A new technoeconomic framework for internet interconnections. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops. 403--408.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
On Private Peering Agreements between Content and Access Providers: A Contractual Equilibrium Analysis
Recommendations
On Private Peering Agreements between Content and Access Providers: A Contractual Equilibrium Analysis
SIGMETRICS '21: Abstract Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGMETRICS / International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer SystemsDriven by the rapid growth of content traffic and the demand for service quality, Internet content providers (CPs) have started to bypass transit providers and connect with access providers directly via private peering agreements. This peering ...
On Private Peering Agreements between Content and Access Providers: A Contractual Equilibrium Analysis
SIGMETRICS '21Driven by the rapid growth of content traffic and the demand for service quality, Internet content providers (CPs) have started to bypass transit providers and connect with access providers directly via private peering agreements. This peering ...
Locality in structured peer-to-peer networks
Distributed hash tables (DHTs), used in a number of structured peer-to-peer (P2P) systems, provide efficient mechanisms for resource placement and location. A key distinguishing feature of current DHT systems, such as Chord, Pastry, CAN and Tapestry, is ...






Comments