Internet Industry Competition Dynamics: Peering Limitations, Exposure, and Counter Strategies

By Shin, Seungjae; Tucci, Jack E. | Journal of International Technology and Information Management, August 2007 | Go to article overview

Internet Industry Competition Dynamics: Peering Limitations, Exposure, and Counter Strategies


Shin, Seungjae, Tucci, Jack E., Journal of International Technology and Information Management


ABSTRACT

The Internet industry is vertically integrated with Internet Backbone Providers (IBPs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs.) Although there are many ISPs and IBPs in each stream, both markets are considered independent oligopolies in that there are a few dominant competitors in each market. It is generally accepted that the Internet industry structure has evolved into a four-tier hierarchical structure. The synergistic and codependent nature of the Internet industry is the key element in understanding the competitive environment in which both IBP's and ISP's cooperate. Peering is an efficient way to exchange traffic freely within the access tier, nevertheless competitive constraints limit within tier exchanges. This paper combines the value chain model, competitive force model and a game model to illustrate the interconnection competitive perspective between IBP and ISPs and demonstrate why peering is difficult in the local access market.

INTRODUCTION

The Internet is a system that makes it possible to send and receive information among all the individual and institutional computers associated with it. It is called a network of networks. As a rough approximation it can be said the Internet infrastructure industry are classified into two categories: Internet Backbone Providers (IBPs) that transfer communications in bulk among network exchange points, and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that (1) receive communications from individuals or institutions and transfer them to an IBP's network, and (2) receive communications from IBPs and transfer them to their destination.

The number of ISPs increased rapidly from the mid 90' and the structure of the industry continues to change. It is widely accepted that today's Internet industry is a vertical structure: over 40 Internet Backbone Providers (IBPs) including 10 top-tier backbones constitute the upstream industry (Kende, 2000) and over 10,000 ISPs for accessing the Internet make up the downstream industry (Weinburg, 2000). A backbone provider service is critical for any ISPs desiring to connect to the Internet. There are manifold interconnections between ISPs and IBPs. Moving data from one interconnection (tier-to-tier, i.e., IBP-to-ISP, IBP-to-IBP, ISP-to-ISP) to another is the catalyst changing the Internet market structure. There are two kinds of interconnection methods among IBPs and ISPs: peering and transit. Peering interconnection is exchanging traffic without a fee and transit interconnection is exchanging traffic with a fee. The only difference among these types is in the financial rights and obligations that they generate to their customers (Weiss & Shin, 2004). Peering in a backbone market occurs between IBPs but in a local access market peering is rare. In this first part of this paper, we survey the dynamic Internet industry from the point of interconnection strategy and analyze it using a competitive force model. In the latter part we analyze an Internet interconnection market using a game theory. In conclusion, this paper presents support for Internet policy makers to review the Internet interconnection policies.

INTERNET INTERCONNECTION STRATEGY

History of Interconnection

To understand the relationship between peering and transit, it is necessary to review the situation before the commercialization of the Internet in 1995. During the early development of the Internet, there was only one backbone and only one customer, the military, so interconnection was not an issue. In the 1980s, as the Internet was opened to academic and research institutions, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the NSFNET as an Internet backbone. Around that time, the Federal Internet Exchange (FIX) served as a first point of interconnection between federal and academic networks. At the time that commercial networks began appearing, general commercial activity on the Internet was restricted by Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), which prevented the commercial networks from exchanging traffic with one another using the NSFNET as the backbone (Kende, 2000). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Internet Industry Competition Dynamics: Peering Limitations, Exposure, and Counter Strategies
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.