Comments on: Researchers: Metcalfe's Law overshoots the mark

Rule that encouraged madcap expansion in the dot-com era turns out to have been, um, way too generous, scientists argue.

Value of a network

I think we should contrast the value of a network to the users vs. the value of a network to the owners. Metcalfe's law not only assumes that each connection has the same value, but also the same cost (or zero cost). The issues of merging disparate networks have more to do with the cost of a connection than the value of a connection. As a network grows bigger, assuming they don't rework new connections to conform to a standard, the cost of adding new connections could also increase as the square of the number of distinct connection types. So there are other possible explanations for large networks charging smaller networks for access.

Also, the larger a network grows, the smaller the % increase in benefit from adding a new node, even assuming Metcalfe's law. The percentage increase in benefit would be

((x+1)^2 - x^2)/x^2, which approaches zero as x increases. Since companies have to grow exponentially to achieve the same returns as compound interest, a company has to add larger groups of nodes to achieve the same percentage increase in revenue.

[John Kuzak]

network grows bigger

http://www.analogstereo.com/daihatsu_c_owners_manual.htm

Only one author was from Minnesota

While Andrew is there, I am currently living in California. To further confuse the situation, I am normally a programmer.

However I am glad to see that the paper is receiving some publicity!