Job Skill Requriements are Shifting Fast, WEF Report Says

In about three years, according to a survey of larger employers conducted by the World Economic Forum, 54 percent of all employees will require significant re-skilling and upskilling related to new technologies and trends disrupting business models. “By 2022, the skills required to perform most jobs will have shifted significantly,” the WEF reports.  

If that forecast proves to be accurate, we can be fairly certain most firms will have failed to achieve all they intended. 

Global average skills stability—the proportion of core skills required to perform a job that will remain the same—is expected to be about 58 percent, meaning an average shift of 42 percent in required workforce skills over the 2018 to 2022 period, just to do the same jobs presently conducted, according to WEF enterprise respondents. 

“Human’” skills such as creativity, originality and initiative, critical thinking, persuasion and negotiation will likewise retain or increase their value, as will attention to detail, resilience, flexibility and complex problem-solving, WEF says. 

Emotional intelligence, leadership and social influence as well as service orientation also see an outsized increase in demand relative to their current prominence.

Of the more than half (54 percent) of employees who will require “significant” additional skills, about 35 percent are expected to require additional training of up to six months, nine percent will require reskilling lasting six to 12 months, while 10 percent will require additional skills training of more than a year. 

Skills continuing to grow in prominence by 2022 include analytical thinking and innovation as well as active learning and learning strategies. 

Employers also expect sharply increasing importance of skills such as technology design and programming. 

Job titles expected to be in demand in 2022 include:

• Data Analysts and Scientists
• Software and Applications Developers
• Ecommerce and Social Media Specialists
• Customer Service Workers
• Sales and Marketing Professionals
• Training and Development professionals
• People and Culture specialists
• Organizational Development Specialists 
• Innovation Managers
• AI and Machine Learning Specialists
• Big Data Specialists
• Process Automation Experts
• Information Security Analysts
• User Experience and Human-Machine Interaction Designers
• Robotics Engineers
• Blockchain Specialists

source: World Economic Forum

Are Mobile Phones Safe?

Are mobile phones “safe?” Yes, but It is a question that seems to recur. The issue is non-ionizing radiation, electromagnetic energy in the radio regions used by AM and FM radio, TV broadcasts, generated around power lines, Wi-Fi, cable TV, which uses radio waves in the copper portions of plant, and cell phones. 

Also, keep in mind that power levels for cell phones and even cell towers are low. Even a relatively strong cell tower signal is quite weak in comparison to other radio frequency transmitters, and mobile phones transmit at powers far below even cell towers. 

Consider that a cell tower radio emits energy 100 to 5,000 times lower than a TV transmitter, for example. Some liken the power level from a cell site radio to that of a light bulb. It’s actually quite low. 

Radio signals weaken (attenuate) logarithmically, by powers of 10, so the power levels decay quite rapidly.

Basically, doubling the distance of a receiver from a transmitter means that the strength of the signal at that new location is 50 percent of its previous value. Just three meters from the antenna, a cell tower radio’s power density has dropped by an order of magnitude (10 times).

At 10 meters--perhaps to the base of the tower, power density is down two orders of magnitude. At 500 meters, a distance a human is using the signals, power density has dropped six orders of magnitude.

The weight of evidence suggests that if radio-frequency emissions have any effect on humans at all, it is, according to the World Health Organization, about on par with other possibly carcinogenic items including coffee, mate tea,  glass containers, some pickled vegetables. 

To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use, WHO says.  

Also, so far, “research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating.” 

The amount of human tissue warming from mobile phone use is quite negligible, if detectable at all.

So far, “research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’,” WHO notes.

“Results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields,” WHO says. 

Some activities also might be carcinogenic, WHO says, including carpentry, dry cleaning, hair dressing and frying.  

source: World Health Organization

Still, if you really are concerned about the possible health effects of using mobile phones, use them less. Text instead of holding the phone against your head and talking.

California Legislature to Consider Bill Preventing CPUC Oversight of VoIP

source: FCC

The FCC position has evolved since the early days of VoIP, essentially using the position that “if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” In other words, even when using a digital platform instead of analog, if the purpose and function of the service is what we commonly refer to as “telephone service,” that is what VoIP is. 

As there are--for every public purpose--corresponding private interests, it comes as no particular surprise that some interests want less or more regulation of VoIP; that there is disagreement about whether to allow digital versions of analog products to be regulated the same way as the legacy products. 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation says the bill would lead to the CPUC abandoning oversight over local voice services. 

How to regulate voice over internet protocol long has been contentious. There have been disputes over the proper balance of local and national jurisdiction, which agencies should have purview, as well as disputes over which rules to apply, to what sorts of services and entities. 

Apparently some opponents argue against the bill on grounds that it somehow undermines internet access competition, which is not my reading of the bill’s intent and impact, which appears narrowly drawn to apply to interconnected VoIP services only--which traditionally have been regulated differently from data apps and services--and not internet access, which by federal law already is viewed as an internet or data service.

Ironically, Multi-Purpose Networks Now Hinge on Single-Purpose Revenue Models

Even if the great advantage of a network running internet protocol is that it is inherently an “any application” network, end user demand changes and the separation of app from access both mean that many fixed networks are on the verge of becoming single-purpose businesses in terms of revenue drivers. 

It is an unintended consequence of the move to IP, with serious implications for capex and opex strategies and business models.  

Fully 78 percent of U.S. consumers surveyed by IHS Markit think they will stream video on their 5G devices, for example, making video the killer app for 5G, according to IHS Markit. 

When asked to name activities they are likely to increase on 5G devices, consumers ranked video streaming first, ahead of video calling, social media, mobile gaming, virtual reality and augmented reality, IHS Markit says. 

You might notice something about that list of activities people believe they will engage in more, on 5G devices. Voice and text messaging are not listed. 

source: STL Partners

Keep in mind also that the global standards for 5G actually do not include voice support. Voice is simply assumed to be an IP-based app that runs on the network.

All of that tells you something about changes in the products people pay for when using mobile or fixed communications these days, and the way connectivity providers must structure their businesses.

Recall that a few decades ago, the big advantage of an internet protocol network was that it is, by design, media type agnostic. The old phrase “bits are bits” captures the flexibility of an all-IP network, able to carry any media type: voice, text messaging, video, voice, images or music. 

For those of you with long memories, recall that until the modern era, all networks were media-specific, single-purpose networks. Broadcast TV, broadcast radio, cable TV networks, telephone networks, telegraph networks, paging networks, cellular mobile networks, most satellite networks and microwave networks were created and optimized to handle one media type. 

IP changes all that. Add competition, product substitution, Moore’s Law, open source, virtualization and the economics of the networks business--revenue streams and business models--changes drastically.

The advantage of an all-IP network is that it can deliver, and in principle therefore make money from, providing a range of high-demand services (voice, internet access, television). 

On the other hand, legacy revenue streams are diminishing, reducing the value and magnitude of legacy services of many types, even while unit growth continues in some markets. 

source: PwC

The important implication is that many fixed networks increasingly are driven by a key revenue source, internet access or enterprise data access, the former for consumers, the latter for enterprise services. In other cases a key source of value for the fixed network is small cell backhaul. 

Many smaller internet service providers now build their revenue models almost exclusively on internet access. Cable TV operators now point out that internet access drives their revenue growth for consumers and businesses. 

Telcos--both mobile and fixed--are losing voice and messaging revenues that once drove the business. Video is a source of growth for some telcos, even as cable operators lose market share. 

source: Informa

Geostationary satellite constellations have relied on entertainment video delivery as the revenue mainstay. The proposed new low earth orbit constellations will aim to provide internet access. 

But you see the trend: many networks, though capable of supporting multiple services, are tending to find that growth comes from a single key service. Ironically, networks that can, in principle, deliver any media type are finding that revenue generation actually is coming from just one media type.

will 5G Video be a Threat to Fixed Network Linear TV?

It remains unclear how big a threat to fixed internet access 5G will prove to be, in both fixed and mobile modes. But it might also be argued that mobile video over 5G might indirectly also affect the fortunes of linear video services. The indirect impact might occur as some form of future mobile-optimized video service is possible. 

There are a number of dimensions--some more likely than others--upon which new mobile-specific services could be differentiated. If video is intended for viewing solely on a mobile or other relatively-small screen, some image quality (and degree of image compression) might be possible. 

Though it has not been tried yet, in principle it might be possible to create mobile-only services, formatted for small screens, that focus on micro content (single TV series, perhaps), single channels or single episodes that do not cannibalize skinny bundles or full linear services too much. 

That a la carte access is tricky and dangerous for many content owners. In many cases, there simply is not much demand for whole channels, so both advertising and subscription upside is sharply limited. 

Also, the billing and fulfillment cost for many niche and a la carte buys arguably is simply too onerous for niche services. 

The biggest threat to big linear bundle or many skinny bundles is simply the number of customers who are quite sure there are only a few channels, or perhaps several, that supply 99 percent of the total value of any bundle (full or skinny). 

If those few or several channels are available at low-enough prices, it might well make sense to abandon subscription bundles altogether. 

Personally, I now find, with multiple over-the-top subscription services, that my linear “must-have” channels have dwindled to a maximum of three. In other words, nearly the full value of the linear subscription (99 percent) comes from ability to watch just three channels, and of those three, one of the channels is only required a handful of times a year. 

So maybe 90 percent of total value of a linear video subscription is really from just two channels on an “every day” basis. Even if price can range up to $100 a month, value is something far less. 

For that reason, I’d argue that skinny bundles are not yet skinny enough to prevent most danger of linear video subscription cannibalization. The rule of thumb used to bve that no single viewer watched more than a dozen channels. 

In an era where many consumers routinely buy multiple video subscriptions, that number likely has dropped sharply. 

Use of 5G as a substitute for fixed network internet access is one type of revenue threat to fixed network service providers. What now remains to be seen is what indirect effect 5G-enabled video might have on linear or OTT services. 

Enterprise Software is Driving Growth in Computing Markets

For a couple of decades, the "most important" developments in computing hardware or software were happening in the consumer space. Two decades ago, the most important innovations in enterprise computing were leaking into the enteprise from the consumer market. 

That seems to be shifting a bit, as internet of things use cases emerge in enterprise settings and cloud computing deepens. That is part of a potentially-important shift for connectivity services providers. Where revenue growth has been driven by consumer apps and use cases for decades, growth now will shift towards enterprise use cases. 

City of New York Internet Access: Is it Worse than Natiional Averages?

“Lies, damn lies and statistics” is the quip once made by Samuel Clemens, the author otherwise known as Mark Twain about statistics and their relationship to “truth.” It is worth keeping in mind. 

Consider statistics cited by the City of New York about residents who do not buy internet access.

As many as 917,239 New York City households, or 29 percent of all households, “are without broadband internet access,” a report by the city of New York indicates. The phrase is meant to indicate that this percentage of households do not buy fixed network internet access, not to describe the availability of internet access to those households. 

Either meaning would be surprising to many, especially when compared with other coastal cities such as Seattle, where the lowest percentage of homes buying fixed network internet access is 93 percent, and the “average” buy rate is about 96 percent.

Keep in mind that nationally, U.S. household purchasing of fixed network internet access internet access is about 77 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. If that seems low, consider that between 17 percent and 20 percent of U.S. households are “mobile-only” for internet access. In that context, the 71 percent buy rate claimed for New York City is roughly in line with national figures. 

Actually, the New York figures arguably are close to U.S. national averages. According to the Pew Research Center, 17 percent of U.S. households are mobile only for internet access, including 23 percent of black households and 25 percent of Hispanic households. 

The New York study claims 30 percent of Hispanic and black New Yorkers do not buy fixed network internet access.

According to Pew, some 26 percent of U.S. households with household income of less than $30,000 are mobile-only and not buy fixed network internet access. 

The New York City study says “44 percent of New Yorkers in poverty” do not buy fixed network internet access. Two caveats: persons are not households, and fixed network internet access is purchased “by the household.” 

Also, keep in mind that New York uses a different definition of poverty, setting the benchmark higher at $33,600 per household. The New York definition is about 12 percent higher than the U.S. federal government definition. 

In other words, New York buying rates for lower-income households are roughly in line with national averages, when considering the different definitions. The Pew data is based on households. 

The New York City study sometimes uses “persons” as the unit of analysis. But 44 percent of people, using the 2.4 persons-per-household metric, yields a non-buy rate of about 18 percent for homes in poverty. Again, in line with U.S. national averages. 

Likewise, about 26 percent of U.S. households not buying fixed network internet access are headed by people with a high school diploma or less are mobile-only for internet access, according to Pew. 

The New York City study says 33 percent of New Yorkers who are high school graduates do not buy fixed network internet access. That might represent about 14 percent of households. 

Of households headed by someone with less than a high school degree, about 41 percent of people do not purchase fixed network internet access. That might represent about 17 percent of households. 

If the populations represented by high school graduates and less-than-high-school persons are exclusive of each other, then possibly 31 percent of New York City households headed by someone with a high school degree or less. 

The point is that people and households living in New York City do not buy fixed network internet access at rates that are roughly in line with U.S. national averages.