The ubiquity of smartphones has fueled content consumption worldwide, leading to an ever-increasing demand for a better Internet experience. This has necessitated an upgrade of the capacity of the access network. The Internet service providers (ISPs) have been demanding that the content providers (CPs) share the cost of upgrading access network infrastructure. A \emph{public investment} in the infrastructure of a neutral ISP will boost the profit of the CPs, and hence, seems a rational strategy. A CP can also make a \emph{private investment} in its infrastructure and boost its profits. In this paper, we study the trade-off between public and private investments by a CP when the decision is made under different types of interaction between them. Specifically, we consider four interaction models between CPs -- centralized allocation, cooperative game, non-cooperative game, and a bargaining game -- and determine the public and private investment for each model. Via numerical results, we evaluate the impact of different incentive structures on the utility of the CPs. We see that the bargaining game can result in higher public investment than the non-cooperative and centralized models. However, this benefit gets reduced if the CPs are incentivized to invest in private infrastructure.
翻译:智能手机的普及推动了全球内容消费,导致对更佳互联网体验的需求持续增长。这促使接入网络容量必须升级。互联网服务提供商一直要求内容提供商分担接入网络基础设施的升级成本。对中立ISP基础设施的公共投资将提升内容提供商的利润,因此似乎是一种理性策略。内容提供商也可通过私人投资升级自身基础设施以提高利润。本文研究了内容提供商在不同互动类型下决策时,公共投资与私人投资之间的权衡。具体而言,我们考虑了内容提供商之间的四种互动模型——集中分配、合作博弈、非合作博弈及议价博弈——并确定了各模型下的公共与私人投资额度。通过数值结果,我们评估了不同激励结构对内容提供商效用的影响。研究发现,议价博弈可能比非合作与集中模型产生更高的公共投资。然而,若内容提供商被激励投资私人基础设施,这种优势将会减弱。