How can investment in High speed Internet connectivity help creating jobs and fight unemployment?
This could possibly be the last new discussion on this group as the assembly draws near. Could we please have everyone's thoughts on how robust, fast and dependable connectivity can create employment, stimulate formation of SMEs, and reduce unemployment by enabling people to work from home? Please continue to follow previous posts and add your comments too.
Thanks all!
Group audience:
Comments
Chris what is your experience
Chris what is your experience? Did B4RN help to bring new jobs to the area?
B4RN is still in its early
B4RN is still in its early stages, but is providing employment in a voluntary capacity at the moment, which will shortly morph into payment by shares, and then into proper paid positions. The potential is there to create many jobs just running the network.
Then the possibilities are limitless, as it will provide a high speed connection at an affordable price to many who have been on the wrong side of the digital divide for a decade or more. Many of these people are still on dial up and have very limited mobile coverage.
There are plans for a company starting to provide voip, one for security cams, one for in house 'magic wiring', and many who will be able to work from home. But as far as B4RN goes its still too early for 'proof'. The proof will come. Like the future. It will come but it isn't here yet.
I would prefer to take the
I would prefer to take the logic the other way - which is much more powerful. By encouraging people to work from home, they gain a more flexible and enjoyable lifestyle. They are less prone to the hiring-and-firing that you get with working as an employee in large corporates. And the cost-base of a home-working freelancer or employee is far lower than if you provide a desk for all employees. I used to work for IBM in the UK - and they only had the number of desks that would accommodate a third of the employees - the rest were working from home or on client sites. We are now seeing large companies only take on home-workers if they have a high-speed broadband connection (>10Mbps) - and with a capability of uploading as well as downloading. So LACK of robust, fast and dependable connectivity is now preventing the UK and other parts of Europe from creating the new type of employment that is being offered by the large MNCs as well as preventing the more important formation of many, many micro-businesses (like mine) that TOTALLY depend on decent Internet connectivity. In my scheme in Kent, there are (according to BT) 200 business lines and 1000 residential lines. In the survey I did on our Parish, at least 60% of the residential lines are used for both Home AND Work use!! So the telcos don't get it either. These 60% are prepared to pay a lot more for better broadband if they only had a choice. Hope that makes sense and sorry I can't make it to the gig in Brussells. I have too much work for me to leave home!
I agree wholeheartedly with
I agree wholeheartedly with everything Chris says. Getting the infrastructure in place will open up infinite opportunities and ensure that rural areas are not left behind. There's a real danger that without community led campaigns such as B4RN markets would not invest in some areas and as a result, in the 21st century, their economies would inevitably decline.
I really like the point made in the last paragraph above - there will be jobs in running new networks but also in designing and selling new services over them. Arguably, it is the latter area where the greatest opportunity may lie though we know not what will emerge or when.
Thanks Lorne and Ken! It
Thanks Lorne and Ken! It would also mean we could all attend the assembly in Brussels without having to leave home, thus saving a fortune in air/train fair, hotel costs etc. With real internet connections telepresence would be a major saving for many SMEs and employees. If there was more money in the pot to spare, more people could be constructively employed providing services.
I also like Ken's point about rural regeneration as opposed to the decline in rural economies, which we are already witnessing with the daily rat run into the cities.
I'm note sure you can reduce
I'm note sure you can reduce unemployment by enabling people to work from home. It may improve their quality of life, increase spend in local economy etc but is there not an equal loss of jobs in their current location making it a zero sum game ?
My wife worked in a quango that had people working from home and scattered around about 6 offices in the UK. The productivity and efficiency was appalling. People like meeting up and going to conferences, meetings, etc as it's a change of scenery and a different modus operandi.
Don't forget that airlines, hotels and conference centres employ people too !
Enhanced and cheap connectivity brings new opportunities like converting a dairy farm into an air cooled renewables powered server farm, but again there's a server farm somewhere else that suffers from the competition.
We really need to generate new activity and not just move around existing activity to a different place.
What do you consider a 'real
What do you consider a 'real internet' connection to be and why? As mentioned above a 10M (up and down) link is suitable for many work activities and thousands work from home on less. Key is getting this, and more, to all.
Sorry, I can't make the assembly.
Think the key to you and your
Think the key to you and your wife's experience is the insertion of the word 'quango'. So many of these non productive entities wouldn't produce any work either productive or efficient if they were fastened in offices either. I don't think its valid. And people don't always like going to conferences, most are a waste of time. (I hope this one isn't). Airlines and hotels can concentrate on holidays. People would have more time and money for those, and less corporate hospitality costing governments and organisations money they could spend better elsewhere. More server farms will be needed, and competition keeps prices even. I do agree, we need to generate new activity, and an affordable, dependable ubiquitous connection would enable this. It would also save BT a fortune in our area, as they have to keep driving up to a high peak to pick up a mobile signal to ring in to head office... farmers have to drive down to the valley to update laptop OS on the village wifi. Lost time. Lost production. The time they save they could be finding new opportunities to diversify - innovation will come if they have the connections.
How does a better internet
How does a better internet connection help someone with a mobile signal ? Mobile nets do their own backhaul nicely with microwave, they aren't going to fill in low pop density or difficult topography areas if they don't see the need.
I think you're ignoring the practicalities of the modern working environment TBH, lone workers and remote employees have their own issues and a ubiquitous enhancement of productivity cannot be relied upon.
Yes like the EU my wife was wasting taxpayers money at a quango, giving out money to farms LOL. Having to allocate a whole afternoon to a video conference in order to make the whole distributed team feel involved and up to date didn't look good, and was equally pointless whatever the core activity of the organisation.
The people with rubbish
The people with rubbish internet generally have rubbish mobile too. The whole point is to get every citizen digital, not just the urban ones. Yes we can't ever rely on people working hard, either in an office or on their own at home, but people can be paid on what they produce. Unless you're in a quango, which gets tax payers money and doesn't have to produce anything. Your wife saved us money by doing the video conf, otherwise it would have cost her quango far more to drag them all into one place. Giving out money to farmers to subsidise our food, instead of paying a fair price for what they produce was the sole point of that quango and probably cost as much to administer as the money the farms got?
I think you have had a bad experience of home working, yet I know you work at home sometimes, but you have a half decent connection. How would you manage if you had only dial up? Many hard working people are still stuck on that if they can't afford a satellite, and don't tell me satellites are cheap because the data charges if you actually use them aren't. Another point is that your wife's quango could not have employed rural people who would have been interested in doing their jobs ie helping the farmers because the majority would have been urban if they could use video conferencing. Today the team organising this assembly did an online conference, but we couldn't use video. In this day and age I think that is a dire testament to the state of European infrastructure. Don't you? As more businesses become global, and teams are spread out all over the world, video conferencing is the best way to hold a meeting rather than endless emails or individual phone calls.
Agreed. Homeworking may be
Agreed. Homeworking may be beneficial under different aspects (environment, energy, style of life), however it has little do to with jobs creation
I think home access can
I think home access can create jobs, isn't that how apple started? Most of the apps come from boys bedrooms, its only a hop and a step to monetising something if its good.
For what it's worth I think
For what it's worth I think we need to stop thinking in terms that are familiar. Of course a high speed infrastructure will enable us to do things faster and always on, reliable, symmetric and fast will, and should, encourage more efficient working practices. We need to think ahead because high speed broadband opens opportunities. I draw your attention to IBZL which stands for Infinite Bandwidth and Zero Latency http://futureeverything.org/conference/manchester-digital-ibzl/ This is not about technology this is about how bandwidth influences innovation.
I have said it a number of times today: "now is the time for DAA12 to be bold" and to think ahead; call it a re-boot, a re-imagining call it what you will but we must stop trying to think about the world as it is - but faster and better connected. Now is the time to think about what the world should be. For my part this means:
Highly personalised. What is the impact of 3D printing technology on our provider led, mass produced world?
More democratised. What if we do not need large, centralised data centres but we are able to develop clusters of smaller, community owned data centres?
More co-produced. What is the impact on social care if we are able to give individuals choice of care supported by personal networks.
Individuals as the unit of production. What if we offered our skills across a basket of employment opportunities and were paid for what we did - rather than being employed by one employer, at one place, for a fixed time?
Of course, these are just ideas *but* it is this *bold* level of thinking about how high speed broadband can support innovation and growth that should be the focus of DAA12 because this points to the future. This should not be about the world as it is now - just a little faster or just "social" it's about the new opportunities.
We have spent the last 12 years trying to overlay the 19th century industrial mentality that pervaded the 20th century to give us the knowledge economy that let us all down so badly. We don't want to re-invent the mistakes of the past just because we are doing it at high speed. We want to think with a 21st century mind set that opens the doors to new things and it it that, and only that, which will give shape to the Digital Agenda for 2012 and beyond.
I think you are right Paul...
I think you are right Paul... although it would be nice to go back in time to an age where men went hunting and all women had to do was cook the food in the nice warm cave and play with the children, die at 30 and the kids took over the cave we can't go backwards. You are right, we have to move on, and digital is here to stay, and if we want to compete we have to embrace it. Only a good connection will do. The only way to do it is with fibre. If we don't, what cost in jobs? We haven't got the big mines, factories and industries we used to have. What we do have is massive bills for health, education and the masses of service industries that are the jobs of the future. There is no point in herding people into offices any more.
"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."
- Antoine de Saint Exupéry
We should be encouraging
We should be encouraging people to work from home, they could gain a more flexible lifestyle; the cost of working from home is far lower when figuring in the cost of travel & the carbon footprint reduction that would follow would be beneficial to our children.
The implementation of robust, reliable and dependable broadband is preventing companies in my area of the UK expanding - especially the many, many SME’s that are desperate for reliable Internet connectivity.
The survey we did in our LAP area showed that at least 36% of the residential lines are used for home-work use – and that percentage would rise considerably with better connectivity.
The really big question is – would (or should) these people be prepared to pay more for better broadband if they have a choice over their existing connectivity with its set price and “up to "speed?
people running businesses on
people running businesses on residential services are already flagging up their unwillingness to pay more for a better service.
By better service, do you
By better service, do you mean a 'slightly better service' as in bonding a couple of lines at double the rental, or paying for lower contention and a better upload? That is really adding insult to injury. A fantastically better service could be provided for the same price if we weren't hell bent on saving the old phone lines. Its time to forget the false scarcity model which spawned the birth of ISPs fighting for scraps from the monopoly. Its time to start thinking seriously about whether we want to be part of this digital revolution or not. I can understand many urban people being content with what they have for now, but the future is going to be really embarrassing when our government has to admit there is still a massive digital divide and many citizens still 'can't be bothered' and many SMEs are complaining they can't do the things they need to, and its going to get worse and worse unless we Do Something. A national infrastructure may or may not be the answer. A whole rash of new altnets servicing the areas telcos won't go into might be. That would create lots of new jobs, both for the new networks and for the people who live in their footprint.
I daresay you will now say it will kill the jobs in the telcos, but it will create more highly skilled jobs, instead of constantly patching up old copper exchanges the engineers can be fusing fibre, building new. There is work for many years.
Agreed, the digital
Agreed, the digital transformation is a revolution, because it completely replace an existing sitiuation by another. When taking place with jobs, this process is particularly critical, because nobody loves its jobs disappearing or becoming oldfashioned. There will be resistances (trade-union, politicians) but you have to go ahead and follow the technological development.
This is why the establishment of a high-speed infratsructure is a matter of modernization, and it cannot be limited to a market-based decision. Telcos and ISP do not have the scope to moderize the country, they must be profitable, that's all. To make sure that modernization and private objectives of companies coincide, the State must intervene. Think about railways and motorways: at the time of creation, many companies and private individuals would have admitted the need to set up such infratsructures, however nobody had risked the money. The State was compulsed to intervene, without making distinction between profitable and non profitable areas. The infrastructure must be national. Do not leave to the market players the decision where to roll-out and where not. I am not a dirigist, but when talking of modernization of a country, the State must take a responsibility.
I think people would be
I think people would be prepared to pay more, if they knew it would work. Would you pay more? I would, and do.
We have found in our area that they would, well over half of them responded to a survey, if that counts?
I think folk are bamboozled by all the adverts promising this and that and upto etc. They don't believe the hype any more. They change providers because of the offer of better service, and often find its worse. They won't believe something is better until others say theirs is, and can demonstrate the difference. If you can prove it then peer pressure will soon sell the product. That is why for so many businesses they need the internet. They can market a good product online, and reach a far larger consumer base, witness the few little farm shops, now going global. If these farm shops had faster internet access they would use it more. Instead of a simple website and email often run by third parties they could become interactive, and shoppers could virtually visit the shop. The opportunities are limitless. But it won't happen until we have the infrastructure will it?
If the networks were built properly they shouldn't have to pay more anyway. Fibre networks are much cheaper to run without the expense of all the kit in the exchanges, cheaper to maintain, and lets not forget, the internet is free... ;) its only the delivery we get screwed on because we are trying to do it through something that wasn't designed to deliver it. Time to light the fibre.
Or go back to living in caves?
It is an interesting debate.
It is an interesting debate.
Investing in fiber are creating estimulus and jobs in..... the real state and civil works area...... are these the kind of sector that we won to develope?... is similar to my country (Spain) crisis reason.... the real state, and home growth... is good.... for nothing.
But is you invest in mobile and software (mobile needs mor software that fiber) you are creating the gear to develope a knowledge economy nor a break and mortar economy...
I insist, to invest in fiber is to spare a lot of resources without return.
Invest in mobility... networks... software and aplications... the return is.... impresive.... looks for the States.... They are becoming the techno dominant economy as consecuence of his late understanding o mobile potential.
Yes Alfonso, but as well as
Yes Alfonso, but as well as creating stimulus and jobs in the network it also creates jobs in other industries using it too, just like mobile is becoming a necessity for many businesses. We invested in wife, and it kept many small businesses in our area, but then we had to invest in upgrades. its high maintenance. So now we're doing fibre.
I agree, getting any connectivity is a good thing, and creates jobs, but I still think having tried both that fibre is worth the additional expenditure if at all possible. In fact we have to make it possible, or the whole job will be to do again. In some countries mobile is the only option. But for those who can see the future and justify the extra expense they will save a lot of money in the long term.
I still think mobile is vital, but as an extra, on top of a solid base, to provide mobility. There is enough work for everyone, for many years to come, and it would be a much more efficient use of resources if everyone worked together. I also agree that one size doesn't fit all, and some countries can't afford the final solution, so they will have to cut their cloth to fit. They should be honest and admit it though, unlike ours who is telling everyone we're gonna be 'the fastest in Europe' but expect it all to work through a copper phone line.
Alfonso has a point and one
Alfonso has a point and one which we should keep uppermost in our mind when we are debating the infrastructure challenge. He asks an important question: what is it we are enabling? With the mobile infrastructure we are enabling a vital component of the trading infrastructure and we are investing in something that is growing very quickly. That also means that mobile infrastructure offers a quicker return on investment. The problem with fibre investment is that we are investing in the future and there is a greater leap of faith on the part of regions, public authorities, private companies and individuals. The return on investment is in the future. I have no doubt that the enabling potential of fibre is the way forward just as I have no doubt that the current polices of "sweating the assets" is a waste of public and private resources. However, I have to concede that we have yet to make a convincing case into which everybody, not just the converted, will buy for investment in fibre. This is where I see the role for DA12 and DA12bb in not only debating the issues but in framing those cases which everybody feels that they have a stake. Role on DA12.
By the way Chris, so pleased that you have invested in a Wife on the farm with you being so busy and all, it must be a great help :-0 !!!
I gather I did a wifi typo
I gather I did a wifi typo somewhere? ;)
and agree, we either invest in the future, patch up the copper, or make do with an interim solution. Only the first option makes sense. Otherwise we'll be here for da20bb and da30bb and still discussing the same things...
Facebook and Twitter Skype
Facebook and Twitter, Skype and on line banking could not exist in the mass market 10 years ago. Their growth as an everyday phenomenon has been due to the spread of always on broadband. Today we are seeing the beginning of a consumer revolution from new ways of content distribution spawned by improved connectivity in urban areas. We are witnessing the early days of a new revolution in co produced social care. Slowly there is a dawning awareness of the impact of personalised £D printing, Personalised medecines and personalised care. All of these things are enabled by always on, high speed broadband.
We must consider what the impact of these developments will be on growth and employment. How will we transition our societies from the failures of centralised policy making, large scale employers and financial institutions that have failed? Do we want to put back in place the outdated and outmoded practices of the 20th century that have let us down so badly or do we want to create something new. With the old models ICTs created growth and prosperity for the few by reducing the need for labour. the system worked by managing scarcity. In a knowledge society knowledge is in abundance and its value is not monetary but in social benefit. How do we democratise ICTs and create growth and jobs for people when there is an abundance of bandwidth?
Bring your thoughts to the discussion, vote for the ideas in this forum, and let us be bold and forward looking at DA12
Key to it all is the
Key to it all is the infrastructure working. At the moment it doesn't. I agree with Penval (thanks Paul) we do need to bring all these thoughts to the assembly and be bold.
We have to disengage from the old analogue mindset and move forward into the digital revolution. The main problem to me still seems to be political. The technical bit isn't rocket science, but we are being held to ransom by the telcos and their false scarcity model. A perfect example was seen yesterday in the evidence given to the House of Lords. A digital MP, Rory Stewart, a community network chair, Miles Mandleson, and Sean Williams from BT. It is well worth watching on the archive, as it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what the real problem is in the UK. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10913
As a home worker myself I
As a home worker myself I couldn't do my job without and internet connection but I'm not sure if having a high speed connection would increase jobs through just home working. As detailed earlier it allows a better quality of life and for people and employers to be more flexible and also allows us to be more environmentally friendly but as for creating jobs, I'm not sure it would be significant.
What high speed broadband would do is stop the movement of people away from communities that don't have it so these communities remain populated and viable. It also allows businesses to move into the area where as otherwise they would not have been able to consider it, this in turn generates jobs. Let's face it, if a business doesn't have a digital presence these days then they are at a serious disadvantage.
New employment opportunities need not be confined to information jobs either. It has been stated that high speed internet would not help the manufacturing sector however with the advent of 3D printing and so on there will be less need for designers to be near manufacturing plants, but all will need fast reliable connections.
One good example specific to the UK that appeals to me is the one that involves the BBC moving almost it's entire operation from London to Manchester, about 200 miles north. They still manage to interview MPs, celebs etc without any noticeable adverse effect. Films are made and moved around the county for editing and so on. None of this would be possible without a good connection. So as a result the BBC and the licence payer is getting a better deal as costs are less "up north" and Manchester and the surrounding areas benefit from the move too. This has proven to me that key services do not have to be located in any particular location. This scenario could apply to lots of things.
Another example would be that of data centres. We need to store and manipulate lots of data these days and it increases year on year. The main requirements for a data centre are, security, environmental control, network connectivity and power. If you have those, it can be anywhere.
There are many more examples like this. The bottom line is that if we want to compete on a global scale of the next few decades, reliable and fast digital connectivity is a must.
Good point about Manchester
Good point about Manchester Martyn. The digital revolution means people can work anywhere. Except rural areas that is :(
Good point on data centres too, they could easily be in rural areas where rates are cheaper than in city centres.
Of course there could be a
Of course there could be a downside to all this. Having a super connected rural area might mean in influx of development and people. Might not go down too well with everyone. However, the alternative could be that people move away and communities die. So take your pick I suppose, a quiet rural area for summer homes and holiday cottages or a vibrant community that makes a growing contribution to the local and wider economy.
Aye, there is a downside to
Aye, there is a downside to everything, rising house prices in villages with connections will be a problem to youngsters trying to get a start, but what we have found is that youngsters like to get away for a few years anyway, but they will come back sooner if there is a decent connection. A lower house price only means they don't come back - to be cut off from the life they have become accustomed to in the cities. Many times I have heard people saying their kids won't come home for uni holidays because they can't do their work or socialise without the internet any more, its a bit like coming back to a stand pipe when you're used to a power shower. Just too primitive. Youngsters take internet access for granted now, and if we don't want to end up as you say 'dormer villages' or just full of retired people we need to get the connections there to attract each generation.
I think we have to acknowledge that there are downsides, but the upsides vastly outnumber them. I would far rather live in a vibrant village. What does everyone else think? Should villages contribute to the economy or should we just keep them pretty and non productive? Empty homes for most of the year don't seem to be a right lot of use to anyone, or the country as a whole. Cute cottages with super duper internet would have customers all the year round, bringing income to local pubs and shops... guess I am digressing...
I made some calculations
I made some calculations regarding the cash benefits to the UK here: http://issuu.com/richardbrown0/docs/uk_broadband_plan or if you'd prefer a cataclysmic view of a fictional UK that DIDN'T do something about ubiquitous fast speeds you may prefer: http://issuu.com/richardbrown0/docs/the-day-the-data-stopped
Either way - the accepted philosophy is that ubiquitous fast speeds can totally transform an economy - the absence of such has an equally transformative (albeit less desirable) outcome.
The first link is great
The first link is great Richard. The second is too cryptic for me! Surely our government won't let it happen? Maybe the problems in Cumbria at the moment may wake them up to the fact that so many areas are being neglected, procurement is flawed, new companies can't bid for funds and the incumbent gets the money to patch up the old phone network. Cumbria is still holding firm for its people, lets hope it raises awareness of the issues every county faces.
Faster Broadband Speeds are
Faster Broadband Speeds are only part of a solution
There are some interesting comments and suggestions in this workshop about how to best deploy infrastructures so that there will be “high-speed broadband for all”. Of course the Digital Single Market needs such infrastructure to be in place to be a success, but one vital element is still missing; the skills to be able to fully use this technology. Having access to high-speed broadband and simply being online does not mean automatically that you are ‘digital’. Statistics have also shown that many countries still lack the skills to use ICT and the Internet effectively, and therefore strengthening the digital competence of all EU citizens is essential first and foremost so that high-speed broadband can truly be used by all, and in doing so strengthen Europe’s competitiveness. The 2011 Digital Agenda Scoreboard has also shown that a third of households with no Internet access, did not have any because of a lack of skills! The physical infrastructure needs to be complement by a skills infrastructure in order to ensure that the impact in terms of jobs/services/etc can be maximised.
Yes Fiona, there will be
Yes Fiona, there will be plenty of work for people who want to teach others the basic skills. I have been doing it as a volunteer for 10 years, but what I have found over and over again is that you can teach someone what they need to know, but when they go home and the connection is so poor things don't work they just give up and remain analogue. If the connectivity isn't there then no amount of training will make them digital citizens. It has to be easy, it has to work, and everyone they want to contact/work/socialise with has to have a good connection too. So I agree it is part of the solution, but it isn't the first and foremost task. The first task is to get the infrastructure in to be fit for purpose.
We didn't agonise over getting people to have driving lessons, or tutor them on how to use a mobile phone. People are not daft. When they see a reason to get online, and have a connection that works, they will soon figure out how to use it or find someone to teach them.
The education needs to start
The education needs to start with the developers themselves.
Some websites are so complex with pop-unders, sliders, expanders etc that people cannot find what they are looking for. Ensuring that public and critical services are clear and simple to use is a key part in addition to training.
Its not about a return to web 1.0, but rather ensuring designs are understandable by the target audience for a site.
On the home working, have done so for over ten years, and the difference in last five years is that remote access to servers around the world has helped reduce number of trips needed.
In some ways it is a return to cottage working, but this can result in people being isolated, as we are all stuck in our mini-offices with no social interaction.
I am a home worker, have been
I am a home worker, have been for 38 years, and its only with the advent of social media that my soho is now more socially interactive than a large town office. The world comes to my door and I go all over the world in a flash. I don't think I am isolated any more.