Disagreements over peering fees have risen to the level of potential government regulation. ISPs assert that content providers should pay them based on the volume of downstream traffic. Transit providers and content providers assert that consumers have already paid ISPs to transmit the content they request and that peering agreements should be settlement-free. Our goal is to determine the fair payment between an ISP and an interconnecting network. We consider fair cost sharing between two Tier-1 ISPs, and derive the peering fee that equalizes their net backbone transportation costs. We then consider fair cost sharing between an ISP and a transit provider. We derive the peering fee that equalizes their net backbone transportation costs, and illustrate how it depends on the traffic ratio and the amount of localization of that content. Finally, we consider the fair peering fee between an ISP and a content provider. We derive the peering fee that results in the same net cost to the ISP, and illustrate how the peering fee depends on the number of interconnection points and the amount of localization of that content. We dispense with the ISP argument that it should be paid regardless of the amount of localization of content.

翻译：关于对等结算费用的争议已升至可能引发政府监管的程度。网络服务提供商（ISP）主张内容提供商应根据下行流量规模向其支付费用。传输服务提供商和内容提供商则认为，消费者已为传输所请求内容向ISP付费，因此对等互联协议应实现无结算。本研究旨在确定ISP与互联网络之间的公平付款方案。我们首先考虑两个一级ISP之间的公平成本分摊，推导出使其主干网运输净成本相等的结算费。随后考虑ISP与传输服务提供商之间的公平成本分摊，推导出使双方主干网运输净成本相等的结算费，并阐明该费用如何取决于流量比率及内容本地化程度。最后，我们研究ISP与内容提供商之间的公平结算费，推导出使ISP获得相同净成本的结算费，并阐明该费用如何取决于互联点数量及内容本地化程度。我们驳斥了ISP关于无论内容本地化程度如何均应获得付款的主张。