The optimal macro control strategies of service providers and micro service selection of users: quantification model based on synergetics



Multiple wireless technologies, possibly administered by same or different service providers (SPs), are expected to coexist in the rapidly-expanding heterogeneous networks. It is also economically beneficial for all SPs to cooperate with each other. In such model, one SP temporally shares a portion of its spectrum with other SPs at a certain price to allow better utilization of the available spectrum . To this end, users can make service selection decisions dynamically at micro level according to the performance satisfaction level and cost, depending on the pricing plans and spectrum sharing strategies of SPs at macro level. On the other hand, the users’ service selection population states in turn influence the control strategies of SPs. To model this dynamic interactive decision making problem, a novel approach based on synergetics is presented in this paper. The motion equations of population state decided by pricing and spectrum sharing are derived . Then, by taking into account the population state, an optimization problem is formulated to determine the optimal dynamic pricing and open access ratio for the SPs in order to maximize their respective benefits. A closed-loop feedback equilibrium is obtained as the solution of the formed optimization problem. Numerical results demonstrate the effectiveness and advantages of the proposed model in terms of dynamic control of the spectrum sharing and pricing as well as dynamic analysis of service selection.


Heterogeneous networks Spectrum sharing Pricing Service selection Synergetics 



This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (61372125), 973 project (2013CB329104), and the open research fund of National Mobile Communications Research Laboratory, Southeast University (2013D01).


  1. 1.
    FCC. (2003). Promoting efficient use of spectrum through elimination of barriers to the development of secondary markets, Technical Report FCC:03-113.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ofcom. (2011). Simplifying spectrum trading, spectrum leasing and other market enhancements, Final Statement Report, June 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    New Zealand Government. (2016). Radio spectrum management. Available:
  4. 4.
    Australia Government. (2014). ACMA. Available:
  5. 5.
    Wang, L., & Kuo, G. S. (2013). Mathematical modeling for network selection in heterogeneous wireless networks—a tutoria. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 15(1), 271–292. First quarter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bari, F., & Leung, V. C. M. (2007). Multi-attribute network selection by iterative TOPSIS for heterogeneous wireless access. In Proceedings of IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), (pp. 808–812).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Song, Q., & Jamalipour, A. (2005). Network selection in an integrated wireless LAN and UMTS environment using mathematical modeling and computing techniques. IEEE Wireless Communication, 12(3), 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kassar, M., Kervella, B., & Pujolle, G. (2008). An overview of vertical handover decision strategies in heterogeneous wireless networks. Computer Communications, 31(10), 2607–2620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trestian, R., Ormond, O., & Muntean, G. M. (2012). Game theory-based network selection: Solutions and challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, 14(4), 1212–1231. Fourth quarter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stevens-Navarro, E., Lin, Y., & Wong, V. W. S. (2008). An MDP-based vertical handoff decision algorithm for heterogeneous wireless networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 57(2), 1243–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Song, Q., & Jamalipour, A. (2008). A quality of service negotiation-based vertical handoff decision scheme in heterogeneous wireless systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 191(3), 1059–1074.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang, H. B., & Chen, K. C. (2011). Cooperative spectrum sharing economy for heterogeneous wireless networks. In IEEE GLOBECOM Workshops (pp. 458–463). Dec 2011.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bennis, M., Lasaulce, S., & Debbah, M. (2009). Inter-operator spectrum sharing from a game theoretical perspective. EURASIP Journal of Signal Processing, 2009, 295739. doi: 10.1155/2009/295739.
  14. 14.
    Singh, C., Sarkar, S., Aram, A., & Kumar, A. (2012). Cooperative profit sharing in coalition-based resource allocation in wireless networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 20(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhu, K., Hossain, E., & Niyato, D. (2014). Pricing, spectrum sharing, and service selection in two-tier small cell networks: A hierarchical dynamic game approach. IEEE Transaction on Mobile Computing, 13(8), 1843–1856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu, X., Dianati, M., & Zhu, H. (2014). Analysis of cooperative and competitive spectrum sharing for heterogeneous networks based on differential dynamics model. International Journal of Communication Systems, 27, 4564–4574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guerrero-Iban, A., Flores-Corte, C., Barba, A., & Reyes, A. (2010). A quality of service-enabled pricing approach for heterogeneous wireless access networks. In 2010 Sixth International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE), (pp. 231–236).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niyato, D., & Hossain, E. (2008). Market-equilibrium, competitive, and cooperative pricing for spectrum sharing in cognitive radio networks: Analysis and comparison. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 7(11), 4273–4283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang, L., Kim, H., et al. (2013). Pricing-based decentralized spectrum access control in cognitive radio networks. IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, 21(2), 522–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krishnaswamy, D. (2010). Network economics considerations for incremental data services in heterogeneous wireless wide area networks. In VehicularTechnology Conference Fall (VTC 2010-Fall), (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chun, S. H., & La, R. J. (2014). Secondary spectrum trading: auction-based framework for spectrum allocation and profit sharing. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 21(1), 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shy, O. (2011). A short survey of network economics. Review of Industrial Organization, 38, 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen, Y., Zhang, J., & Zhang, Q. (2012). Utility-aware refunding framework for hybrid access femtocell network. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 11(5), 1688–1697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haken, H. (2006). Information and self-organization, a macroscopic approach to complex systems. New York: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics, an introduction: Nonequilibrium phase transitions and self-organization in physics, chemistry, and biology (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haken, H. (1993). Advanced synergetics: Instability hierarchies of self-organizing systems and devices. New York: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Badia, L., Lindstrom, M., Zander & J., Zorzi, M. (2003). Demand and pricing effects on the radio resource allocation of multimedia communication systems. In IEEE GLOBECOM, (vol. 7, pp. 4116–4121).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaorong Zhu
    • 1
    • 3
  • Xiaodi Gong
    • 1
  • Danny H. K. Tsang
    • 2
  1. 1.The College of Telecommunications and Information EngineeringNanjing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsNanjingChina
  2. 2.Hongkong University of Science and TechnologyHong KongChina
  3. 3.National Mobile Communications Research LaboratorySoutheast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations