没有合适的资源？快使用搜索试试~ 我知道了~

文库首页开发技术其它净中性，宽带市场覆盖率和边缘创新-研究论文

净中性，宽带市场覆盖率和边缘创新-研究论文

Network

access

policy

需积分: 0 0 下载量 70 浏览量 2021-05-20 12:33:00 上传评论收藏 576KB PDF 举报

温馨提示

试读

63页

网络中立是一个备受争议的政策问题，它有可能改变访问在线内容的动力。辩论的焦点在于是否应允许宽带服务提供商向内容提供商收取优先交付其数字内容的费用。该决定将影响宽带市场覆盖范围以及数字内容市场的长期竞争和创新问题。我们的研究旨在分析和解决这些问题。我们提出了一个具有三个参与者的博弈论模型-宽带服务提供商，内容提供商和消费者-宽带服务提供商以内容提供商和消费者之间的中介身份建模为双方市场平台。我们发现，虽然放弃净中性原则可能会在短期内增加消费者剩余并增加宽带市场覆盖率，但也会产生有害的影响，阻碍初创企业与既定竞争对手竞争的能力，从而减少边缘创新。政策制定者在就这一非常关键的问题进行辩论时，其结果应引起人们的极大兴趣。

资源推荐

资源详情

资源评论

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1422061

Net Neutrality, Broadband Market Coverage

and Innovation at the Edge

Abstract

Net neutrality is a widely debated policy issue that has the potential to alter the dynamics

of accessing online content. The focal point of the debate lies in whether broadband

service providers should be allowed to charge content providers for the preferential

delivery of their digital content. This decision will affect broadband market coverage as

well as the issues of long-term competition and innovation in the market for digital

content. Our research aims to analyze and address these issues. We propose a game

theoretical model with three players – the broadband service provider, the content

providers, and the consumers – where the broadband service provider, in its capacity of

an intermediary between the content providers and the consumers, is modeled as a two-

sided market platform. We find that while abandoning the principle of net neutrality

might sometimes result in increased consumer surplus and broadband market coverage, it

can also have the insalubrious effect of hindering the ability of startups to compete

against established rivals and thus reduce innovation at the edge. The results should be of

great interest to policymakers as they debate on this very crucial issue.

Keywords: Network Access Policy, Net Neutrality, Two-Sided Markets, Consumer Surplus,

Social Welfare, Innovation at the Edge.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1422061

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1422061

INTRODUCTION

Net neutrality is a widely discussed and debated policy issue that can potentially change

the basic “rules of the game” of electronic commerce, insofar as changing the ways by which

businesses and the general public access information through the Internet, and determining the

nature of competition among online content providers. As a result, the decisions that are taken on

this issue can significantly alter the way online content is consumed in the future.

The term network neutrality was first proposed by the Columbia Law School professor

Tim Wu in 2003 (Wu 2003), but received first widespread media attention three years later when

some broadband service providers (BSPs) like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T (among others)

publicly proposed to charge popular online websites for the priority delivery of the latter‟s

content to their residential and commercial customers (Helm 2006; Waldmeir 2006). The

proposal encountered stiff resistance from those who were supposed to be charged, and thus

erstwhile competitors like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft were soon lobbying before the United

States Congress to pass legislation that would prevent the broadband service providers from

carrying out their proposed plan (WSJ 2006), and thereby maintain what was termed the

„neutrality‟ of the Internet.

This would involve the designing of “rules that prevent network

A „neutral‟ Internet is one that is expected to treat every packet with equal priority, regardless of its content, origin

or platform.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1422061

operators and BSPs from using their power over the transmission technology to negatively affect

competition in complementary markets for applications, content and portals”

(van Schewick

2007).

The supporters of net neutrality believe that a “maximally useful public information

network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally” (Wu 2003), and while a formal

definition of the operationalization of the principle does not exist, Hahn and Wallsten (Hahn et al.

2006) point out that it “usually means that broadband service providers charge consumers only

once for Internet access, do not favor one content provider over another, and do not charge

content providers for sending information over broadband lines to end users.”

Backers of the „net neutrality‟ principle would like to maintain the current status quo,

whereby the ISPs charge only one set of consumers – the end customers they serve. Independent

commentators have asked the Federal Communications Commission to impose rules on the ISPs

that would prevent them to discriminate against the third-party content providers (Coalition 2002;

Wu et al. 2003). This, they claim, would preserve the egalitarian philosophy on which the

Internet was founded (Lessig 2001). Other backers of the principle are many online start-ups,

who claim that it would be almost impossible for them to pay these proposed fees when their

revenue streams are almost non-existent, since they have to give away most of their content for

free in order to build a loyal customer base (Sydell 2006). There are venture capitalists who have

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1422061

argued that abandoning net neutrality would result in would-be entrepreneurs becoming more

hesitant to start a business, a state of affairs that might even hurt the competitiveness of the

American online firms in the long run (Sydell 2006; Wu 2006).

Opponents of network neutrality legislation (see, for example, (National Cable &

Telecommunications Association 2003; Owen et al. 2003; Yoo 2005) have denied its need in the

first place, since they feel that the Internet service providers do not have an incentive to

discriminate against content providers (Speta 2000a; Speta 2000b). The Internet service

providers themselves have argued that it is they who have put their resources to maintain and

upgrade the physical services that they provide to the consumers, and that the popular web sites

have so far got a “free ride” on their resources (Waldmeir 2006), and that the “Internet service

providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in

reaching computer users” (Krim 2005). Lee and Wu refute both these points in their paper (Lee

et al. 2009).

Lobbied intensely by both sides of the issue, the United States Congress is currently

considering proposals to introduce net neutrality legislation (Dunbar 2006; McCullagh et al.

2006; Windhausen 2006). The U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have held several

hearings on the subject (Representatives 2005; Senate 2006). A bill to preserve network

neutrality on the Internet was introduced in the United States Senate in 2007 (S.215, 2007), and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1422061

is currently under referral to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for

deliberation. The House of Representatives introduced a bill of its own in 2008 (H.R.5353, 2008),

and that too is under deliberation with several subcommittees. The Federal Trade Commission

has also chimed in, and has recently published a report that has advised a wait-and-watch

approach on the matter (FTC 2007). In a potentially major development, the Federal

Communications Commission has proposed a set of regulations that includes the “principle of

non-discrimination” whereby “broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular

Internet content or applications” (Genachowski 2009), a decision that was welcomed by the

proponents of net neutrality.

As is to be expected in a debate which has implications in many different areas,

academicians too can be found on both sides of the debate (for a recent example of such debate,

see (van Schewick et al. 2009)). In this paper, we concentrate on some of the economic aspects

of the debate. As Economides and Tag (2007) point out, in sharp contrast to the large amount of

literature that discusses the legal issues surrounding net neutrality, there is a surprising lack of

rigorous economic analysis of the net neutrality debate. One stream of economic research

considers the net neutrality issue as one of the broadband service providers acting as a

monopolist producer, who should be allowed to discriminate its services among its customers,

which we believe completely miss the point – there has never been any doubt about the right or

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1422061

剩余62页未读，继续阅读

评论收藏

内容反馈

资源评论

资源反馈

评论星级较低，若资源使用遇到问题可联系上传者，3个工作日内问题未解决可申请退款~

weixin_38722874

粉丝: 3
资源: 917

上传资源快速赚钱

我的内容管理展开

我的资源快来上传第一个资源

我的收益

登录查看自己的收益

我的积分登录查看自己的积分

我的C币登录后查看C币余额

我的收藏

我的下载

下载帮助

前往需求广场，查看用户热搜

净中性，宽带市场覆盖率和边缘创新-研究论文

净中性“精简版”：监管对宽带互联网歧视的回应-研究论文

净中性和投资激励-研究论文

论文研究-一种含有中性指标的数据包络分析方法.pdf

论文研究-风险中性高阶矩:特征、风险与应用.pdf

风险中性世界中收益率的二次模型-研究论文

净中性法规：经济证据-研究论文

预测市场中价格错位的程度-研究论文

论文研究 - 风险中性世界中的期权投资组合管理

论文研究 - 风险中性条件下中国股票市场的系统风险研究

期权市场全景数据报告：50ETF期权持仓突破400万，市场情绪偏中性-0718-方正中期期货-15页.pdf

论文研究-基于外汇期货期权的隐含风险中性概率的复原与市场情绪.pdf

非中性网络研究-研究论文

滚球投注的风险中性定价和对冲-研究论文

论文研究-基于条件风险价值的零售商创新投资决策研究.pdf

钢铁行业月报：投资数据环比上升，市场影响偏中性-0418-海通证券-17页.pdf

论文研究 - 学生期刊论文的引用和出版者的选择：影响因子和H-指数作为文献计量标准的中介作用

行业中性投资组合：市场结构动态中的长期记忆主题持久性-研究论文

论文研究-波动率风险溢酬: 时变特征及影响因素.pdf

Qt 5实现串口调试助手 （源工程文件、0积分下载）

【SystemVerilog】路科验证V2学习笔记（全600页）.pdf

AutoSAR标准协议4.2.2

光伏-储能并网系统仿真.rar

XCP协议的规范文档

GD32替换STM32注意事项.pdf

NPPJSONViewer.zip

CANoe通过CAPL脚本实现自动测试

VS2015安装证书，JavaScript_ProjectSystem.msi，JavaScript_LanguageService.msi

蓝牙BLE协议中文版.pdf

BaiduOCR.zip

最新资源

Qt 5实现串口调试助手（源工程文件、0积分下载）