Among the mistakes is a belief that the shift to faster networks will have a meaningful impact on employment, for example, beyond the short term boost in jobs while the network is being constructed.
The study might remind some observers of earlier promised productivity gains from broader application of computing in business, or the new applications 3G mobile networks were supposed to bring.
In fact, studies of productivity are a hazardous undertaking. Some would note, for example, that U.S. productivity growth has been in long term decline since the early 1970s. You might argue that application of computing slowed the rate of decline, but that is not what people generally think.
In fact, studies of productivity in the 1980s, when computers first became ubiquitous in U.S. businesses and organizations, do not show positive changes in productivity. The Internet, on the other hand, does arguably seem to have changed the productivity curve.
On the other hand, some might point to a productivity gain from 1996 to 2006, and there is some thinking that a shift to Internet processes might explain the temporary gain in productivity rates.
Some might say that is the meaning of the shift from dial-up to broadband access. People could only do so much with dial-up access. With broadband and the web, many business processes and applications could be redesigned and created.
But the issue for faster broadband is whether the gains can be as pronounced. In fact, looking at productivity growth since about 1945, you might strain to locate the precise impact of computing technology at all, though the era of Internet computing does seem to have changed the curve.
In other words, computers did not really lead to identifiable productivity gains, for the most part. Only recently, with the Internet and the web, have clear productivity gains been seen, across most industries. In other words, computers did not change the world, but the Internet has.
You might say such faith in job creation resulting from faster broadband access is a case of hopes, not history. A study from the London School of Economics has argued that investing
£5 billion into superfast networks (offering 24 Mbps or faster access speeds) would create some 280,000 new U.K. jobs, both directly and indirectly. Others have estimated higher returns.
One recent study conducted in Sweden, which explored the impact of "superfast" broadband on
local employment, found that while there was a statistically valid link between high-speed
fiber connections and economic growth, it was relatively weak, at between 0 percent and 0.2 percent. that study looked at 290 instances of fiber to the home deployments.
Of course, some of the studied communities moved directly from dial-up access to broadband access, so it is not clear whether the fiber or speed account for the measured upside, or simply vanilla broadband, as compared to dial-up access. Some would suggest that is likely the case. In other words, it is not "superfast" broadband that accounts for the small measured economic impact, but broadband, even at slower speeds.
As some other studies also have suggested, fast broadband is a two-edged sword. Consider the case of a gaming business. If skills exist locally, but adequate broadband does not, then presumably there will be a clear local jobs impact from supplying the broadband.
If, however, the local skills do not exist, then it is likely, even necessary, that a local firm look elsewhere for that talent. That could mean new jobs, but located elsewhere.
Others might note that the mere presence of broadband does not automatically allow most firms to take advantage of e-commerce, e-marketing or supply chain transformation. The skills and experience to do so must also be present. Broadband, of any speed, therefore is a necessary but not sufficient driver of broader transformation.
The study also notes that, outside of high-tech businesses, it is difficult to find good examples of how "superfast broadband," compared to "standard" flavors of broadband, actually would make a business difference in a four to five year period.
To be sure, there arguably are network effects that will kick in at some point. But that, some might say, is the point.
Such innovations take time to show meaningful impact. The example might be the application of computing to business tasks. At first, what people do is automate existing processes. Though helpful, the real advantages do not occur until the processes are fundamentally redesigned. And that takes time, and human learning.
That is one reason why the cumulative information technology impact of all computing technologies seems to have taken decades to show meaningful positive changes. It isn't enough to automate existing tasks. Whole systems need to be recreated.
No comments:
Post a Comment