IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v27y2009i3p441-448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asymmetry and discrimination in Internet peering: evidence from the LINX

Author

Listed:
  • D'Ignazio, Alessio
  • Giovannetti, Emanuele

Abstract

Is the quality of interconnection between Internet operators affected by their asymmetry? While recent game theoretic literature provides contrasting answers to this question, there is a lack of empirical research. We introduce a novel dataset based on Internet routing policies, and study the interconnection decisions amongst the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that are members of the London Internet Exchange Point (LINX). Our results show that interconnection quality degradation can be significantly explained by asymmetry between providers. We also show that Competition Authorities should also focus on the "centrality of an operator", and not only on its market share.

Suggested Citation

  • D'Ignazio, Alessio & Giovannetti, Emanuele, 2009. "Asymmetry and discrimination in Internet peering: evidence from the LINX," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 441-448, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:27:y:2009:i:3:p:441-448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-7187(08)00123-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Gregory Sidak, 2006. "A Consumer-Welfare Approach To Network Neutrality Regulation Of The Internet," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(3), pages 349-474.
    2. Venkatesh Bala & Sanjeev Goyal, 2000. "A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1181-1230, September.
    3. Jacques Crémer & Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, 2000. "Connectivity in the Commercial Internet," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 433-472, December.
    4. Jackson, Matthew O. & Wolinsky, Asher, 1996. "A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 44-74, October.
    5. Giovannetti, Emanuele, 2002. "Interconnection, differentiation and bottlenecks in the Internet," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 385-404, September.
    6. Foros, Oystein & Kind, Hans Jarle & Sorgard, Lars, 2002. "Access Pricing, Quality Degradation, and Foreclosure in the Internet," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 59-83, July.
    7. Mason, R., 1999. "Compatibility between differentiated networks," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 9909, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    8. Narine Badasyan & Subhadip Chakrabarti, 2003. "Private Peering Among Internet Backbone Providers," Industrial Organization 0301002, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Jan 2003.
    9. Giovannetti, Emanuele & Ristuccia, Cristiano Andrea, 2005. "Estimating market power in the Internet backbone. Using the IP transit Band-X database," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 269-284, May.
    10. Leonard C. Smith & Vimal Ranchhod, 2015. "Measuring the impact of educational interventions on the academic performance of academic development students in second-year microeconomics," Working Papers 37, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    11. Economides, Nicholas, 1998. "The incentive for non-price discrimination by an input monopolist," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 271-284, May.
    12. Pio Baake & Thorsten Wichmann, 1999. "On the economics of Internet peering," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 89-105, October.
    13. Alessio D'Ignazio & Emanuele Giovannetti, 2006. "Antitrust Analysis For The Internet Upstream Market: A Border Gateway Protocol Approach," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 43-69.
    14. Takanori Ida, 2005. "Analysis of Internet topology with a three-level components model," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(8), pages 527-534.
    15. Foros, Oystein & Hansen, Bjorn, 2001. "Competition and compatibility among Internet Service Providers," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 411-425, December.
    16. Martin B. Weiss & Seung Jae Shin, 2004. "Internet Interconnection Economic Model and its Analysis: Peering and Settlement," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 43-57, April.
    17. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:4:p:433-72 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Syngjoo Choi & Andrea Galeotti & Sanjeev Goyal, 2017. "Trading in Networks: Theory and Experiments," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 784-817.
    2. Felipe Maciel Cardoso & Carlos Gracia-Lázaro & Frédéric Moisan & Sanjeev Goyal & Ángel Sánchez & Yamir Moreno, 2020. "Effect of network topology and node centrality on trading," Post-Print halshs-03052105, HAL.
    3. Giovannetti, Emanuele & Sigloch, Sebastian, 2015. "An Internet periphery study: Network centrality and clustering for mobile access in Bhutan," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 608-622.
    4. D’Ignazio, Alessio & Giovannetti, Emanuele, 2015. "Predicting internet commercial connectivity wars: The impact of trust and operators’ asymmetry," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 1127-1137.
    5. Zhuo, Ran & Huffaker, Bradley & claffy, kc & Greenstein, Shane, 2021. "The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation on internet interconnection," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2).
    6. D’Ignazio, Alessio & Giovannetti, Emanuele, 2014. "Continental differences in the clusters of integration: Empirical evidence from the digital commodities global supply chain networks," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PB), pages 486-497.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D’Ignazio, A. & Giovannetti, E., 2006. "‘Unfair’ Discrimination in Two-sided Peering? Evidence from LINX," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0621, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    2. Alessio D'Ignazio & Emanuele Giovannetti, 2006. "From Exogenous To Endogenous Economic Networks: Internet Applications," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(5), pages 757-796, December.
    3. Jahn, Eric & Prüfer, Jens, 2008. "Interconnection and competition among asymmetric networks in the Internet backbone market," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 243-256, September.
    4. Yong Tan & I. Robert Chiang & Vijay S. Mookerjee, 2006. "An Economic Analysis of Interconnection Arrangements Between Internet Backbone Providers," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 776-788, August.
    5. Sun Me Choi & Christian Fernando Libaque-Saenz & Sang-woo Lee & Myeong-Cheol Park, 2016. "Margin squeeze in the Internet backbone interconnection market: a case study of Korea," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 531-542, March.
    6. D'Ignazio, A. & Giovannetti, E., 2004. "From Exogenous to Endogenous Networks: Internet Applications," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0445, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    7. Gireesh Shrimali, 2010. "Competitive resource sharing by Internet Service Providers," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 149-179, July.
    8. Emanuele Giovanetti, 2005. "Diagonal mergers and foreclosure in the internet," Working Papers in Public Economics 80, Department of Economics and Law, Sapienza University of Roma.
    9. Narine Badasyan & Subhadip Chakrabarti, 2004. "Intra-backbone and Inter-backbone Peering Among Internet Service Providers," Microeconomics 0407006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Giovannetti, Emanuele & Sigloch, Sebastian, 2015. "An Internet periphery study: Network centrality and clustering for mobile access in Bhutan," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 608-622.
    11. Zhou, Weihua & Pu, Yaqi & Dai, Hongyan & Jin, Qingwei, 2017. "Cooperative interconnection settlement among ISPs through NAP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 991-1003.
    12. D’Ignazio, Alessio & Giovannetti, Emanuele, 2014. "Continental differences in the clusters of integration: Empirical evidence from the digital commodities global supply chain networks," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PB), pages 486-497.
    13. Lippert, Steffen & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2011. "Networks of relations and Word-of-Mouth Communication," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 202-217, May.
    14. David Mandy & David Sappington, 2007. "Incentives for sabotage in vertically related industries," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 235-260, June.
    15. Eunae Yoo & Elliot Rabinovich & Bin Gu, 2020. "The Growth of Follower Networks on Social Media Platforms for Humanitarian Operations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(12), pages 2696-2715, December.
    16. Rajgopal Kannan & Lydia Ray & Sudipta Sarangi, 2007. "The structure of information networks," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 30(1), pages 119-134, January.
    17. Finneran, Lisa & Kelly, Morgan, 2003. "Social networks and inequality," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 282-299, March.
    18. Liu, Xiaodong & Patacchini, Eleonora & Zenou, Yves & Lee, Lung-Fei, 2011. "Criminal Networks: Who is the Key Player?," Research Papers in Economics 2011:7, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    19. Bich, Philippe & Teteryatnikova, Mariya, 2023. "On perfect pairwise stable networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    20. Sofia Priazhkina & Samuel Palmer & Pablo Martín-Ramiro & Román Orús & Samuel Mugel & Vladimir Skavysh, 2024. "Digital Payments in Firm Networks: Theory of Adoption and Quantum Algorithm," Staff Working Papers 24-17, Bank of Canada.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:27:y:2009:i:3:p:441-448. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.