GAFA's information infrastructure distribution: Interconnection dynamics in the global North versus global South

Abstract

We analyze public points of interconnection of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (GAFA) in the global North versus the global South to determine the degree to which their location preferences differ, if at all. We find that there is a statistically significant difference in GAFA locating in the global North versus the global South—a difference based on a country's wealth, specifically as given by per capita GNI. Approximately 38% of countries classified as global North have a GAFA public point of interconnection, while 16% of those classified as global South do. Apple has approximately 92% of its presence in the global North, followed by Amazon (82.5%), Facebook (73%), and Google (72%). Our findings suggest that competition and antitrust policy discussions of digital platforms should include information on the dynamics of interconnection infrastructure distribution, and for that, such information must be available. We also assert that a global consideration of the digital platforms market is necessary.

Regulating datafication and platformization: Policy silos and tradeoffs in international platform inquiries

“…Although Winseck (2020) makes this point at length, I briefly revisit it here to highlight the potential policy consequences. As platformization extends into the infrastructure layer, including cloud architectures, networking cables and hardware (Ball, 2021; van Dijck, 2020), so does the control of dominant platforms like Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft (Mosco, 2017; Rosa & Hauge, 2021). Yet, the inquiries focus primarily on the app layer, with few exceptions (e.g., BTLR, 2020).…”

“…How the tensions identified here are resolved is bound up in state politics and geopolitical interests. The predominance of inquiries originating from Europe and North America reflects both an unequal policy dynamic between the Global North and South and equally unequal geopolitics of internet governance and global infrastructure (e.g., Rosa & Hauge, 2021; Tusikov, 2017; Winseck, 2017). While examining how these dynamics shape the states' negotiation of the silos and tradeoffs identified here is beyond the scope of this analysis, such questions are pressing given the scope of datafication and platformization and their growing role in the global economy.…”

Code Ethnography and the Materiality of Power in Internet Governance

“…He quantified two BGP fields, connected networks and origin networks, and associated the countries with the networks based on two well-known databases, Cymrus and WHOIS. I then crossed that data with the databases of the World Bank and United Nations in order to operationalize the concept of global North and South (for details see Rosa and Hauge 2021).…”

“…Table 1 Code Literacy Techniques Applied in this Study symmetrical study on the German and Brazilian IXPs. 6 While "ethnography is an art of the possible, and it may be better to have some of it than none at all" (Hannerz 2003, 212), in which concerns internet interconnection, there is data that should be considered of public interest and be regulated as such, as it affects competition among telecommunication incumbents and small ISPs, especially in the global South (Rosa and Hauge 2021). In bringing code to the fore, code ethnography research may join efforts to provoke critical considerations of privatized areas of internet governance.…”

Knowledge and Well-Being in the Digital Society: Towards a Research Agenda

“…"The amount of information on the Web is growing rapidly, as well as the number of new users inexperienced in the art of Web search" (Brin & Page, 1998, p. 107) -what started as a search engine prototype in the 1990s spawned a company whose proclaimed mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (Google, 2022). However, Google and a handful of other technology companies now also dominate an internet based on global advertising (Srinivasan, 2020;Zuboff, 2019) which is simultaneously an essential sociotechnical infrastructure of the digital society (Rosa & Hauge, 2021;Sadowski, 2020;Sandvig, 2013). A critical and empirical up-todate scholarly examination and imagination of the digital web of knowledge and its connection to human well-being is necessary.…”