IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v199y2012i1p3-2210.1007-s10479-011-0914-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition among providers in loss networks

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Maillé
  • Bruno Tuffin

Abstract

Communication networks are becoming ubiquitous and more and more competitive among revenue-maximizing providers, operating on potentially different technologies. In this paper, we propose to analyze thanks to game theory the competition of providers playing with access prices and fighting for customers. Considering a slotted-time model, the part of demand exceeding capacity is lost and has to be resent. We consider an access price for submitted packets, thus inducing a congestion pricing through losses. Customers therefore choose the provider with the cheapest average price per correctly transmitted unit of traffic. The model is a two-level game, the lower level for the distribution of customers among providers, and the upper level for the competition on prices among providers, taking into account what the subsequent repartition at the lower level will be. We prove that the upper level has a unique Nash equilibrium, for which the user repartition among different available providers is also unique, and, remarkably, efficient in the sense of social welfare (with a so-called price of anarchy equal to one). Moreover, even when adding a higher level game on capacity disclosure with a possibility of lying for providers, providers are better off being truthful, and the unique Nash equilibrium is thus unchanged. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Maillé & Bruno Tuffin, 2012. "Competition among providers in loss networks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 199(1), pages 3-22, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:199:y:2012:i:1:p:3-22:10.1007/s10479-011-0914-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-011-0914-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-011-0914-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-011-0914-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. José R. Correa & Nicolás Figueroa & Nicolás E. Stier-Moses, 2008. "Pricing with markups in industries with increasing marginal costs," Documentos de Trabajo 256, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    2. Hélène Le Cadre & Mustapha Bouhtou & Bruno Tuffin, 2009. "Consumers’ preference modeling to price bundle offers in the telecommunications industry: a game with competition among operators," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-208, October.
    3. Xavier Vives, 2001. "Oligopoly Pricing: Old Ideas and New Tools," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026272040x, April.
    4. Gibbens, R. & Mason, R. & Steinberg, Richard, 2000. "Internet service classes under competition," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 23577, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Burkhard Stiller & Peter Reichl & Simon Leinen, 2001. "Pricing and Cost Recovery for Internet Services: Practical Review, Classification, and Application of Relevant Models," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 149-171, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nihat Kasap & Hasan Hüseyin Turan & Hüseyin Savran & Berna Tektas-Sivrikaya & Dursun Delen, 2018. "Provider selection and task allocation in telecommunications with QoS degradation policy," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 263(1), pages 311-337, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patrick Maillé & Bruno Tuffin, 2011. "Competition among providers in loss networks," Post-Print hal-00724665, HAL.
    2. Retsef Levi & Georgia Perakis & Gonzalo Romero, 2017. "On the Effectiveness of Uniform Subsidies in Increasing Market Consumption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 40-57, January.
    3. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    4. McCarthy, Ian M., 2016. "Advertising intensity and welfare in an equilibrium search model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 20-26.
    5. Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., 2004. "Cartel Pricing Dynamics in the Presence of an Antitrust Authority," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(4), pages 651-673, Winter.
    6. Alexandre de Corniere, 2013. "Search Advertising," Economics Series Working Papers 649, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    7. Alex Dickson & Roger Hartley, 2006. "On a foundation for Cournot equilibrium," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0638, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    8. Jingsong Cui, 2005. "The Demand for International Message Telephone Services: A Two-Stage Budgeting Model," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 27(2), pages 167-183, September.
    9. Ludovic Julien & Olivier Musy & Aurélien Saïdi, 2011. "Do Followers Really Matter in Stackelberg Competition?," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 75, pages 11-27.
    10. Claude d'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis-André Gérard-Varet, 2007. "Competition For Market Share Or For Market Size: Oligopolistic Equilibria With Varying Competitive Toughness," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(3), pages 761-784, August.
    11. Takanori Adachi & Noriaki Matsushima, 2014. "The Welfare Effects Of Third-Degree Price Discrimination In A Differentiated Oligopoly," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(3), pages 1231-1244, July.
    12. Ken-Ichi Shimomura & Jacques-François Thisse, 2012. "Competition among the big and the small," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(2), pages 329-347, June.
    13. Roldan, Flavia, 2011. "Covert networks and antitrust policy," IESE Research Papers D/932, IESE Business School.
    14. Martin Gaynor & Nirav Mehta & Seth Richards-Shubik, 2023. "Optimal Contracting with Altruistic Agents: Medicare Payments for Dialysis Drugs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(6), pages 1530-1571, June.
    15. Kichko, Sergei & Picard, Pierre M., 2024. "Market size, income heterogeneity, and trade," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    16. Chen, Ying-Ju & Zenou, Yves & Zhou, Junjie, 2022. "The impact of network topology and market structure on pricing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    17. R. Cellini & L. Lambertini & G. Leitmann, 2004. "Perfect Uncontrollable Differential Games," Working Papers 509, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    18. Carlo Scarpa & Giacomo Calzolari, 2009. "On Regulation and Competition: Pros and Cons of a Diversified Monopolist," Working Papers 2009.55, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Ghossoub, Mario, 2010. "Supplement to "Belief heterogeneity in the Arrow-Borch-Raviv insurance model"," MPRA Paper 37717, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 22 Mar 2012.
    20. Pagnozzi, Marco & Piccolo, Salvatore & Reisinger, Markus, 2021. "Vertical contracting with endogenous market structure," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:199:y:2012:i:1:p:3-22:10.1007/s10479-011-0914-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.