There are three classes of jobs that are created by a project: direct, indirect and induced. A direct job is a job that is created by the project. These include planning, construction, equipment and supplies for the project. An indirect job is one that is created in the supply chain for the material used in the project or in the services that support the project. These might include the iron, glass and chips used in the electronics or rental and insurance services. Induced jobs are created as a result of the project being completed and in service or as a result of the increased spending resulting from direct and indirect jobs. These include jobs in consumer goods, entertainment and dining, and automobile sectors.
It is very difficult to predict or even measure the job creation impact of an ARRA project but there are some guidelines available. Infrastructure construction projects are known to have huge job creation potential. One reference I have seen cites a potential to create 28,500 jobs (job = 1 person for one year) for every $1B spent in construction:
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?a ... ;dcn=e_tma
Another source says the number could be as high as 47,576 person-years for every $1B spent in highway construction. This includes 19,585 direct jobs, 6,939 indirect jobs and 21,052 induced jobs.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1747.cfm
I have heard that there is a document, maybe published by the GAO, that estimates job creation in other sectors but I have not found this document yet. If you have any information on such a document, please drop me a line or post a comment here.
Chances are excellent that you will not be given $1B for your project. How many jobs will be created by a $1M project? If the jobs to dollars scales linearly then a one million dollar construction project should create about 28 jobs. Does this make sense to you? Do you think it applies to broadband infrastructure construction? Post comments, please!
[ add comment ] ( 330 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 94 )It’s the 1000 pound gorilla that hasn’t been directly engaged in Occam’s broadband stimulus program website. Net neutrality is such a sensitive subject that it warrants a careful dialogue between regulators, consumer advocacy groups, service providers and other interested parties. Interestingly enough, it’s these ‘interested parties’ (i.e. Google, Bit Torrent) that have fanned the net neutrality flames.
Net neutrality has been the topic of discussion of a number of recent discussions including this article from IDG News. The debate is one that requires careful considerations from all interested parties driven by consumer advocacy in a deliberate, informed manner. It is a dialogue that should be held in the context of the future of business models.
There isn’t a communications business in operation that will not be impacted by net neutrality. Broadband infrastructure owners, content head ends, application developers, ISPs, wireless network operators, cable MSOs, municipalities – all organizations will have interests affected by net neutrality in one form or another.
We all understand the need to advance the BSP as quickly as possible. But we hope that regulators in D.C. keep the primary intent of the ARRA in mind as they formalize the application process and define the requirements and grading system for BSP fund distribution. Job creation & preservation, broadband expansion and growth in advanced broadband services, advancement of e-learning and telemedicine are the main reasons the BSP funds were made available.
Make sure your voice is heard. While the opportunity to submit statements for the public record has passed, its never too late to let your congressman, senator or advocacy group know how you feel about net neutrality and the impacts it may have on your business. Or, let us know how you feel and we'd be happy to engage our legal counsel with any questions you have.
[ add comment ] ( 237 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 95 )While we all await further news on the next steps toward finalizing the broadband stimulus plan, I wanted to update you on some of the new resources Occam has made available. (Fair warning we ask you to register before downloading the IPSM and Access Aggregation whitepapers!)
1) Planning for telemedicine, distance learning and job creation in your BTOP grant proposal? We've updated the stimulus plan website with the slides that Juan presented at MetaSwitch's Forum 2009 a few weeks ago. The presentation, Broadband Stimulus: A Service Providers Inflection Point, includes thoughts on broadband coverage, education and telemedicine, job creation and economic growth. All in 26 short slides!
2) IPSM ensures network security for both service providers & their subscriber but few vendors go beyond the standards. What more can be done? Check out our new whitepaper on IP Security Management
3) Why are some access aggregation solutions better suited for service provider networks than traditional edge aggregation network elements? Your decisions inevitably come down to price, performance and value but does perspective also have something to do with it? Our new Access Aggregation whitepaper explores the influence of design perspective on the topic.
4) Last but not least, although this is not entirely related to the stimulus package, Occam is now on Twitter. We'll be sharing our thoughts on breaking industry news and next week, I'll be twittering live from the IP Possibilities conference in San Diego, CA.
-- Russ Sharer, our VP of Marketing and frequent blog poster, Dov Zimring, our Director of Strategic Technology and Solutions and Kris Sowolla our Market Development Consultant will all be speaking throughout the morning on Wednesday. See you then!
-Rebecca Law
[ add comment ] ( 213 views ) | permalink |
( 3.1 / 103 )The public comment phase of the NTIA/RUS BSP wrapped up on Monday April 13th. All public comments which have been submitted electronically are available for review on the NTIA BSP website:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/comments.cfm
I was surprised to see that over 700 comments were filed on Monday alone. I usually flip through each day’s submissions to see the general “flavor” of the comments but Monday was simply too many comments to individually review but one thing I did see was what appears to be a concerted effort by one vendor to ensure that equipment purchased for the BSP be manufactured in the US, creating and preserving jobs here in the US not, for example, in Taiwan. While I don’t agree with the conjectures that many of that company’s employees are making about the quality of their products, I do laud their effort to raise the flag that ARRA funds should preserve and create jobs domestically.
We do know that the RUS funds have historically stipulated a requirement for Buy American. I have not seen anything that tells me that the NTIA’s NOFA will have a Buy American clause although I sincerely believe that it will. If it does, how will NTIA qualify the equipment as Buy American compliant? Some have conjectured that the NTIA will use the RUS List of Material. Let me briefly detail what it takes to qualify for Buy American according the RUS procedures. You might be surprised.
RUS Buy American Product Certification says:
The undersigned does hereby certify that the products listed below or in an attached list, as the product(s) is (are) sold to RUS borrowers, complies with the following two domestic origin manufacture provisions:
a. Final assembly or manufacture of the product(s), as the product(s) would be used by an RDUP borrower, is completed in the United States or eligible countries (currently, Mexico, Canada and Israel); and
b. The cost of United States and eligible countries1 components (in any combination) within the product is more than 50 percent of the total cost of all components utilized in the product. The cost of non-domestic components (components not manufactured within the United States2 or eligible countries) which are included in the finished product must include all duties, taxes, and delivery charges to the point of assembly or manufacture.
You can clearly see that the Buy American clause allows for US based companies to leverage international components and, to some degree, equipment manufacturing. These provisions were established in the 1930s, and in some places still state that the “materials” must be mined or manufactured in the US. And while they provide some clarity, the point of manufacture or assembly does not measure the value of American content. For example, there is no provision in this statement for design and engineering costs of the component, only the manufacturing of the component. .
Occam manages to produce our products under the provisions outlined in the RUS List of Materials – not a trivial task in today’s global economy. I hope you share my sentiment that ARRA funds for a broadband project should leverage products that are truly America. After all, we are interested in preserving and creating US jobs, right?
And if we (America) have such a problem that most chips are now being produced in Asia, shouldn’t ARRA funds be available to help build manufacturing facilities in America, maybe in an area of the country that could use the factories and jobs? Is anyone considering such an application or investment in the technology space?
Equipment suppliers not on the RUS List of Materials are doing at least one of two things…lobbying to keep the Buy American clause out of the BSP requirements or petitioning for waiver of the requirements for thorough field testing of their products in order to be listed with the RUS. The RUS requires a successful field trial of at least 6 months as part of the application process – a process of which Occam has intimate knowledge. For a glimpse into the problem, look at this one public comment on the NTIA site. It is very enlightening.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants ... 215DCAA401
This is a contentious issue but one I think warrants dialogue and support. What do you think? Should all aspects of the ARRA be focused on creation and preservation of American jobs even if the cost is higher than an “equivalent” non-domestic option? Please, give us your thoughts on this complex issue.
-Buck
[ add comment ] ( 1008 views ) | permalink |
( 2.9 / 102 )“….That priority for awarding such funds shall be given to project applications for broadband systems that will deliver end users a choice of more than one service provider…..”
This is an excerpt taken from the Distance Learning, Telemedicine and Broadband Program section of the ARRA initiative. It’s not the first nor is it the last provision for distribution of the $2.5B in RUS funds available to stimulate jobs and broadband.
It’s a simple enough statement. Unfortunately, the way it’s interpreted depends on your perspective as a service provider. As an incumbent, you might view this as a provision that advocates alternative providers such as WiMax, satellite or cable MSOs entering a market with broadband services. Many industry pundits view this provision coupled with pro ‘open network’ movements as a means to ensure net neutrality for application and content providers.
Let’s not forget that competition is not just about serving residential subscribers. In fact, looking at the ARRA section title, Distance Learning and Telemedicine are prominent applications that should benefit significantly from the $2.5B investment. One could argue that competition is actually more prevalent in the business access and e-Learning markets than in residential access markets.
Over the past week, I’ve been able to speak to a number of current and prospective customers of Occam Networks and I can assure you all are concerned about how this interpretation plays out in the eyes of regulatory leaders. But that’s not stopping service provider managers from arming themselves with broadband project information. I’ve been assured that many operators are anxiously waiting to submit applications as soon as better guidance on terms of conditions for fund distribution is given.
Let us know what your competitive environment looks like. What are you doing to address the Telemedicine and Distance Learning provisions of the ARRA?
[ 1 comment ] ( 222 views ) | permalink |
( 3.1 / 85 )
Archives