NEW MODELS AND CONFLICTS IN THE INTERCONNECTION AND DELIVERY OF INTERNET-MEDIATED CONTENT

摘要

As the Internet has evolved and diversified, interconnection terms and conditions havechanged between Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). These carriers experiment withalternatives to conventional models that classify interconnection as either peering or transiting.The former typically involves interconnection between high capacity carriers whosetransoceanic traffic volumes generally match thereby eliminating the need for a transfer offunds. Historically smaller carriers have paid transit fees to larger Tier-1 ISPs for theopportunity to secure upstream links throughout the Internet cloud.With the growing availability of bandwidth intensive, full motion video content carried viathe Internet, traffic volume disparities have increased between ISPs. A new category of ISP hastargeted the downstream video content delivery market, all but guaranteeing that these ContentDelivery Networks (“CDNs”) will have more traffic for which they need to secure delivery to endusers than what retail ISPs can or will hand off to them for upstream delivery. Such asymmetryin traffic flows traditionally has forced CDNs to become transit payers even if previously theyqualified for zero cost peering.The migration from CDN peer to transit payer represents one of many adjustments ininterconnection compensation arrangements triggered by changes in traffic flows. Heretoforecommercially driven negotiations have managed the transition without resulting in many servicedisruptions. However it appears increasingly likely that interconnection negotiations will becomemore contentious and protracted, particularly when retail ISPs demand compensation fromsources of high volume, bandwidth intensive video content even though the ventures do notinterconnect directly. Traditional peering and transiting occurs between directly interconnectingcarriers, but some retail ISPs believe they should receive compensation from content sources like Netflix and YouTube, because of the downstream torrent of traffic these ventures generatefor final delivery.Content providers have balked at making such payments, because they already payCDNs and other carriers with which they directly interconnect. Additionally retail ISPs chargetheir customers often hefty broadband subscription rates that appear sufficiently compensatoryfor their costs incurred in providing access throughout the Internet cloud.This paper will examine existing and likely future interconnection disputes with an eyetoward identifying where conflicts will arise and how they can get resolved. The paper supportscommercially driven negotiations, but suggests that National Regulatory Authorities may need toarbitrate and promote settlements when now essential Internet access becomes blocked orcongested. The paper concludes that ISPs should have the opportunity to provide both endusers and content sources alternatives to “best efforts” content delivery, but that they should notcreate artificial congestion as justification for additional compensation.