MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097667404 · doi:10.1109/infcom.2012.6195816

A theory of cloud bandwidth pricing for video-on-demand providers

2012· article· en· W2097667404 on OpenAlexaff
Di Niu, Chen Feng, Baochun Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingBandwidth (computing)Computer scienceReservationService providerBandwidth throttlingProfit (economics)Bandwidth allocationDynamic bandwidth allocationComputer networkMicroeconomicsBusinessService (business)EconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current-generation cloud computing is offered with usage-based pricing, with no bandwidth capacity guarantees, which is however unappealing to bandwidth-intensive applications such as video-on-demand (VoD). We consider a new type of service where VoD providers, such as Netflix and Hulu, make reservations for bandwidth guarantees from the cloud at negotiable prices to support continuous media streaming. We argue that it is beneficial to multiplex such bandwidth reservations in the market using a profit-making broker while controlling the performance risks. We ask the question-in such a market, how much should each VoD provider pay for bandwidth reservation? We prove that the market has a unique Nash equilibrium where the bandwidth reservation price for a VoD provider critically depends on its demand correlation to the market. Real-world traces verify that our theory can significantly lower the market price for cloud bandwidth reservation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207