Computational Management Science

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 475–502 | Cite as

A Cournot–Nash–Bertrand game theory model of a service-oriented Internet with price and quality competition among network transport providers

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper develops a game theory model of a service-oriented Internet in which profit-maximizing service providers provide substitutable (but not identical) services and compete with the quantities of services in a Cournot–Nash manner, whereas the network transport providers, which transport the services to the users at the demand markets, and are also profit-maximizers, compete with prices in Bertrand fashion and on quality. The consumers respond to the composition of service and network provision through the demand price functions, which are both quantity and quality dependent. We derive the governing equilibrium conditions of the integrated game and show that it satisfies a variational inequality problem. We then describe the underlying dynamics, and provide some qualitative properties, including stability analysis. The proposed algorithmic scheme tracks, in discrete-time, the dynamic evolution of the service volumes, quality levels, and the prices until an approximation of a stationary point (within the desired convergence tolerance) is achieved. Numerical examples demonstrate the modeling and computational framework.

Keywords

Network economics Game theory Oligopolistic competition Service differentiation Quality competition  Cournot–Nash equilibrium Service-oriented Internet Bertrand competition Variational inequalities Projected dynamical systems 

References

  1. Altman E, Rojas J, Wong S, Hanawal MK, Xu Y (2011) Proceedings of the ICST conference on game theory for networks, ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertrand J (1883) Theorie mathematique de la richesse sociale. Journal des Savants 67:499–508Google Scholar
  3. Cournot AA (1838) Researches into the mathematical principles of the theory of wealth, English translation. MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Cruz JM (2008) Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social responsibility through integrated environmental decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 184:1005–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dafermos S, Nagurney A (1987) Oligopolistic and competitive behavior of spatially separated markets. Reg Sci Urban Econ 17:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dupuis P, Nagurney A (1993) Dynamical systems and variational inequalities. Ann Oper Res 44:9–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dyaberi JM, Parsons B, Pai VS, Kannan K, Chen Y-FR, Jana R, Stern D, Varshavsky A (2012) Managing cellular congestion using incentives. IEEE Communications Magazine, pp 100–107Google Scholar
  8. Gabay D, Moulin H (1980) On the uniqueness and stability of Nash equilibria in noncooperative games. In: Bensoussan A, Kleindorfer P, Tapiero CS (eds) Applied stochastic control of econometrics and management science. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Ha S, Sen S, Joe-Wong C, Im Y, Chiang N (2012) Tube: time-dependent pricing for mobile data. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2012 conference on applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communication, SIGCOMM ’12. ACM, Helsinki, pp 247–258Google Scholar
  10. He L, Walrand J (2005) Pricing differentiated internet services. In: Proceedings of INFOCOM, pp 195–204Google Scholar
  11. Kausar N, Briscoe B, Crowcroft J (1999) A charging model for sessions on the internet. In: Leopold H, Garcia N (eds) European conference on multimedia applications, services and techniques (ECMAST’99), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol 1629. Springer, Berlin, pp 246–261Google Scholar
  12. Kelly FP (1997) Charging and rate control for elastic traffic. Eur Trans Telecommun 8:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lv Q, Rouskas GN (2010) An economic model for pricing tiered network services. Ann Telecommun 65:147–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacKie-Mason J, Varian H (1995) Pricing the Internet—progress and misconceptions. In: Kahin B, Keller J (eds) Access to the Internet. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 269–314Google Scholar
  15. McKnight LW, Bailey JP (eds) (1997) Internet economics. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Nagurney A (1999) Network economics: a variational inequality approach second and revised edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nagurney A (2006) Supply chain network economics: dynamics of prices, flows, and profits. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  18. Nagurney A (2010) Formulation and analysis of horizontal mergers among oligopolistic firms with insights into the merger paradox: a supply chain network perspective. Comput Manage Sci 7:377–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nagurney A, Dupuis P, Zhang D (1994) A dynamical systems approach for network oligopolies and variational inequalities. Ann Reg Sci 28:263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nagurney A, Ke K, Cruz J, Hancock K, Southworth F (2002) Dynamics of supply chains: a multilevel (logistical/informational/ financial) network perspective. Environ Plan B 29:795–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nagurney A, Li D (2013) A dynamic network oligopoly model with transportation costs, product differentiation, and quality competition. Comput Econ (in press)Google Scholar
  22. Nagurney A, Takayama T, Zhang D (1995) Massively parallel computation of spatial price equilibrium problems as dynamical systems. J Econ Dyn Control 18:3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nagurney A, Wolf T, Li D, Saberi S (2013) A network economic game theory model of a service-oriented Internet with choices and quality competition. Netnomics (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Nagurney A, Zhang D (1996) Projected dynamical systems and variational inequalities with applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 36:48–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nash JF (1951) Noncooperative games. Ann Math 54:286–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neely MJ (2007) Optimal pricing in a free market wireless network. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOMGoogle Scholar
  28. Njoroge P, Ozdaglar A, Stier N, Weintraub G (2009) Competition, market coverage, and quality choice in interconnected platforms. In: Proceedings of NetEcon09, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Odlyzko A (1999) Paris metro pricing for the Internet. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on electronic commerce (EC’99), AM, pp 140–147Google Scholar
  30. Ros D, Tuffin B (2004) A mathematical model of the Paris metro pricing scheme for charging packet networks. Comput Netw 46(1):73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sen S, Joe-Wong C, Ha S, Chiang M (2012) Incentivizing time-shifting of data: a survey of time-dependent pricing for Internet access. IEEE Commun 50(11):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shakkottai S, Srikant R (2006) Economics of network pricing with multiple ISPs. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 16(6):1233–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shen H, Basar T (2007) Optimal nonlinear pricing for a monopolistic service provider with complete and incomplete information. IEEE ISAC 25(6):1216–1223Google Scholar
  34. Varian H (1996) Economic issues facing the Internet. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/hal/Papers/econ-issues-internet.html
  35. Varian HR (2001) The demand for bandwidth: evidence from the index project. In: Crandall RW, Alleman JH (eds) Broadband: should we regulate high-speed Internet access?. Aei-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, pp 39–56Google Scholar
  36. Wolf T, Griffioen J, Calvert K, Dutta R, Rouskas G, Baldine I, Nagurney A (2012) Choice as a principle in network architecture. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang Z-L, Nabipay P, Odlyzko A, Guerin R (2010) Mini-conference proceedings, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang D, Nagurney A (1995) On the stability of projected dynamical systems. J Optim Theory Appl 85:97–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Operations and Information Management, Isenberg School of ManagementUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.School of Business, Economics and LawUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations