skip to main content
research-article

Demand-Invariant Price Relationships and Market Outcomes in Competitive Private Commons

Published:28 October 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We introduce a private commons model that consists of network providers who serve a fixed primary demand and strategically price to improve their revenues from an additional secondary demand. For general forms of secondary demand, we establish the existence and uniqueness of two characteristic prices: the break-even price and the market sharing price. We show that the market sharing price is always greater than the break-even price, leading to a price interval in which a provider is both profitable and willing to share the demand. Making use of this result, we give insight into the nature of market outcomes.

References

  1. I. F. Akyildiz, W. Lee, M. C. Vuran, and S. Mohanty. 2006. Next generation/dynamic spectrum access/cognitive radio wireless networks: A survey. Comput. Netw. 50, 13, 2127--2159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Alanyali, A. Al Daoud, and D. Starobinski. 2011. Profitability of dynamic spectrum provision for secondary use. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN'11). 136--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. G. Allon and I. Gurvich. 2010. Pricing and dimensioning competing large-scale service providers. Manufact. Serv. Oper. Manag. 12, 3, 449--469. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Andrews, U. Ozen, M. I. U. Reiman, and Q. Wang. 2013. Economic models of sponsored content in wireless networks with uncertain demand. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Communications Workshop (INFOCOM WKSHPS'13). 345--350.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Anick, D. Mitra, and M. M. Sondhi. 1982. Stochastic theory of a data-handling system with multiple sources. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 61, 8, 1871--1894.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. R. Berry, M. Honig, T. Nguyen, V. Subramanian, H. Zhou, and R. Vohra. 2013. On the nature of revenue-sharing contracts to incentivize spectrum-sharing. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM'13). 845--853.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. O. Besbes and A. Zeevi. 2009. Dynamic pricing without knowing the demand function: Risk bounds and near-optimal algorithms. Oper. Res. 57, 6, 1407--1420. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. M. Buddhikot. 2007. Understanding dynamic spectrum access: Models, taxonomy and challenges. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN'07). 649--663.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. M. Bykowsky. 2003. A secondary market for the trading of spectrum: Promoting market liquidity. Telecomm. Policy 27, 7, 533--541.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. J. M. Chapin and W. H. Lehr. 2007. Cognitive radios for dynamic spectrum access - The path to market success for dynamic spectrum access technology. IEEE Comm. Mag. 45, 5, 96--103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. H. Chun and R. J. La. 2013. Secondary spectrum trading - Auction-based framework for spectrum allocation and profit sharing. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 21, 1, 176--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. L. Duan, J. Huang, and B. Shou. 2010. Competition with dynamic spectrum leasing. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySpan'10). 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Communications Commission. 2013. 16th mobile competition report. http://www.fcc.gov/document/16th-mobile-competition-report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. G. Fortetsanakis, M. Papadopouli, G. Karlsson, M. Dramitinos, and E. A. Yavuz. 2012. To subscribe, or not to subscribe: Modeling and analysis of service paradigms in cellular markets. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySpan'12). 189--200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. S. B. Fred, T. Bonald, A. Proutiere, G. Regnie, and J. W. Roberts. 2001. Statistical bandwidth sharing: A study of congestion at flow level. ACM Comput. Comm. Rev. 31, 4, 111--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. L. Gao, J. Huang, Y.-J. Chen, and B. Shou. 2013. An integrated contract and auction design for secondary spectrum trading. IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 31, 3, 581--592.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. A. Hassidim, D. Raz, M. Segalov, and A. Shaqed. 2013. Network utilization: The flow view. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM'13). 1429--1437.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. O. Ileri, D. Samardzija, and N. B. Mandayam. 2005. Demand responsive pricing and competitive spectrum allocation via a spectrum server. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySpan'05). 194--202.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. E. Jung and X. Liu. 2012. Opportunistic spectrum access in multiple-primary-user environments under the packet collision constraint. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 20, 2, 501--514. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G. S. Kasbekar and S. Sarkar. 2012. Spectrum pricing games with random valuations of secondary users. IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 30, 11, 2262--2273.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. I. Kash, R. Murty, and D. Parkes. 2013. Enabling spectrum sharing in secondary market auctions. IEEE Trans. Mobil. Comput. 13, 3, 566--568.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. E. Kavurmacioglu, M. Alanyali, and D. Starobinski. 2012. Competition in secondary spectrum markets: Price war or market sharing? In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySpan'12). 440--451.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. F. P. Kelly and R. J. Williams. 2004. Fluid model for a network operating under a fair bandwidth-sharing policy. Ann. Appl. Probab. 14, 3, 1055--1083.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. H. Kim, J. Choi, and K. G. Shin. 2011. Wi-Fi 2.0: Price and quality competitions of duopoly cognitive radio wireless service providers with time-varying spectrum availability. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM'11). 2453--2461.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. V. Kone, L. Yang, X. Yang, B. Y. Zhao, and H. Zheng. 2012. The effectiveness of opportunistic spectrum access: A measurement study. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 20, 6, 2005--2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. P. Maille and B. Tuffin. 2010. Price war in heterogeneous wireless networks. Comput. Netw. 54, 13, 2281--2292. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. A. Mchenry and D. Mccloskey. 2005. Spectrum occupancy measurements: Chicago, Illinois. http://www. sharedspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF_Chicago_2005-11_measurements_v12.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Michalopoulou, J. Riihijarvi, and P. Mahonen. 2011. Towards characterizing primary usage in cellular networks: A traffic-based study. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySpan'11). 652--655.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. D. Niyato and E. Hossain. 2008. Competitive pricing for spectrum sharing in cognitive radio networks: Dynamic game, inefficiency of nash equilibrium, and collusion. IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 26, 1, 192--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. M. J. Osbourne. 2004. An Introduction to Game Theory, 1st ed. Oxford University Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. U. Paul, A. P. Subramanian, M. M. Buddhikot, and S. R. Das. 2011. Understanding traffic dynamics in cellular data networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM'11). 882--890.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Y. Ren, Q. Zhang, and P. Chen. 2011. Cooperative and non-cooperative wsps in dynamic spectrum leasing. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Communications and Mobile Computing (CMC'11). 274--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. S. Sengupta and M. Chatterjee. 2009. An economic framework for dynamic spectrum access and service pricing. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 17, 4, 1200--1213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. S.-P. Sheng and M. Liu. 2013. Profit incentive in a secondary spectrum market: A contract design approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM'13). 836--844.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. P. G. Straub. 1995. Risk dominance and coordination failures in static games. The Quart. Rev. Econ. Finan. 35, 4, 339--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. K. T. Talluri and G. V. Ryzin. 2004. The Theory and Practice of Revenue Management. Springer Science and Business Media, New York. 321--323.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. G. J. Tellis and G. J. Gaeth. 1990. Best value, price-seeking, and price aversion: The impact of information and learning on consumer choices. J. Market. 54, 2, 34--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. D. Willkomm, S. Machiraju, J. Bolot, and A. Wolisz. 2008. Primary users in cellular networks: A large-scale measurement study. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySpan'08). 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Y. Xiao, G. Bi, D. Niyato, and L. A. Dasilva. 2012. A hierarchical game theoretic framework for cognitive radio networks. IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 30, 10, 2053--2069.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Y. Xing, R. Chandramouli, and C. Cordeiro. 2007. Price dynamics in competitive agile spectrum access markets. IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 25, 3, 613--621. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. L. Yang, H. Kim, J. Zhang, M. Chiang, and C. W. Tan. 2013. Pricing-based decentralized spectrum access control in cognitive radio networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 21, 2, 522--535. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Y. Zhu, B. Li, and Z. Li. 2013. Designing two-dimensional spectrum auctions for mobile secondary users. IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 31, 3, 604--613.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Demand-Invariant Price Relationships and Market Outcomes in Competitive Private Commons

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!