1

Optimal Pricing of User-Initiated Data-Plan
Sharing in a Roaming Market

arXiv:1712.06236v1 [cs.GT] 18 Dec 2017

Feng Wang, Lingjie Duan, and Jianwei Niu

Abstract
A smartphone user’s personal hotspot (pH) allows him to share cellular connection to another (e.g.,
a traveler) in the vicinity, but such sharing consumes the limited data quota in his two-part tariff plan
and may lead to overage charge. This paper studies how to motivate such pH-enabled data-plan sharing
between local users and travelers in the ever-growing roaming markets, and proposes pricing incentive
for a data-plan buyer to reward surrounding pH sellers (if any). The pricing scheme practically takes into
account the information uncertainty at the traveler side, including the random mobility and the sharing
cost distribution of selfish local users who potentially share pHs. Though the pricing optimization
problem is non-convex, we show that there always exists a unique optimal price to tradeoff between the
successful sharing opportunity and the sharing price. We further generalize the optimal pricing to the case
of heterogeneous selling pHs who have diverse data usage behaviors in the sharing cost distributions,
and we show such diversity may or may not benefit the traveler. Lacking selfish pHs’ information, the
traveler’s expected cost is higher than that under the complete information, but the gap diminishes as
the pHs’ spatial density increases. Finally, we analyze the challenging scenario that multiple travelers
overlap for demanding data-plan sharing, by resorting to a near-optimal pricing scheme. We show that
a traveler suffers as the travelers’ spatial density increases.

Index Terms
Roaming markets, personal hotspot, data-plan sharing, pricing mechanism, information uncertainty.

Part of the work was presented in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Singapore, Dec. 2017 [1].
F. Wang and L. Duan are with the Engineering Systems and Design Pillar, Singapore University of Technology and Design,
Singapore (e-mail: fengwang.nl@gmail.com, lingjie_duan@sutd.edu.sg). L. Duan is the corresponding author.
J. Niu is with the School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University, China (e-mail: niujianwei@buaa.edu.cn)

2

I. I NTRODUCTION
A. Background and Motivation
Roaming is the ability of customers to use their mobile devices outside the geographical
coverage area provided by their normal network operator [2]. As the penetration of smart mobile
devices increases fast, the volume of the global data roaming market has grown by more than
sixfold in the past five years [2]–[5]. Accordingly, the revenue of data roaming is expected to
increase to US$50 billions in revenues by 2019 (see [5], [6]). Travelers may suffer a “bill shock”,
and data roaming is typically expensive as compared to the domestic markets’ two-part tariff
data plans for local users. To reduce the roaming cost, a traveler may enjoy data services by
accessing to the public WiFi hotspots. However, free WiFi hotspots are limited in coverage and
they usually concentrate on the public service areas (e.g., airports, stations, malls, and public
libraries) to avoid formidably high deployment cost for full coverage. For example, even for a
populous city such as Singapore, the WiFi coverage percentage is only 35% [7]. It is urgent
to find economically viable approaches for providing travelers with ubiquitous wireless data
services.
With the recent technology advancements, cellular-enabled iPhones and Android phones can
now set up personal hotspots (pHs) to share their cellular data connections with nearby wireless
devices (e.g., phones, laptops, and tablets) [8]. The physical coverage of a pH ranges about
hundreds of feet like WiFi and is expected to keep increasing. However, the development of
this user-initiated data-plan sharing still lacks a clear business model and a local selfish user is
only willing to share the pH connection with his own devices [19]. As such, it is important to
propose incentive schemes for pH-enabled data-plan sharing in a broad popularity.
A key problem to hinder the development of such data-plan sharing is the sharing cost. A
selling user’s sharing consumes his monthly data quota in his two-part tariff plan and may lead
to overage charge. After subscribing to a data-plan denoted by (Q, P0 , β), a local user is given
a monthly data quota Q at a fixed lump-sum fee P0 and should pay for overage data beyond
Q at a costly unit price β. In addition, such pH sharing consumes the local user’s energy in
battery storage and requires the selling user to stay during the sharing period, incurring another
waiting cost. To compensate for the costs, we aim to design a reward-based pricing scheme for
a traveler to fairly cover the pH sharing cost. As shown in Fig. 1, a traveler T opportunistically
demands data connection from nearby pHs (if any), by announcing a sharing price $p (ex ante)

3

pH 1

pH-range d

$p
buy data with roaming fee $C0

sharing price $p

$p

Local wireless
network operator
(WNO)

…
pH N

pH 2
under two-part tariff plan (Q, P0, β)

Traveler T broadcasts sharing price p to all possible pHs within pH range d
Alternatively, traveler T buys from a local WNO at roaming cost C0
Traveler T

Personal hotspot (pH) provided by a local user

Fig. 1. A user-initiated data-plan sharing model with one traveler and personal hotspots (pHs).

as a reward via short-range communications. The nearby pHs then respond to accept or not
based on their private costs. Finally, the traveler T selects one pH for cellular connection and
pays reward $p to the activated pH.1
However, this optimal pricing design under information uncertainty is challenging at the
traveler side. Since the potential pHs are generally moving, the traveler does not know the
exact number of pHs in the sharing area. Furthermore, how to estimate the private costs of pHs
is another problem for the traveler. Only a pH knows his own sharing cost, which depends on
the realized data usage in his two-part tariff plan. In general, different pHs have different data
usage behaviors or cost distributions. The traveler would prefer to activate a pH with low cost
distribution, yet this screening is not doable for ex ante pricing. Intuitively, one can expect that a
high sharing payment will provide a good chance for pH sharing but leave a low sharing benefit
to the traveler. This motivates our study in this work.
B. Contributions
In this paper, we first develop a model for pH-enabled data-plan sharing and then find the
optimal pricing in different scenarios. Our main contributions are summarized as follows.
1

The terms “selling user” and “pH” are interchangeable in this paper.

4

•

Pricing incentive for pH sharing under information uncertainty: In Section II, to provide
an incentive of data sharing to nearby pHs, we design a pricing scheme for an on-demand
traveler to reward pHs and reach a win-win situation. The pricing scheme practically considers the traveler’s information uncertainty about pHs, including the mobile pHs’ random
locations following a Poisson point process (PPP) and their sharing cost distribution under
the two-part monthly tariff plan.

•

Benchmark case under complete information: In Section III, to provide a performance bound
and evaluate the proposed pH pricing schemes later, we investigate the social optimum
benchmark case under complete information, where the pHs nearby are willing to report
their locations and private costs. Then the traveler pays and activates the pH with the
minimal cost. We show that the traveler’s expected cost decreases in both the pHs’ spatial
density and their residual data quota.

•

Optimal pricing analysis for various pHs under information uncertainty: In Section IV, the
optimal price is determined for the traveler to minimize his expected cost after sharing.
We first consider homogeneous pHs whose statistics of monthly data usage are identical.
Though the optimization problem is non-convex, we derive the globally optimal sharing
price for the traveler. We show that the traveler’s final expected cost is larger as compared
to the case under complete information and the gap diminishes with the pH spatial density.
Furthermore, we successfully extend the optimal pricing scheme to the case of heterogeneous
pHs who have different data usage statistics. The optimal price is derived by comparing
their diverse cost distributions and targeting for the dominant pH type. This diversity may
or may not benefit the traveler.

•

Optimal pricing for overlapping travelers: In Section V, we further consider the scenario
that a traveler may overlap with other nearby travelers in demanding common pHs. To
handle the non-tractable expression of the expected cost for travelers, a lower bound of the
expected cost is resorted to obtain the near-optimal price for coordinating all travelers. We
show that each traveler suffers from the increase of the travelers’ spatial density.

C. Related Work
It is noted that pricing incentive design has received increasingly attentions for wireless
networks [9], [10]. The works in [11]–[13] surveyed some generic pricing and auctions schemes
for mobile crowdsourcing. Some recent works investigated the pricing incentive in data trading

5

$p for data
volume B

pH 1

T

Accept

pH 1

T

pH 1

pH 2~N

T

pH 2~N

T

…

$p for data
volume B

pH N

(a) Traveler request phase

T

Reject

(b) pH response phase

(c) pH sharing phase

Fig. 2. An illustrative example of pH-enabled data-plan sharing between traveler T and N pHs ((if any).

and user cooperation in the literature. For example, [14] and [15] studied the optimal pricing for
static WiFi hotspots (e.g., in a cafe) according to customer types and network capacity. About
mobile users’ data plan sharing, [16] and [17] studied mobile data trading among users under the
central coordination of the wireless operator in the operator-controlled secondary market. [18]
further investigated the pricing incentive to stimulate users’ relay cooperation for energy saving
purpose. Only [19] investigated a user-initiated data-plan sharing scenario by employing pHs,
where users with diverse data usage trade data plans and the wireless operator indirectly intervene
with such sharing to control overage charge. However, [19] assumed complete information for
mobile data trading and did not take into account user mobility and private cost in practice. Unlike
prior works, this paper studies a unique pH pricing problem under information uncertainty, where
the traveler only has partial information about pHs’ private locations and costs.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
Consider a typical traveler T who wants to connect the Internet. He can potentially buy data
from any neighboring pH within pH range d. Equally, we consider the traveler is located in the
center of circle area A with radius d. The pH range d is determined by traveler T’s quality of
service requirement [19]. Traveler T can access to the data service either by paying one activated
pH within the area A or by paying the local wireless network operator (WNO). Denote by H

the set of randomly appeared pH number in the area A and N , |H|. Let B be the volume of
requested data to buy. For traveler T, we denote p and C0 as the price announced by the traveler
to pHs nearby and the roaming fee charged by the local WNO, respectively.

6

The pH-enabled data-plan sharing procedure is illustrated in Fig. 2, and can be divided into
three phases:
•

Traveler request phase: at the beginning, traveler T broadcasts the data-plan sharing request
message via short range communications (e.g., bluetooth), where the message contains the
offered price p for the data volume B.

•

pH response phase: upon receiving the request, in this phase each pH i ∈ H (if any) makes
a decision to accept or not and responds to traveler T.

•

pH sharing phase: in this phase, if at least one positive pH response message is received,
then traveler T will randomly select one of the positive pHs and pay p to establish the pH
connection; otherwise, traveler T will resort to the WNO by paying roaming fee C0 for data
volume B.

It is worth noting that the pHs are moving in general and the private information of pHs (e.g.,
the number N and data-plan sharing costs) is not available for traveler T ex ante in traveler
request phase.
A. pHs’ models about mobility, cost and utility
To capture the nature of pH mobility, we assume that the locations of pHs in target circle area
A follow a two-dimensional Poisson point process (PPP) with spatial density λ as in [21]. The
average number N of pHs in area A is λπd2 , and the probability mass function (PMF) of N is
Pr(N = n) =

(λπd2 )n
exp(−λπd2 ), n = 0, 1, · · ·
n!

(1)

where Pr(X) denotes the probability of event X. Ideally, traveler T wants to attract only one
pH at minimum price but may fail to attract none, depending on the cost distribution of various
pHs in sharing.
The data-plan sharing to traveler T will consume pH i’s cellular data amount B. He has
subscribed to the identical two-part tariff plan (Q, P0 , β) from the local WNO in the long run,
where Q is the monthly data quota, P0 is the fixed lump fee, and β is the unit price for overage
data beyond Q. Denote by xi the estimated monthly data volume consumed by pH i. For each
pH i ∈ H, we assume that xi follows the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Gaussian
distribution with mean µ and variance σ 2 , i.e., xi ∼ N (µ, σ 2). In practice, when each pH i ∈ H

predicts his monthly data usage xi , he will inevitably attach an additive noise ∆i ∼ N (0, δ 2)
according to his subjective estimation. By considering the shared volume B with traveler T, the

7

actual monthly usage is xi + ∆i + B for pH i ∈ H, which may be larger than quota Q and
incur surcharge with rate β. Given xi estimation, the (additional) cost for pH i after sharing with
traveler T is
Ci (xi ) = E{β(xi + ∆i + B − Q)+ } − E{β(xi + ∆i − Q)+ }



0,
if 0 ≤ xi ≤ Q − B



= β(xi + B − Q), if Q − B < xi < Q




βB,
if xi ≥ Q,

(2)

where (x)+ , max(x, 0) and the expectation E{·} is taken over the estimation noise ∆i .
Define φ(x) and Φ(X) as the probability density function (PDF) and the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of Gaussian variable xi , respectively. According to (2), the minimal cost of
pH i ∈ K for data-plan sharing is zero if his monthly data usage xi plus the sharing data amount
B is within the monthly data quota Q, while the maximal cost is βB if his monthly data usage
xi is already larger than the data quota Q. Based on (2) for random xi , we obtain the CDF of
the sharing cost Ci (xi ) ≤ βB in the following lemma:
Lemma 2.1: For pH i ∈ H, the CDF of his additional cost Ci (xi ) incurred by traveler T’s
data consumption B is given by
Pr(Ci (xi ) ≤ c) =
Proof: See Appendix A.



Φ( c + Q − B),
β

1,

if 0 ≤ c < βB

(3)

if c = βB.

As a return, pH i will receive a reward price p from traveler T. The utility of pH i ∈ H via
data-plan sharing is given by
Ui (xi ) = p − Ci (xi ).

(4)

Reasonably, we assume that each pH i ∈ H has a reservation utility ǫ > 0 that must be guaranteed

to cover the battery consumption2 and waiting cost during the access time of the traveler. Hence,
pH i accepts traveler T’s sharing request only if Ui (xi ) ≥ ǫ.
The traveler has to buy data from the WNO at cost C0 if the two following conditions hold:
2

How to quantify the transmission energy cost can be found in [20], where the energy consumption depends on the transmission

time and the volume of transmission data.

8

•

No pH exists in area A, i.e., N = 0

•

The utility of each pH i in the non-empty set H is smaller than ǫ, i.e., p − Ci (xi ) < ǫ,
∀i ∈ H.

The realized cost for traveler T is given as


p,
if ∃i ∈ N , p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ
CT =

C0 ,
otherwise.

(5)

To ensure the mutual benefits of traveler T and pHs in this user-initiated data-plan sharing,

the offer price p by the traveler T should satisfy
ǫ ≤ p ≤ C0 ,

(6)

where the first inequality in (6) guarantees the utility to increase of the pHs and the second
inequality in (6) saves the roaming cost for traveler T.
III. B ENCHMARK C ASE

UNDER

C OMPLETE I NFORMATION

In this section, we consider the ideal benchmark case under complete information, where
the set H and the private information of pH i ∈ H (including the expected monthly data
usage xi and the cost Ci (xi ) in sharing) is available for traveler T. This case can happen
when both traveler T and the pHs belong to a cooperative community (e.g., family members or
friends) or pHs are altruistic by reporting their locations and private costs. This case serves as
a performance benchmark (lower bound for the traveler), when comparing to Sections IV and
V under incomplete information.
Under complete information, if pH set H is non-empty, traveler T only offers a price to cover
the reservation utility ǫ plus the minimum cost among all pHs, i.e.,
p = ǫ + min Ci (xi ).
i∈H

(7)

Without loss of generality, we reorder the N pHs’ costs according to C1 ≤ C2 ≤ . . . ≤ CN ,
where Ci is the ith smallest pH sharing cost and depends on xi realization. Then (7) reduces to
p = ǫ + C1 .
Based on Lemma 2.1, it follows that the CDF of C1 is [24]



1 − 1 − Φ( c + Q − B) N , if 0 ≤ c < βB
β
Pr(C1 ≤ c) =

N
(1 − Φ(Q)) ,
if c = βB.

(8)

(9)

9

and the PDF of C1 is
∂
Pr(C1 ≤ c)
∂c
N −1 c
N
c
=
1 − Φ( + Q − B)
φ( + Q − B)
β
β
β

fC1 (c) =

for 0 ≤ c < βB.

(10)

Based on (9) and (10), we have the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1: Given the non-empty pH set (i.e., N ≥ 1), the expected cost of traveler T is
given by
E{C1 } =

Z

βB
0

1 − Φ(

Proof: See Appendix B.

N
c
+ Q − B) dc.
β

(11)

Lemma 3.1 shows that E{C1 } is a decreasing function of N ≥ 1. Denoted by EC ∗∗ the expected
cost of traveler T under complete information. By substituting (11) into (8) and taking expectation
of (8) over random N, we establish the follow theorem with the use of iterated expectation [23].
Theorem 3.1: The expected cost EC ∗∗ of traveler T under complete information is given by





Z βB
√
−
2
λπd2 erfc x/β+Q−B−µ
2σ
 dx,
EC ∗∗ = ǫ + (C0 − ǫ − βB) exp(−λπd2 ) +
exp 
2
0

(12)

where erfc(x) ,

√2
π

R +∞
x

2

e−t dt is a complementary error function.

Proof: See Appendix C.
Note that if B + µ > Q, i.e., the mean usage µ plus the sharing data B is already exceed the
data quota Q, a larger data usage variance implies that one pH has more chance to reduce the
data overage and traveler T benefits from this increasing of variance σ 2 to decide a small p. On
the other hand, if B + µ ≤ Q, then the pH is more likely to incur data overage with increasing
variance and traveler T has to increase its price.
Due to the fact that the function erfc(x) decreases with x and by checking EC ∗∗ ’s relationship
with some key parameters in Theorem 3.1, we have the following proposition.
Proposition 3.1: The traveler T’s benchmark (minimum) cost EC ∗∗ always increases with the
sharing data amount B, the roaming fee C0 , and the overage charge unit price β for the pHs.
Meanwhile, EC ∗∗ decreases with the pH density λ and the pHs’ expected leftover data amount
Q − µ.

10

IV. T RAVELER ’ S O PTIMAL P RICING

UNDER I NFORMATION

U NCERTAINTY

In this section, we aim to optimize the traveler’s pricing under pH information uncertainty
to minimize his expected cost, which depends on pHs’ locations and cost distributions. We
focus on a typical traveler and assume he has no overlap demand with another traveler. This
is reasonable for many places less traveled, and will be generalized in Section V to include
overlapped travelers. We will first consider homogeneous pHs’ monthly data usage to analyze
the optimal price, and then extend to the more challenging case of heterogeneous pHs’ usage
behavior.
A. Pricing towards pHs of homogeneous data usage
Consider a homogeneous pH case, where the monthly data usage xi ∼ N (µ, σ 2) of pH i ∈ H
is i.i.d. Gaussian distributed with identical mean usage and variance among all pHs. To derive
the traveler’s expected cost, we first analyze the pHs’ acceptance or not on the traveler’s request.
1) The successful probability for motivating pH data sharing: Denote by Phom (p|N) the
probability for traveler T to attract a pH given the pH set H. We then have
Phom (p|N) = 1 − (1 − Pr(p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ))N ,

(13)

where Pr(p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ) is the probability that each pH i ∈ H accepts the data sharing request
from traveler T. Note that Phom (p|N) in (13) equals zero if N = 0. Based on the traveler T’s
estimated PDF of pH i’s sharing cost Ci (xi ) in (2), it follows that



0,
if p < ǫ



Pr(p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ) = Ω(p), if ǫ ≤ p ≤ ǫ + βB




1,
if p > ǫ + βB.

(14)

where

 p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ) 
1
√
.
Ω(p) , 1 − erfc
2
2σβ

(15)

From (14), for any pH i ∈ H, we have the following observations:
•

If p < ǫ, i.e., the sharing price p is smaller than the given reservation utility, the pH i ∈ H
will definitely reject the data sharing request.

•

If ǫ ≤ p ≤ ǫ + βB, the probability in (15) that one pH would like to share data connection
increases in the price p and his expected leftover data Q − B − µ, but decreases in its unit
price β for overage data.

11

•

If p > βB + ǫ, i.e., the sharing price of the traveler is large enough to cover the maximal
possible penalty ǫ + βB in data overage case, any pH i ∈ H will accept the data sharing
request and sell data to the traveler.

Considering all the possibilities of N ≥ 0, let Phom (p) be the expected probability for traveler
T to successfully establish the data connection via pH, which is a function of price p offered by
traveler T. By taking the expectation of Phom (p|N) over any possible variable N, we have
∞
X
 (λπd2 )N exp(−λπd2 )
Phom (p) =
1 − (1 − Pr(p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ))N
N!
N =0

= 1 − exp −λπd2 Pr(p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ) .
(16)
By substituting (14), (16) is simplified to



0,



Phom (p) = 1 − exp (−λΩ(p)πd2 ) ,




1 − exp(−λπd2 ),

if p < ǫ
if ǫ ≤ p ≤ ǫ + βB

(17)

if p > ǫ + βB,

which also has three cases as (14) and in general increases with p.
2) Traveler T’s pricing problem: Denote by EChom (p) the expected cost function for traveler
T in the pH sharing service of p. Depending on the response of pHs (if any), the traveler T has
either realized cost p or C0 in (6). Thus, we have
EChom (p) = p × Phom (p) + C0 × (1 − Phom (p))



C0 ,



= C0 + (p − C0 ) (1 − exp (−λΩ(p)πd2 )) ,




C + (p − C )(1 − exp(−λπd2 )),
0
0

if p < ǫ
if ǫ ≤ p ≤ ǫ + βB

(18)

if p > ǫ + βB,

which decreases with leftover data (Q − B − µ) and pH density λ, and increases with pH’s
overage cost β. We formulate the traveler T’s optimization problem to minimize his expected
cost EChom (p) as
min
p

s.t.

EChom (p)

(19a)

ǫ ≤ p ≤ C0 .

(19b)

As shown in Fig. 3, we can prove that there is at most one unique minimal optimum, denoted
by p̂, for EChom (p), and p̂ may be smaller than ǫ. Thanks to this unique-minimum feature of
the objective function, we can derive the following result.

12

EChom(p)
C0

0

ο

ε

p̂

C0

p

Fig. 3. An illustration of function EChom (p) for the homogeneous pHs.

Theorem 4.1: Facing the homogeneous pHs, traveler T should decide the optimal sharing price
p∗0 as
p∗0 = max{ǫ, p̂},
where p̂ is the unique solution to
 h p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ) i2 i
h
λπd2(C0 − p)
√
√
1 − exp −λπd2 Ω(p) 1 +
= 0.
exp −
2πσβ
2σβ
Proof: See Appendix D.

(20)

(21)

Note that in Theorem 4.1, the optimal solution p∗0 is decided to best tradeoff between the price
and the sharing probability. In particular, problem (19) can be efficiently obtained by solving
(21) via an one-dimension search. Similar to the benchmark case in Section III, p∗0 decreases
with the pH density λ and the data quota Q for more data-plan sources, but increases with ǫ, µ,
and β. If B + µ ≤ Q, i.e., the pHs’ expected data usage µ plus the sharing data amount B is

within its data quota Q, then the traveler suffers from a large variance and p∗0 increases in the
variance σ 2 ; otherwise, the traveler can benefit from the increase of σ 2 .
B. Pricing towards pHs of heterogeneous data usage

In this subsection, we extend the optimal pricing scheme to the case of the heterogeneous
pHs. Specifically, we consider a set K , {1, . . . , K} of pH types according to their monthly
data usage behaviors (e.g., light and heavy pH users).

13

1) The cost analysis for pHs’ data sharing: Now we extend the system model in Section
II to the heterogeneous pH case. For the ease of exposition, all the pHs are again assumed to
have an identical two-part tariff plan (Q, P0 , β) under the WNO. Each type of pHs in the area A
follows independent PPPs with different spatial densities. Let λk and Hk be the spatial density
and the appearance set of the kth pH-type, respectively. Accordingly, Nk = |Hk | is a Poisson
distributed variable with mean λk πd2 . Let xk,i be the monthly data usage for pH i ∈ Hk of the

kth pH-type. Again, each xk,i follows a Gaussian distribution, i.e., xk,i ∼ N (µk , σk2 ), where we
√
√
reorder 0 ≤ µ1 − 2 2σ1 < . . . < µK − 2 2σK . By sharing data B, the additional cost of pH

i ∈ Hk is




0,



Ck,i (xk,i ) = β(xk,i + B − Q),




βB,

if 0 ≤ xk,i ≤ Q − B
if Q − B ≤ xk,i ≤ Q
if xk,i ≥ Q,

where i = 1, . . . , Nk and k = 1, . . . , K.

2) Traveler T’s pricing problem: Under any given Hk , ∀k ∈ K, the successful probability for

traveler T’s request to be accepted by pHs is3
Y Y
Pr(p − Ck,i (xk,i ) < ǫ),
Phet (p|{Hk }) = 1 −

(22)

k∈K i∈Nk

which takes into account the distribution of any xk,i and Ck,i (xk,i ) in (22) by following a similar

analysis as the previous Section IV.A. Similar to (15), we define


p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µk )
1
√
, ∀k ∈ K.
(23)
Ωk (p) , 1 − erfc
2
2σk β
√
√
If µk − 2 2σk ≤ p−ǫ
+ Q − B ≤ µk+1 − 2 2σk+1 for any k = 1, . . . , K − 1, it holds that
β
Ωj (p) = 0 for j = k + 1, . . . , K.
Considering all the possible {Hk }, the successful probability for traveler T’s request to be
accepted by a pH is then



0,




P
Phet (p) = 1 − exp − kj=1 λj πd2 Ωj (p) ,




1 − exp − PK λ πd2 ,
k=1 k
3

Note that

Q

i∈Hk

if p < ǫ
√
if µk − 2 2σk ≤

p−ǫ
β

√
+ Q − B ≤ µk+1 − 2 2σk+1

if p > ǫ + βB.

Pr(p − Ck,i < ǫ) = 1 if Hk = ∅ without any pH presence to possibly share, for k = 1, . . . , K.

(24)

14

EChet(p)

EChet(p)
Ƞ

C0

İ

0

C0

p

p1

0

C0

Ƞ

İ p1

p
p2

C0

H  E B  P2  Q  2 2V 2
(a)

P1  2 2V 1 d

C0  H

E

 Q  B d P2  2 2V 2

(b)

C0  H

E

 Q  B t P2  2 2V 2

Fig. 4. An illustration of function EChet (p) for K = 2 types of heterogeneous pHs.

As a result, traveler T’s expected cost EChet (p) is
EChet (p) = p × Phet (p) + C0 × (1 − Phet (p)).

(25)

Note that both Phet (p) and EChet (p) are piecewise functions of p. We formulate the traveler T’s
expected cost minimization problem as
min
p

s.t.

EChet (p)

(26a)

ǫ ≤ p ≤ C0 ,

(26b)

which is more involved than problem (19) facing pHs with homogeneous data usage. Denote by
phet the optimal price to (26). To solve (26), we first denote pk as the unique solution of
k
  p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ ) 2 i
h
X
λj πd2 (C0 − p)
j
√
√
= 0,
exp −
1 − exp −
λj πd Ωk (p) 1 +
2πσ
β
2σ
β
j
j
j=1
j=1



k
X

2

(27)

for k = 1, . . . , K. Fig. 4 illustrates two possible cost curves of the traveler’s expected cost
EChet (p) for K = 2 types of heterogenous pHs. Due to the K = 2 types of pHs in total, we
show that there are now at most three local minimums for the expected cost. In particular, the
following two cases are present:
•

Case 1: if

C0 −ǫ
β

√
+ Q − B ≤ µ1 − 2 2σ1 , then we have phet = C0 . This implies that none of

pH will accept the data-plan sharing and then the traveler has to pay the roaming fee C0
in this case.

15

•

√
Case 2: As shown in Fig. 4(a), if µ1 − 2 2σ1 ≤

C0 −ǫ
β

√
+ Q − B < µ2 − 2 2σ2 , then we

have
EChet (p) = p + (C0 − p) exp −λ1 πd2 Ω1 (p)

•



(28)

for ǫ ≤ p ≤ C0 . Note that the local minimum is only decided by the light pHs in this case.
√
Case 3: As shown in Fig. 4(b), if C0β−ǫ + Q − B ≥ µ2 − 2 2σ2 , then there are two local
minimums for EChet (p). Note that the first local minimum is identical to that in case (i),
while the second one (corresponding to a large p) relates to the two pH types.

Note that the first type pHs (i.e., light pHs) are more willing to accept the data-plan sharing
request from the traveler than the second type pHs (i.e., heavy pHs). When C0 is large, traveler
T tries to attract even the pHs of the second type pHs in data-plan sharing, by designing a price
p1 for the first type or designing a large price p2 for attract the pHs of the second type. It can
√
be shown that if the sharing price satisfies that p ≤ ǫ + β(B + µ2 − Q − 2 2σ2 ), the heavy pHs
will not consider data sharing.
Generalizing the K = 2 pH types to general K types, we now establish the theorem on the
optimal sharing price phet for traveler T to minimize his expected cost to attract heterogeneous
pHs as follows.
Theorem 4.2: Facing the heterogeneous K pH types, traveler T decides the optimal sharing
price phet by targeting different groups of pHs:
√
C −ǫ
+
Q
−
B
≤
µ
−
2
2σ1 , the optimal price phet = C0 , since none of pH will accept
• For 0
1
β
•

the data-plan sharing and traveler T has to resort to the WNO in this case.
√
√
For µk − 2 2σk ≤ C0β−ǫ + Q − B ≤ µk+1 − 2 2σk+1 for k = 1, . . . , K − 1, then we
have k candidates, i.e., p1 , . . . , pk , to optimal pricing depending on which candidate yields
the smallest expected cost EChet(p). For example, the optimal price phet = pj implies that

•

traveler T targets for the first j types of pHs in data-plan sharing, where j ≤ K − 1.
√
For C0β−ǫ + Q − B ≥ µK − 2 2σK , then all the K pH types are involved in data-plan
sharing and we choose the optimal price phet from a total of K candidates (i.e., p1 , . . . , pK )
depending on which price candidate yields the smallest cost EChet (p),
Proof: See Appendix E.

Theorem 4.2 indicates that the traveler will target selective pHs and there exists a threshold
√
sharing price ǫ + β(B + µk − Q − 2 2σk ) to incentivize the pHs of the kth type. When the
roaming fee C0 for the traveler is smaller than the threshold, the traveler should design such a

16

reward to attract (or incentivize) the pHs of the first (k −1)th pH types. On the other hand, when
the roaming fee C0 is larger than the threshold, in addition to the local optimal price determined
by the pHs of the first (k − 1) types, there exists another local optimal price which is determined
by the kth type pHs.
V. E XTENSION

OF

P RICING

FOR

OVERLAPPED T RAVELERS

In this section, we consider the coexistence of possibly multiple travelers in the area A, where
multiple travelers request data-plan sharing from the common pool of pHs. On the behalf of all
travelers in this pH-sharing platform, we aim to study the optimal pricing for all travelers for
minimizing their total expected costs. Intuitively, as there are more travelers, we need to decide
a larger uniform price in the data-plan sharing platform for attracting more pHs to share.
We focus on a typical traveler T in the circle area A of radius d. He also face a random
number of other M ≥ 0 travelers requesting pH connection. To capture the mobility of these
travelers, we assume that M follows an independent PPP with spatial density λt > 0, and its
PMF is
Pr(M = m) =


(λt πd2 )m
exp −λt πd2 , m = 0, 1, · · ·
m!

(29)

The sharing scheme in Fig. 2 also applies here, where each traveler offers a uniform price p
decided centrally by the sharing platform to pHs and we consider each pH i with p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ
can reply to serve at most one traveler due to capacity limit.
A. Analysis of pHs’ sharing probability
For ease of exposition, we consider homogeneous pH case in this section. Denoted by Ny the
random number of pHs satisfying the participation condition of p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ, where Ny ≤ N.
Conditioned on the presence of arbitrary Ny pHs in the vicinity, the probability for traveler T
to be accepted and served by pHs is min{1, Ny /(M + 1)}. As a result, given N and M in the
area of our interest, the probability for overlapping traveler T to be served successfully is


0,
N =0
(30)
Pmul (p|N, M) = P
o
n


N −Ny
Ny
N
 N min 1, Ny
, N ≥ 1,
(t(p)) (1 − Ω(p))
Ny =1
M +1
Ny

where Ω(p) = Pr(p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ) as in (15). In the following, we focus on the reasonable
range [ǫ, βB] of optimal p, and omit the two trivial cases of Pr(p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ) = 0 and
Pr(p − Ci (xi ) ≥ ǫ) = 1 for p < ǫ and p > βB, respectively.

17

pmul*
‫݌‬෤
p 0*

C0
Ω-1(λt/λ)

ε

0

λt
λΩ(p0*)

λ

Fig. 5. An illustration of the optimal price p∗mul with respect to the nearby travelers’ density λt in approximate problem (36).

Taking expectation of (30) over pH number N, we denote by Pmul (p|M) the probability for
traveler T to establish the pH connection in the area A given M travelers nearby. Readily, we
have
∞
X

(λπd2 )N exp (−λπd2 )
N!
N =0

 
∞ X
N
X
(λπd2 )N exp (−λπd2 )
Ny
N
(Ω(p))Ny (1 − Ω(p))N −Ny
=
min 1,
.
Ny
M +1
N!
N =1 N =1

Pmul (p|M) =

Pmul (p|N, M)

(31)

y

Taking further expectation of Pmul (p|M) over the random M, the successful sharing probability
for traveler T is given by
Pmul (p) =

∞
X

M =0

Pmul (p|M)

(λt πd2 )M exp (−λt πd2 )
,
M!

(32)

which is difficult to simplify due to the “min” operation min{1, Ny /(M +1)} in each summation
term.
As it holds that min{1, Ny /(M + 1)} in (30) is no larger than both 1 and Ny /(M + 1), we
UB1
propose the first upper bound Pmul
(p) by choosing min{1, Ny /(M +1)} = 1 in each summation

term in (30), i.e.,
UB1
Pmul
(p)


∞ X
∞ X
N 
X
(λπd2 )N exp(−λπd2 ) (λt πd2 )M exp(−λt πd2 )
N
(Ω(p))Ny (1 − Ω(p))N −Ny
,
N!
M!
Ny
M =0 N =1 N =1
y

18

= 1 − exp(−λΩ(p)πd2 ),

(33)

which assumes a low traveler density case that pH supply is sufficient for traveler demand. On
the other hand, for the high traveler density case, we also propose the second upper bound
UB2
Pmul
(p), by choosing min{1, Ny /(M + 1)} = Ny /(M + 1) in each summation term in (30),

i.e.,
UB2
(p)
Pmul

,

∞ X
∞
X

M =0 N =1

=

PN

Ny =1

Ny

N
Ny


(Ω(p))Ny (1 − Ω(p))N −Ny (λπd2 )N exp(−λπd2 ) (λt πd2 )M exp(−λt πd2 )
M +1
N!
M!

λΩ(p) (1 − exp(−λt πd2 ))
,
λt

(34)

which assumes that pH supply is not enough to meet the traveler demand. Note that the detailed
derivations of these two upper bounds are relegated to Appendix F. These two upper bounds
become identical when the traveler density λt equals the density of pHs who are willing to share.
UB1
UB2
That is, Pmul
(p) = Pmul
(p) at λt = λΩ(p). Note that the pH sharing probability Ω(p) in (15)
UB
UB1
UB2
increases with p, we jointly propose a tighter upper bound of Pmul
(p) = min{Pmul
(p), Pmul
(p)},

i.e., we approximate Pmul (p) in (32) as


1 − exp(−λΩ(p)πd2 ),
if λt < λΩ(p),
UB
Pmul (p) =

 λΩ(p) (1 − exp(−λt πd2 )), if λt ≥ λΩ(p).
λt

(35)

B. Traveler T’s pricing for cost minimization

We aim to minimize the typical traveler T’s expected cost, i.e., EC(p) = Pmul (p) × p + (1 −
Pmul (p)) × C0 , which is equivalent to minimizing all travelers’ total expected cost. As Pmul (p)

UB
and EC(p) are not tractable, we turn to an approximate optimization problem by using Pmul
(p)

in (35) and a lower bound of EC(p):
UB
UB
min Pmul
(p) × p + (1 − Pmul
(p)) × C0
p

s.t. ǫ ≤ p ≤ C0 .

(36a)
(36b)

UB
Denote by p∗mul the optimal solution to approximate problem (36). Since Pmul
(p) depends on the

nearby traveler density λt , we next discuss the following three regimes for solving (36).

19

1) Low traveler density regime (0 ≤ λt ≤ λΩ(p∗0 ) with p∗0 given in Theorem 4.1): This regime
includes sufficient pH supply for travelers, and is similar to Theorem 4.1 without traveler overlap.
The traveler T only needs to consider the pH response without coordination with other travelers.
UB
UB1
In this case, Pmul
(p) = Pmul
(p) and p∗0 is the optimal solution to problem (36). Note that

p∗mul = p∗0 is independent of λt as shown in Fig. 5.
2) Medium traveler density regime (λΩ(p∗0 ) ≤ λt ≤ λ): In this regime, the average traveler

demand is more than the shared pH supply at traditional price p∗0 , and the traveler T needs to
UB2
UB2
increase price p for minimizing Pmul
(p) × p + (1 − Pmul
(p)) × C0 until λt = λΩ(p).

Lemma 5.1: Facing a medium traveler density regime (i.e., λΩ(p∗0 ) ≤ λt ≤ λ), the optimal

price for (36) is
p∗mul = Ω−1 (λt /λ),

(37)

where Ω−1 (x) is an inverse function of Ω(x) in (15). This price p∗mul decreases in pH density λ
and increases with traveler density λt (see Fig. 5).
Proof: See Appendix G.
3) High traveler density regime (λt > λ): In this regime, it always holds that λt > λΩ(p)
due to Ω(p) < 1 and the pH supply is sufficient to meet travelers’ demand. The approximated
UB2
UB2
cost for traveler T is always Pmul
(p) × p + (1 − Pmul
(p)) × C0 .

Lemma 5.2: Facing a high traveler density regime (i.e., λt > λ), the optimal price to minimize
the expected cost is obtained as p∗mul = p̃ (see Fig. 5), where p̃ is independent of λt and is the
unique solution to
 h p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ) i2 
 p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ)  p − C
1
0
√
√
+√
exp −
= 0. (38)
1 − erfc
2
2σβ
2πσβ
2σβ
By summarizing the above results, we have the following proposition.

Proposition 5.1: In the overlapped traveler pricing problem in (36), the optimal price p∗mul is



p∗0 in (20), if 0 ≤ λt ≤ λΩ(p∗0 )



(39)
p∗mul = Ω−1 ( λt ),
if λΩ(p∗0 ) < λt ≤ λ
λ




p̃ in (38),
if λt > λ.

20

The expected cost of the traveler

2.5
EC(p*) w/ incomplete info., ǫ = 0.5
EC** w/ complete info., ǫ = 0.5
EC(p*) w/ incomplete info., ǫ = 0
EC** w/ complete info., ǫ=0

2

1.5

1

0.5

0
0

0.5

1
1.5
pH density, λ

2

2.5
×10-3

Fig. 6. The traveler’s expected cost versus the homogeneous pH density λ under different reservation utility ǫ values.

VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
A. Monopoly Traveler Case
In this subsection, we evaluate the proposed incentive pricing scheme in the homogeneous
and the heterogeneous pH cases, as well as the benchmark cost for the social optimum under
complete information. In the simulations, the pH range is set as d = 30 meters (m).
Fig. 6 shows the traveler T’s expected cost versus the homogeneous pH spatial density λ
under different reservation utility values, where C0 = $3, B = 0.2 GB, µ = 1.7 GB, and
σ 2 = 0.01. The same two-part tariff plan (2 GB, $17, $0.013/MB) is set for all the pHs. It is
corroborated that the social optimum cost EC ∗∗ under complete information is a lower bound
for the proposed ones under incomplete information, and the cost gap becomes smaller as λ
increases. It is observed in Fig. 6 that the traveler T’s expected cost decreases as λ increases,
close to the reservation utility ǫ under either complete or incomplete information. As expected,
the sharing price is below bounded by ǫ, and a larger λ implies more pHs nearby, which leads
to a high probability for the traveler to incentivize pHs at a lower sharing price.
Fig. 7 shows the traveler T’s expected cost versus the mean difference ∆µ between the light

21

2.4
EC(p*) for heterogenous pHs, Q = 1.8 GB
EC(p*) for heterogenous pHs, Q = 2 GB

The expected cost of the Traveler

2.2

EC(p*) for homogeneous pHs, Q = 1.8 GB
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
EC(p*) for homogeneous pHs, Q = 2 GB
1
0

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Mean difference between the light and the heavy pHs, ∆µ

1

Fig. 7. The traveler T’s expected cost versus ∆µ under different monthly data quotas for pHs.

and the heavy pHs under different monthly data quotas for all the pHs, where µ1 = µ − ∆µ/2,
µ2 = µ + ∆µ/2, the light and the heavy pH densities are λ1 = λ2 = λ/2 = 2.5 × 10−4 , the
reservation utility is ǫ = $0.2, and the remaining parameters are set the same as those in Fig. 6.
It is observed that the expected cost is about EChet (p∗ ) = $2.2 for the homogeneous pHs at
Q = 1.8 GB, while the expected cost EChet (p∗ ) for the heterogeneous pHs first decreases in
∆µ and then remains unchanged. By contrast, at Q = 2 GB, the expected cost EChom (p∗ ) is
about $1.05 for the homogeneous pHs, while EChet (p∗ ) first increases in ∆µ and then remains
unchanged for the heterogenous pHs. This is expected that, when pHs with a limited data quota
(e.g., small Q), the traveler could benefit from the diverse of the pH data usage since the sharing
cost reduces for the light pHs; on the other hand, with a large data quota, the traveler may not
benefit from the diverse of the pH data usage due to the increasing of the sharing cost for the
heavy pHs.
It is interesting to observe in Fig. 7 that, when ∆µ becomes large, both the traveler’s expected
cost with Q = 1.8 GB and that with Q = 2 GB converge to a fixed value EChet (p∗ ) = $1.58 for
the heterogeneous pHs. The reason is as follows. For the very diverse heterogeneous pHs (i.e.,

22

2.7
Optimal
Approximate

2.6

The minimal expected cost

2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

The density of travelers, λt

1.6

1.8

2

×10-3

Fig. 8. The minimal expected cost EC(p) for traveler T in pH data sharing versus the nearby travelers’ density λt .

when ∆µ becomes large), the traveler rewards the light pHs with a fixed price ǫ and the heavy
pHs with a fixed price (ǫ + βB), respectively; thus the traveler’s expected cost is independent
with the pH’s monthly data quota Q in this case.
B. Overlapping Travelers Case
In this subsection, we consider pH data sharing in the overlapping travelers case. Specifically,
the identical two-part tariff plan (2GB, $17, $0.013/MB) and the reserved utility ǫ = $0.5 are
set for all the pHs in the area A. The data usage statistics are also set to be identical for all the
pHs with mean µ = 1.8 GB and variance σ 2 = 0.01. The data roaming fee is set to be C0 = $3
and the data usage amount B = 0.29 GB for each traveler. We set the pH-range and the pHs’
spatial density as d = 30 m and λ = 10−3 unit/m2, respectively.
Fig. 8 shows the expected cost for traveler T in pH data sharing versus the nearby travelers’
density λt . It is observed that both the optimal and the approximate expected costs increase as
λt increases. It is also observed that in Fig. 8, when 4 × 10−4 ≤ λt ≤ 10−3 , the approximate

UB
expected cost based on the Pmul
(p) is slightly higher than the optimal one; in the small and

23

large λt regimes, the approximate approach achieves a close performance as the optimal one. It
UB
suggests that one can safely evaluate the minimal expected cost with Pmul
(p) in the overlapping

travelers case with a high traveler density.
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we investigated the optimal reward-based pricing problem in opportunistic pH
data-plan sharing to reach a win-win situation. It was established that the benchmark social
optimum under complete information. Taking into account the random mobility and the cost
distribution of selfish pHs nearby, the optimal price was derived to minimize the traveler’s
expected cost facing the homogeneous pHs, and further extended to the case of heterogeneous
pHs. Lacking selfish pHs’ information and cooperation, the traveler’s expected cost is higher
than that under the complete information, but the gap diminishes as the pH spatial density
increases. It was shown that the traveler may or may not benefit from the diversity of pHs’ data
usage behavior. As an extension, the overlapped-traveler pricing is investigated by resorting to a
tractable lower bound approximation. The (near-)optimal sharing price is efficiently determined
and serves as a safe approximation especially in large pH density case. We show that the optimal
price increases with the density of travelers. Numerical results evaluated the effectiveness of the
proposed schemes.
A PPENDIX
A. Proof of Lemma 2.1
First consider the case of c = βB. According to (2), the range of Ci (xi ) is [0, βB]. Hence, it
always holds that Ci (xi ) ≤ βB, i.e., Pr(Ci (xi ) ≤ βB) = 1.
Next, based on (2), if 0 ≤ xi ≤ Q − B, then Ci (xi ) = 0 and we have
Pr(Ci (xi ) = 0) = Pr(0 ≤ xi ≤ Q − B)
Z Q−B
=
φ(xi )dxi
0

= Φ(Q − B).

(40)

24

As in (2), for Q − B < xi < Q, it holds that Ci (xi ) = β(xi + B − Q). By setting Ci (xi ) = c
for 0 < c < βB, we have xi = c/β + Q − B. Hence, under given 0 < c < βB, it follows that
Pr(Ci (xi ) ≤ c) = Pr xi <
=

Z


c
+Q−B
β

c
+Q−B
β

φ(xi )dxi

0

=Φ


c
+Q−B .
β

(41)

Based on (40) and (41), the probability of Ci (xi ) = 0 becomes identical to that of Ci (xi ) ≤ c
for 0 < c < βB. Hence, it is immediate that Pr(Ci (xi ) ≤ c) = Φ( βc + Q − B) for 0 ≤ c < βB.

Until now, Lemma 2.1 is proved.
B. Proof of Lemma 3.1
Under the given pH set, it is required to obtain the expected value of ǫ + E{C1 }, where the
expectation is taken over the variable C1 . With (9) and (10), we derive E{C1 } under N ≥ 1:
Z βB−
xfC1 (x)dx + βB × Pr(C1 = βB)
E{C1 } =
0+

βB −




x
N
xd 1 − (1 − Φ( + Q − B)) + βB(1 − Φ(Q))N
=
β
0+
 βB− Z βB− 


x
x
N
N
−
1 − (1 − Φ( + Q − B)) dx + βB(1 − Φ(Q))N
= x 1 − (1 − Φ( + Q − B))
β
β
+
0
0+
Z βB−
x
=
(1 − Φ( + Q − B))N dx,
(42)
β
0+
Z

where the third equality of (42) holds from the integration by parts. In addition, as (1 − Φ( βx +
Q − B))N is continuous and smooth for x ≥ 0, it follows from the limit theorem that
Z βB
x
E{C1 } =
(1 − Φ( + Q − B))N dx.
β
0

(43)

C. Proof of Theorem 3.1
Based on Lemma 3.1 and considering all the possibilities of N (including N = 0), the expected
cost for traveler T is given by [23]
EC

∗∗

= C0 × Pr(N = 0) +

∞
X
n=1

p(N) × Pr(N = n).

(44)

25

For (44), with the probability of N, we have the following equality chain:
Z βB
∞ 
 (λπd2 )n
X
x
∗∗
−λπd2
exp(−λπd2 )dx
EC = C0 e
+
ǫ+
(1 − Φ( + Q − B))n
β
n!
0
n=1
Z βB X
∞
x
(λπd2 )n
−λπd2
2
+ ǫ(1 − exp(−λπd )) +
= C0 e
(1 − Φ( + Q − B))n
exp(−λπd2 )dx
β
n!
0
n=1



Z βB 
x
2
2
2
= ǫ + (C0 − ǫ) exp(−λπd ) + exp(−λπd )
exp λπd (1 − Φ( + Q − B)) − 1 dx
β
0





Z βB
√
λπd2 erfc x/β+Q−B−µ
−
2
2σ
 dx,
= ǫ + (C0 − ǫ − βB) exp(−λπd2 ) +
exp 
(45)
2
0

where the second equality in (45) follows from switching the summarization and the integration
√
operations and the last equality in (45) holds from the fact 1 − Φ(x) = erfc(x/ 2)/2.
D. Proof of Theorem 4.1
First, we prove that p̂ is the unique solution of (21). Note that the first-order derivative of
EChom (p) is
′
EChom
(p) =

1 − exp

i


h
√

 λπd2 erfc p−ǫ+β(Q−B−µ)
−
2
2σβ
2


λπd2 (C0 − p)
√
1+
exp −
2πσβ

p−ǫ
β

+ Q − B − µ 2 
√
.
2σ
(46)

′
It then holds that EChom
(p̂) = 0. Let p = p̂ − ∆, where 0 < ∆ ≤ p̂; i.e., 0 ≤ p < p̂. It is going
′
to show that EChom
(p) < 0. To this end, from the monotonically decreasing function of erfc(x),

it follows that
erfc

p−ǫ
β

+Q−B−µ
√
2σ

!

> erfc

p̂−ǫ
β

+Q−B−µ
√
2σ

!

.

(47)

In addition, it holds that
2 !

2 !

p̂ − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ)
p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ)
√
√
> (C0 − p̂) exp −
(C0 − p) exp −
2σβ
2σβ
(48)
 h
i2 
x−ǫ+β(Q−B−µ)
√
due to the nonnegative first-order derivative of function (C0 − x) exp −
for
2σβ
′
0 ≤ x ≤ C0 . Hence, by (47) and (48), it is follows that EChom
(p) < 0 for p = p̂ − ∆.

26

On the other hand, let p = p̂ + ∆, where 0 < ∆ ≤ C0 − p̂; i.e., p̂ < p ≤ C0 . Likewise, it
holds that the inequality (47) and
2 !

2 !

p̂ − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ)
p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ)
√
√
< (C0 − p̂) exp −
.
(C0 − p) exp −
2σβ
2σβ
(49)
′
′
It then obtains that EChom
(p) > 0 for p = p̂ + ∆. It is worth noting that EChom
(C0 ) > 0; this
′
implies that p̂ < C0 . Until now, it proves that p̂ is the unique solution to EChom
(p) = 0.

Furthermore, the optimal pricing problem (19) requires the sharing price p to meet ǫ ≤ p ≤ C0 .

If p̂ ≤ ǫ, then EChet (p) monotonically increases in p for ǫ ≤ p ≤ C0 ; hence, p∗0 = ǫ. On the

other hand, if p̂ > ǫ, it holds that p∗0 = p̂. We then obtain that p∗0 = max(ǫ, p̂) and complete the

proof of Theorem 4.1.
E. Proof of Theorem 4.2
For k = 1, . . . , K, we define the following function
K


X
gk (p) , C0 + (p − C0 ) 1 − exp(−
λk πd2 Ωk (p)) ,

(50)

k=1

where ǫ ≤ p ≤ C0 . The first-order derivative of gk (p) with p is given by
 
2 
p−ǫ+β(Q−B−µ)
#
"
2
√
k
k λj πd (C0 − p) exp −
 X

X
2σj β
√
.
gk′ (p) = 1 − exp −
λj πd2 Ωj (p) 1 +
2πσ
β
j
j=1
j=1

(51)

Suppose that pk satisfies gk′ (pk ) = 0. Next we prove that pk is the unique solution to gk (p) = 0.
√
)2 ), ∀k, decrease as p increases, it follows that each term (C0 −
Since exp(−( p−ǫ+β(Q−B−µ)
2σj β
 
2 
P
p−ǫ+β(Q−B−µ)
√
p) exp −
decreases with p ≥ ǫ. Combining with exp(− kj=1 λj πd2 Ωj (p)),
2σ β
j

it can be verified that gk′ (p) is an increasing function with p ∈ [ǫ, C0 ]. Hence, it holds that pk is

the unique solution to gk′ (p) = 0 and pk is the optimal price to minimize gk (p) for k = 1, . . . , K.
√
√
If µk − 2 2σk ≤ C0β−ǫ + Q − B ≤ µk+1 − 2 2σk+1 , then feasible price for traveler T in
√
problem (26) cannot be larger than ǫ + β(µk+1 + B − Q − 2 2σk+1 ) for k = 1, . . . , K − 1.

In this case, there are k piecewise probability functions for traveler T in pH data-plan sharing.
Note that each piecewise probability function yield an expected cost gk (p) for traveler T. Then
the expected cost minimization problem with gk (p) admits a unique optimal solution pk for
√
k = 1, . . . , K − 1. If C0β−ǫ + Q − B ≥ µk − 2 2σk , then traveler T attracts all the K pH types

27

and we have K candidates {p1 , . . . , pK }. By choosing the optimal one which yields the smallest
expected cost for traveler T among of these candidate ones, Theorem 4.2 follows.
UB1
UB2
F. Derivations of Pmul
(p) and Pmul
(p)

We present the detailed calculation for obtaining the upper bound expressions in (33) and (34)
as follows.
UB1
Pmul
(p)


∞ X
∞ X
N 
N −Ny (λπd2 )N exp(−λπd2 ) (λ πd2 )M exp(−λ πd2 )
Ny 
X
N 
t
t
1 − Ω(p)
Ω(p)
=
N!
M!
Ny
M =0 N =1 N =1
y

∞
X

∞
X

(λπd2)N exp(−λπd2 ) (λt πd2 )M exp(−λt πd2 )
N!
M!
M =0 N =1
!
!
∞
∞
∞
2 M
X
X
(λ
πd
)
(λπd2 )N X ((1 − Ω(p))λπd2 )N
t
exp(−λπd2 )
exp(−λt πd2 )
−
=
N!
N!
M!
M =0
N =1
N =1

= exp(λπd2 ) − exp((1 − Ω(p))λπd2 ) exp(−λπd2 )
=

(1 − (1 − Ω(p))N )

= 1 − exp(−λΩ(p)πd2 ),

(52)

P
2 N
2
where the fourth equality of (52) follows from the fact that ∞
N =1 (λπd ) /N! = exp(λπd ) −
P∞
P∞
2 M
2 N
2
1,
M =0 (λt πd ) /M! =
N =1 ((1 − Ω(p))λπd ) /N! = exp((1 − Ω(p))λπd ) − 1, and
exp(λt πd2 ).

UB2
Likewise, for Pmul
(p) in (34), we have
UB2
Pmul
(p)

PN

N
Ny

(Ω(p))Ny (1 − Ω(p))N −Ny (λπd2)N exp(−λπd2 ) (λt πd2 )M exp(−λt πd2 )
=
M +1
N!
M!
M =0 N =1
!
!
∞
∞
X
X
(λt πd2 )M exp(−λt πd2 )
(λπd2 )N exp(−λπd2 )
=
Ω(p)N
N!
(M + 1)!
N =1
M =0
!
!
∞
∞
X
(λπd2 )N −1
exp(−λt πd2 ) X (λt πd2 )M +1
2
2
= λΩ(p)πd exp(−λπd )
(N − 1)!
λt πd2
(M + 1)!
M =0
N =1
∞
∞ X
X

Ny =1

Ny



= λΩ(p)πd2 exp(−λπd2 ) exp(λπd2 )

exp(−λt πd2 )
(exp(λt πd2 ) − 1)
λt πd2

λΩ(p)
(1 − exp(−λt πd2 )),
(53)
λt
P∞
2 M +1
/(M + 1)! =
where the fourth equation of (53) holds from the fact that
M =0 (λt πd )
P
∞
exp(λt πd2 ) − 1 and N =1 (λπd2 )N −1 /(N − 1)! = exp(λπd2 ).
=

28

G. Proof of lemma 5.1
First, we prove the function f (p) has a unique solution p̃, where p ∈ [ǫ, C0 ] and f (p) is
defined as
UB2
UB2
f (p) , Pmul
(p) × p + (1 − Pmul
(p)) × C0

= C0 +

λΩ(p)(1 − exp(−λt πd2 ))
(p − C0 ).
λt

(54)
(55)

The first-order derivative of f (p) is given as

 h p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ) i2 
λ(1 − exp(−λt πd2 )) 
1
√
(p − C0 ) .
exp −
f ′ (p) =
Ω(p) + √
λt
2πσβ
2σβ
(56)
Note that f ′ (p̃) =0. Let p = p̃ − ∆ where
0 < ∆ < p̃ − ǫ. Then ǫ < p < p̃. The first-order
h
i2 
√
derivative of exp − p−ǫ+β(Q−B−µ)
(p − C0 ) of p ∈ [ǫ, C0 ] is positive, i.e.,
2σβ

2 !
p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ)
p − ǫ + β(Q − B − µ)
√
>0
(57)
exp −
+ (C0 − p)
σ2β 2
2σβ
 h
 h
i2 
i2 
p̃1 −ǫ+β(Q−B−µ)
p−ǫ+β(Q−B−µ)
√
√
(p − C0 ) < exp −
(p̃1 − C0 ).
it follows that exp −
2σβ
2σβ


Furthermore, together with the monotonically increasing t(p) of p, we have f ′ (p) < f ′ (p̃).
Likewise, letting p = p̃ + ∆ where 0 < ∆ < C0 − p̃, we have f ′ (p) > f ′ (p̃) = 0.

Based on above analysis for f ′ (p) of p ∈ [ǫ, C0 ], it is verified that that p̃ is the unique solution

to minimize f (p). Then, by checking f ′ (Ω−1 (λt /λ)) < 0, it follows that p̃ > Ω−1 (λt /λ). Taking
into account the constraint of ǫ ≤ p ≤ Ω−1 (λt /λ), the optimal solution is thus p∗mul = Ω−1 (λt /λ).
R EFERENCES
[1] F. Wang, L. Duan, and J. Niu, “Pricing for opportunistic data sharing via personal hotspot,” accepted by Proc. IEEE
GLOBECOM, Singapore, Dec. 2017, pp. 1–6.
[2] GSMA, “Mobile SMS and data roaming explained,” Tech. Rep., 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.gsma.com/aboutus/
wp-content/uploads/2012/03/smsdataroamingexplained.pdf
[3] ITU, “International mobile roaming services: Facilitating competition and protecting users,” Tech. Rep., 2013.
[4] O. Wyman, “The roaming tsunami: Disrupting the whole industry,” Tech. Rep., 2016.
[5] Cisco, “Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast update, 2016-2021,” White Paper, Mar. 2017.
[6] Informa, “LTE roaming: Global market status and drivers for growth,” Tech. Rep., 2013.
[7] Visitsingapore. “Wi-Fi and Connectivity,” Tech. Rep., 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.visitsingapore.com/
travel-guide-tips/tourist-information/connectivity-wifi-prepaid/
[8] R. Chaturvedi and D. Hunsaker, “Personal wireless hotspot,” U.S. Patent D664443 S1, Jul. 24, 2012.

29

[9] L. Duan, T. Kubo, K. Sugiyama, J. Huang, T. Hasegawa, and J. Walrand, “Motivating smartphone cooperation in data
acquisition and distributed computing,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2320–2333, Oct. 2014.
[10] S. Sen, C. Joe-Wong, S. Ha, and M. Chiang, “A survey of smart data pricing: Past proposals, current plans, and future
trends,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 46, no. 2, p. 15, 2013.
[11] T. Luo, S. Kanhere, J. Huang, S. Das, and F. Wu, “Sustainable incentives for mobile crowdsensing: Auctions, lotteries,
and trust and reputation systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 68–74, Mar. 2017.
[12] Y. Zhang, Y. Gu, M. Pan, N. H. Tran, Z. Dawy, and Z. Han, “Multi-dimensional incentive mechanism in mobile
crowdsourcing with moral hazard,” to appera in IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., 2017.
[13] Y. Zhang, C. Jiang, L. Song, M. Pan, Z. Dawy, and Z. Han, ”Incentive mechanism for mobile crowdsourcing using an
optimized tournament model,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 880–892, Apr. 2017.
[14] J. Musacchio and J. Walrand, “WiFi access point pricing as a dynamic game,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 14, no. 2,
pp. 289–301, Apr. 2006.
[15] L. Duan, J. Huang, and B. Shou, “Pricing for local and global Wi-Fi markets,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 14,
no. 5, pp. 1056–1070, May 2015.
[16] J. Yu, M. H. Cheung, J. Huang, and H. V. Poor, “Mobile data trading: A behavioral economics perspective,” in Proc. IEEE
WiOpt, Mumbai, India, May 2015, pp. 363–370.
[17] L. Zheng, C. Joe-Wong, C. W. Tan, S. Ha, and M. Chiang, “Secondary markets for mobile data: Feasibility and benefits
of traded data plans,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Hong Kong, China, Apr./May 2015, pp. 1580–1588.
[18] Y. Guo, L. Duan, and R. Zhang, “Optimal pricing and load sharing for energy saving with cooperative communications,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 951–964, Feb. 2016.
[19] X. Wang, L. Duan, and R. Zhang, “User-initiated data plan trading via a personal hotspot market,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 7885–7898, Nov. 2016.
[20] L. M. Feeny and M. Nilsson, “Investigating the energy consumption of a wireless network interface in an ad hoc networking
environment,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Anchorage, USA, Apr. 2001, pp. 1548–1557.
[21] J. G. Andrews, R. Ganti, M. Haenggi, N. Jindal, and S. Weber, “A primer on spatial modeling and analysis in wireless
networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 156–163, Nov. 2010.
[22] J. Laffont and D. Martimort, The Theory of Incentives: The Principal-Agent Model, Princetion, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press,
2001.
[23] P. Fishburn, Utility Theory for Decidsion Making, New York: Wiley, 1970.
[24] H. A. David, Order Statistics, New York: Wiley, 1981.

