10.1145/3387514.3405875acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Public Option for the Core

Online:30 July 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper is focused not on the Internet architecture - as defined by layering, the narrow waist of IP, and other core design principles - but on the Internet infrastructure, as embodied in the technologies and organizations that provide Internet service. In this paper we discuss both the challenges and the opportunities that make this an auspicious time to revisit how we might best structure the Internet's infrastructure. Currently, the tasks of transit-between-domains and last-mile-delivery are jointly handled by a set of ISPs who interconnect through BGP. In this paper we propose cleanly separating these two tasks. For transit, we propose the creation of a "public option" for the Internet's core backbone. This public option core, which complements rather than replaces the backbones used by large-scale ISPs, would (i) run an open market for backbone bandwidth so it could leverage links offered by third-parties, and (ii) structure its terms-of-service to enforce network neutrality so as to encourage competition and reduce the advantage of large incumbents.

Supplemental Material

3387514.3405875.m4v

A Public Option for the Core Yotam Harchol, Dirk Bergemann, Nick Feamster, Eric Friedman, Arvind Krishnamurthy, Aurojit Panda, Sylvia Ratnasamy, Michael Schapira, Scott Shenker This paper is focused not on the Internet architecture but on the Internet infrastructure, as embodied in the organizations that provide Internet service. We discuss both the challenges and the opportunities that make this an auspicious time to revisit how we might best structure the Internet's infrastructure. Currently, the tasks of transit-between-domains and last-mile-delivery are jointly handled by a set of ISPs who interconnect through BGP. We propose cleanly separating these two tasks. For transit, we propose the creation of a public option for the Internet's core backbone. This public option core would (i) run an open market for backbone bandwidth so it could leverage links offered by third-parties, and (ii) structure its terms-of-service to enforce network neutrality so as to reduce the advantage of large incumbents.

References

  1. E. Altman, M. K. Hanawal, and R. Sundaresan. Regulation of off-network pricing in a nonneutral network. ACM Trans. Internet Techn., 14(2-3):11:1--11:21, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Aryaka. The Cloud-First WAN. https://www.aryaka.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. G. S. Becker, D. W. Carlton, and H. S. Sider. Net neutrality and consumer welfare. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 6(3):497--519, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. BEREC. All you need to know about Net Neutrality rules in the EU. https://berec.europa.eu/eng/netneutrality/, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. T. Böttger, G. Antichi, E. L. Fernandes, R. di Lallo, M. Bruyere, S. Uhlig, G. Tyson, and I. Castro. Shaping the internet: 10 years of ixp growth. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.10963, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Bourreau, F. Kourandi, and T. Valletti. Net Neutrality with Competing Internet Platforms. CEIS Research Paper 307, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, Feb. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Cato Networks. Global Private Backbone. https://www.catonetworks.com/cato-cloud/global-private-backbone-3/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Y.-C. Chiu, B. Schlinker, A. B. Radhakrishnan, E. Katz-Bassett, and R. Govindan. Are we one hop away from a better internet? In IMC, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Y.-C. Chiu, B. Schlinker, A. B. Radhakrishnan, E. Katz-Bassett, and R. Govindan. Are we one hop away from a better internet? In Internet Measurement Conference, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. D. Clark, J. Wroclawski, K. R. Sollins, and R. Braden. Tussle in cyberspace: defining tomorrow's internet. In SIGCOMM 2002, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. E. H. Clarke. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public choice, pages 17--33, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Collard-Wexler, G. Gowrisankaran, and R. Lee. "nash-in-nash" bargaining: A microfoundation for applied work. Journal of Political Economy, 127:163--195, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. P. Cramton. Electricity market design. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(4):589--612, Nov 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. G. Crawford, R. Lee, M. Whinston, and A. Yurukoglu. The welfare effects of vertical integration in multichannel television markets. Econometrica, 86:891--954, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. J. Dunn. Trump's new FCC boss could make it easier for Internet providers to play favorites. Business Insider, Jan 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. N. Economides. Economic Features of the Internet and Network Neutrality. In The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Networks. Oxford University Press, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. N. Economides and J. T~g. Network neutrality on the internet: A two-sided market analysis. Information Economics and Policy, 24:91--104, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. M. C. Erickson, E. Stallman, D. J. Kalt, A. W. Guhr, C. Libertelli, and C. Wright. Petition to deny of Netflix Inc. Web, Aug 2014. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521819696.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. P. Faratin, D. D. Clark, S. Bauer, W. Lehr, P. W. Gilmore, and A. Berger. The growing complexity of Internet interconnection. Communications & strategies, page 51, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. G. R. Faulhaber. Economics of net neutrality: A review. Communications & Convergence Review, 3(1):53--64, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Federal Communication Commission. Internet Policy Statement. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-05-150A1.pdf, Sep 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Feigenbaum, C. H. Papadimitriou, R. Sami, and S. Shenker. A BGP-based mechanism for lowest-cost routing. Distributed Computing, 18(1):61--72, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. B. M. Frischmann and B. Van Schewick. Network neutrality and the economics of an information superhighway: A reply to professor yoo. Jurimetrics, pages 383--428, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Google. Google Fiber. https://fiber.google.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. S. Greenstein, M. Peitz, and T. Valletti. Net neutrality: A fast lane to understanding the trade-offs. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30:127--150, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. T. Groves. Incentives in teams. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 617--631, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. GSMA. Comparison of fixed and mobile cost structures. https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Tax-Comparison-of-fixed-and-mobile-cost-structures.pdf, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. R. W. Hahn and S. J. Wallsten. The economics of net neutrality. The Economist's Voice, June 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. K. Ho and R. Lee. Insurer competition in health care markets. Econometrica, 85:379--417, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. A. Hortaçsu, J. Kastl, and A. Zhang. Bid shading and bidder surplus in the us treasury auction system. American Economic Review, 108(1):147--169, Jan 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. G. Huston. The death of transit? Web, Oct 2016. https://blog.apnic.net/2016/10/28/the-death-of-transit/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Industry Analysis Division, Federal Communications Comission. Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2017. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-359342A1.pdf, Dec 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. S. Knight, H. X. Nguyen, N. J. G. Falkner, R. A. Bowden, and M. Roughan. The internet topology zoo. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 29:1765--1775, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. J. Krämer, L. Wiewiorra, and C. Weinhardt. Net neutrality: A progress report. Telecommunications Policy, 37(9):794--813, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. P. Lambert. Vodafone and Telefonica are overplaying their hand with Google. https://telecoms.com/opinion/Vodafone-and-telefonica-are-overplaying-their-hand-with-google/, Feb 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. R. S. Lee and T. Wu. Subsidizing creativity through network design: Zero-pricing and net neutrality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3):61--76, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. F. Li, A. A. Niaki, D. R. Choffnes, P. Gill, and A. Mislove. A large-scale analysis of deployed traffic differentiation practices. In SIGCOMM, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. N. C. Ltd. About NBN Co. Web, accessed Jun 2020. https://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/about-nbn-co.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. R. T. B. Ma and V. Misra. The public option: A nonregulatory alternative to network neutrality. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 21(6):1866--1879, Dec 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. J. Malone, A. Nevo, and J. Williams. The tragedy of the last mile: Economic solutions to congestion in broadband networks. NET Institute Working Paper, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. J. Nash. The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18:155--162, 1950.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. N. Nisan, T. Roughgarden, E. Tardos, and V. V. Vazirani. Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, USA, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. O'Connell, P. Online Extra: At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope". Bloomberg Businessweek, 11 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Omitted for Double Blind. Personal communication, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. A. Parker and R. Waters. Google Accused of YouTube "Free Ride". Financial Times, April 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. A. Rubinstein. Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50:97--109, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. G. Schneibel and C. Farivar. Deutsche Telekom moves against Apple, Google and net neutrality. DW, https://www.dw.com/en/deutsche-telekom-moves-against-apple-google-and-net-neutrality/a-5439525, Apr 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. S. Segan. Exclusive: Check Out the Terrible State of US ISP Competition. PCMag UK, Dec 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. J. J. Spengler. Vertical integration and antitrust policy. Journal of Political Economy, 58(4):347--352, 1950.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. J. Spolsky. Strategy Letter V. Joel on Software, https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/, June 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. J. Taylor. NBN amendments clarify cherry-picking. Web, Mar 2011. https://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-amendments-clarify-cherry-picking/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. J. Taylor. Senate passes NBN bills with amendments. Web, Mar 2011. https://www.zdnet.com/article/senate-passes-nbn-bills-with-amendments/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. TeleGeography. The state of the network 2020 edition. Web, 2020. https://www2.telegeography.com/hubfs/assets/Ebooks/state-of-the-network-2020.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. B. van Schewick. Internet architecture and innovation. MIT Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. W. Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of finance, 16(1):8--37, 1961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Wikipedia contributors. Net neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. T. Wu. Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L., 2:141, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. C. S. Yoo. Beyond network neutrality. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 19:1, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Public Option for the Core

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        ACM Conferences cover image
        SIGCOMM '20: Proceedings of the Annual conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication on the applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communication
        July 2020
        814 pages
        ISBN:9781450379557
        DOI:10.1145/3387514

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Online: 30 July 2020
        • Published: 30 July 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate 462 of 3,052 submissions, 15%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!