IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/vhsuwp/2009_096.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Priority and Internet Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Kruse, Joern

    (Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg)

Abstract

The significant increase of internet traffic is to a large extent caused by more high-data-rate applications like file-sharing etc. Although network operators constantly increase router and line capacities, overload occurs from time to time, causing delays, jitter and packet-losses at the data packet level. At the service level this may significantly reduce the quality of certain applications. Among those are interactive services like VoIP, some business applications, online gaming etc. and other on-time-services like internet-television. This will result in systematic inefficiencies which can mainly be attributed to two reasons. The first one is the widespread use of internet-flatrates and the second one is a much too strict interpretation of the network neutrality principle. The latter describes the fact that every single data packet will be handled strictly equal at every router, no matter what application it belongs to and what the technical and economic consequences of delayed or dropped packets will be. A congestion model shows that flatrates which users' marginal outlays cause to be zero are inefficient as soon as positive marginal overload externalities exist. It comes up with a general pricing solution which will be questioned later on. In this framework, optimal internet capacity is identified and the networks' overprovisioning policy is found to be inefficient. The key issue for internet congestion problem is the fact that, although services are homogenous at the data packet level, they are very heterogenous at the service level. They are very different with respect to data rate, quality-sensitivity, and economic value. Under strict network neutrality rule it can be demonstrated that certain valuable, quality-sensitive services will be significantly harmed (and potentially be crowded out altogether) by non-qualitysensitive, high-data-rate services which may have low economic value. Giving priority to certain services in overload situations looks like the adequate solution to the problem. However, this always bears the risk of discriminating some service providers and applications and will be heavily debated. A more appropriate solution is provided by priority pricing, whereby users express their willingness to pay for priority treatment in case of an overload. Customers have an ex ante choice between different qualities of service. The choice of a service provider to pay for high priority (high quality of service) will depend mainly on two factors, the quality-sensitivity and the end-users' willingness to pay for such services. Only providers of quality-sensitive services will have any reason whatsoever to pay for traffic prioritization. Providers of non-quality-sensitive services (file sharing, e-mailing, webbrowsing) will be adequately served by best effort traffic and will thus obtain it cheaply. Priority pricing (quality of service) results in an economically efficient use of scarce router capacity according to the economic congestion effects of the specific service. It avoids the crowding-out problem. It allows to generate more economic value out of a given internet capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Kruse, Joern, 2009. "Priority and Internet Quality," Working Paper 96/2009, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:vhsuwp:2009_096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hsu-hh.de/fgvwl/index_MwIFckOMzJpC67Gb.html
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Nagurney & Dong Li, 2014. "A Dynamic Network Oligopoly Model with Transportation Costs, Product Differentiation, and Quality Competition," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 44(2), pages 201-229, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Internet; Quality of Service; Priority Pricing; Overprovisioning; Filesharing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • L96 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Telecommunications

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ris:vhsuwp:2009_096. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Klaus Bekcmann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/egbwhde.html .

    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.