Thursday, February 26, 2015

Information & Networks

The network law that I most agree with out of the three laws (Sarnoff’s, Metcalfe’s, and Reed’s Law) is the Sarnoff Law. All three laws talk about different ideas of how networks have more value with the larger number of members but in simpler terms, Sarnoff’s Law is an idea that the value of a broadcast network is directly proportional to the number of viewers. I agree with this law because it applies to traditional television and radio networks and this was also the first network law out of the three. I also agree with this one the most because it makes more sense to me. After studying each law carefully, I realized that even though this is a simpler law, it is just as effective. The scale of the members and the value of the network is exponential with the size of the network itself. It correlates with ratings so the number of people tuned in, also increases the value of the network. Out of the three laws, I believe that Sarnoff’s law will hold through into the future even through our quick progression of technology. Five years from now might seem like a long time, it honestly isn’t. Personally, I was sixteen and a sophomore in high school five years ago and a lot has changed technology wise. I do believe that people will continue to use technology and networks to get their information but via different and new technologies that can access these networks in different ways than they do already. With net neutrality in the mix, the power that networks have over Internet can change, but overall, I do not see much changing with out people access information in five years.

1 comment:

  1. I absolutely agree with your choice of Sarnoff's Law. I did not look at it from strictly broadcasting perspective. Thus, I also believe this law can also be applied to the internet and social media sites. If you look at how Facebook's value continues to grow due to the increasing number of users and advertisers, this law can most assuredly be applied to analyze website value as well.

    ReplyDelete