Telecommunication Systems

, Volume 51, Issue 2–3, pp 193–217 | Cite as

Modelling MNO and MVNO’s dynamic interconnection relations: is cooperative content investment profitable for both providers?



We consider a Mobile Network Operator (MNO) who shares dynamically his limited resource spectrum with a Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) lacking the infrastructure. We start by introducing at each time period a three-level game: in the first step the MNO defines the wholesale access charge that the MVNO pays per traffic unit sent on his network and allocates his scarce resource between his own consumers and the MVNO; in a second step, both operators compete on their retail prices, the MNO discriminating between the market segments while the MVNO invests in contents to target niche markets or add value to her company; finally the consumers choose one of the providers’ offers or none depending on their intrinsic preferences and on the opportunity cost values. The game admits a unique equilibrium. In a second part, a regulatory authority forces both providers to use cooperative content investment i.e., the MNO now shares the MVNO’s content investment cost; in exchange this latter agrees to share her revenue. The equilibrium is still uniquely defined at each time period. Besides, we check numerically that depending on the operators’ power relation, such a contract can increase both operators’ utilities and consumer welfare, and incite the MVNO to invest more in contents.


Dynamic programming Supply chain Contract Content investment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Audestad, J.-A., Gaivoronski, A., & Werner, A. (2006). Extending the stochastic programming framework for the modeling of several decision makers: pricing and competition in the telecommunication sector. Annals of Operation Research, 142, 19–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babaioff, M., Hartline, J., & Kleinberg, R. (2008). Selling banner ads: online algorithms with buyback. In Workshop on Ad Auctions. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banerjee, A., & Dippon, C. (2009). Voluntary relationships among mobile network operators and mobile virtual network operators: an economic explanation. Information Economics and Policy, 21, 72–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernstein, F., & Federgruen, A. (2003). A general equilibrium model for industries with price and service competition. Operations Research, 52, 868–886. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertsimas, D., & Tsitsiklis, J. (1997). Introduction to linear optimization. Nashua: Athena Scientific. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cachon, G. (2007). Supply-chain coordination with contracts. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 11, 227–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cachon, G., & Lariviere, M. (1999). Capacity choice and allocation: strategic behavior and supply-chain performance. Management Science, 45, 1091–1108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cesa-Bianch, N., & Lugosi, G. (2006). Prediction, learning, and games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dupuit, J. (1952). On the measurement of the utility of public works. PhD thesis, Annales des Ponts et Chaussées. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Filar, J., & Vrieze, K. (1997). Competitive Markov decision processes. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guan, Y., Yang, W., Owen, H., & Blough, D. (2008). A pricing approach for bandwidth allocation in differentiated service networks. Computers & Operations Research, 35, 3769–3789. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hiriart-Urruty, J.-B. (1996). L’optimisation. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeanjean, A., & Martin, B. (2009). Optimization of Internet advertising scheduling using multiarmed bandit process. Tours: Roadef. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Le Cadre, H., Bouhtou, M., & Tuffin, B. (2009). A pricing model for a mobile network operator sharing limited resource with a mobile virtual network operator. In Lecture notes in computer science. 6-th International workshop on Internet charging and QoS technology, ICQT’09. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maille, P., Naldi, M., & Tuffin, B. (2008). Competition for migrating customers: a game-theoretic analysis in a regulated regime. In IEEE Globecom. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mutlu, H., Alanyali, M., & Starobinski, D. (2008). Spot pricing of secondary spectrum usage in wireless cellular networks. In IEEE INFOCOM. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pohjola, O.-P., & Kilkki, K. (2007). Value-based methodology to analyze communication services. Netnomics, 8, 135–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rey, P., & Vergé, T. (2008). Economics of vertical restraints. In Handbook of antitrust economics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sethi, S., He, X., & Prasad, A. (2008). Cooperative advertising and pricing in a dynamic stochastic supply-chain: feedback Stackelberg equilibrium. Production and Operations Management (to appear). Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P., & Simchi-Levi, E. (2008). Designing and managing the supply chain (3rd edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Versailles Saint-QuentinVersaillesFrance
  2. 2.France-Télécom R&D/Orange LabsIssy-les-MoulineauxFrance

Personalised recommendations