Abstract We consider a network pricing game on a parallel network with congestion effects in which link owners set tolls for travel so as to maximize profit. A central authority is able to regulate this competition by means of a (uniform) price cap. The first question we want to answer is how such a cap should be designed in order to minimize the total congestion. We provide an algorithm that finds an optimal price cap for networks with affine latency functions and a full support Wardrop equilibrium. Second, we consider the induced network performance at an optimal price cap. We show that for two link networks with affine latency functions, the congestion costs at the optimal price cap are at most 8 7 times the optimal congestion costs. For more general latency functions, this bound goes up to 2 under the assumption that an uncapped Nash equilibrium exists. However, in general such an equilibrium need not exist and this can be used to show that optimal price caps can induce arbitrarily inefficient flows.
Acemoglu and Ozdaglar @cite_8 introduce a model of price competition between link owners in a parallel network that is very similar to ours. The main difference is that in their model users have a reservation value for travel. This implies that if links become too expensive users choose not to travel, whereas in our model users always travel through the network. Their main result is a (tight) bound on the inefficiency of equilibria. Later several generalizations of the model were introduced. The follow-up work of Acemoglu and Ozdaglar @cite_18 allow for a slightly more general topology, namely parallel paths with multiple links, and show that equilibria can be arbitrarily inefficient. @cite_47 consider the model with elastic traffic demand. Their bounds on inefficiency, however, are not tight, which is improved upon by Ozdaglar @cite_42 .
@cite_18 @cite_47 @cite_42 @cite_8
2110155180 2072113937 1991014770 2084281377
We study the efficiency implications of competition among profit-maximizing service providers in communication networks. Service providers set prices for transmission of flows through their (sub)network. The central question is whether the presence of prices will help or hinder network performance. We investigate this question by considering the difference between users' willingness to pay and delay costs as the efficiency metric. Previous work has demonstrated that in networks consisting of parallel links, efficiency losses from competition are bounded. Nevertheless, parallel-link networks are special, and in most networks, traffic has to simultaneously traverse links (or subnetworks) operated by independent service providers. The simplest network topology allowing this feature is the parallel-serial structure, which we study in this paper. In contrast to existing results, we show that in the presence of serial links, the efficiency loss relative to the social optimum can be arbitrarily large. The reason for this degradation of performance is the double marginalization problem, whereby each serial provider charges high prices not taking into account the effect of this strategy on the profits of other providers along the same path. Nevertheless, when there are no delay costs without transmission (i.e., latencies at zero are equal to zero), irrespective of the number of serial and parallel providers, the efficiency of strong oligopoly equilibria can be bounded by 1 2, where strong oligopoly equilibria are equilibria in which each provider plays a strict best response and all of the traffic is transmitted. However, even with strong oligopoly equilibria, inefficiency can be arbitrarily large when the assumption of no delay costs without transmission is relaxed. In the traffic assignment problem, first proposed by Wardrop in 1952, commuters select the shortest available path to travel from their origins to their destinations. We study a generalization of this problem in which competitors, who may control a nonnegligible fraction of the total flow, ship goods across a network. This type of games, usually referred to as atomic games, readily applies to situations in which the competing freight companies have market power. Other applications include intelligent transportation systems, competition among telecommunication network service providers, and scheduling with flexible machines. Our goal is to determine to what extent these systems can benefit from some form of coordination or regulation. We measure the quality of the outcome of the game without centralized control by computing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. The main conclusion is that although self-interested competitors will not achieve a fully efficient solution from the system's point of view, the loss is not too severe. We show how to compute several bounds for the worst-case inefficiency that depend on the characteristics of cost functions and on the market structure in the game. In addition, building upon the work of Catoni and Pallotino, we show examples in which market aggregation (or collusion) adversely impacts the aggregated competitors, even though their market power increases. For example, Nash equilibria of atomic network games may be less efficient than the corresponding Wardrop equilibria. When competitors are completely symmetric, we provide a characterization of the Nash equilibrium using a potential function, and prove that this counterintuitive phenomenon does not arise. Finally, we study a pricing mechanism that elicits more coordination from the players by reducing the worst-case inefficiency of Nash equilibria. In this paper, we present a combined study of price competition and traffic control in a congested network. We study a model in which service providers own the routes in a network and set prices to maximize their profits, while users choose the amount of flow to send and the routing of the flow according to Wardrop's principle. When utility functions of users are concave and have concave first derivatives, we characterize a tight bound of 2-3 on efficiency in pure strategy equilibria of the price competition game. We obtain the same bound under the assumption that there is no fixed latency cost, i.e., the latency of a link at zero flow is equal to zero. These bounds are tight even when the numbers of routes and service providers are arbitrarily large. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, 2008 As the provision of roads has become market driven, many intriguing issues have emerged, such as the strategic interactions among private firms in determining road supply and pricing in a network and, more importantly, the resulting inefficiencies when competition substitutes for government regulation. This paper studies both toll and capacity competition among private asymmetric roads with congestion in a network with parallel links. We find that oligopolistic competition yields higher tolls but lower construction capacities than the socially optimal levels and, as a result, the level of traffic congestion does not decline. Based on some widely used assumptions, we show that the usage or the congestion level of each road controlled by each private firm, represented by the volume-capacity (v c) ratio, is independent of the other competitors' choices of capacities and tolls in the oligopolistic market. To quantify the inefficiency of the oligopolistic equilibria via higher tolls and less realized traffic demand, we establish the upper bound of the ratio of the social welfare between the competitive equilibrium and the social optimum. The inefficiency bound depends mainly on the marginal benefit of trip-makers and the realized traffic demand at equilibrium on the private roads. Exact bounds are given by considering both the worst and symmetric cases. Naturally, our results show that the distortion disappears when the oligopoly changes to perfect competition.