Economy Development for a Small Community -
Just as small entrepreneurs have found themselves able to battle corporate giants, so too do smaller communities now face a David-Goliath competitive environment. It isn’t easy, but remember David prevailed!
Here are three steps we suggest all communities consider.
1. Think – “Fire, ready, aim” is not a strategy. When people say we need to develop our economy, they may seek very different things. We have developed ten core competencies that make up economy development. Decide what is most important: perhaps downtown development; a new office park; retraining workers, or is it attracting tourists?
Have a Plan. Know where you want to go first. Be sure that there is a shared consensus. Like any good plan, it needs to be realistic and measurable.
For small communities, this can be a strategic advantage. You can get key leaders into one room, and in a couple of hours determine shared opportunities and threats. Your larger competitors will take a month fighting over who is invited.
2. Get – Small communities often approach economic development without any –or minimal - funds available. Time to think like an entrepreneur; “bootstrap” resources during these early stages.
For a community, the best resource is its people. If you ask around, you will be surprised by the talent and willingness to help. There are also regional, state and federal offices which can provide free guidance and assistance. Universities can offer services and facilities. Get your team together.
Eventually, you will need financial resources. With a record of committed, successful volunteers, that resource channel will open. Get the resources you need equal to the task. You do not want to be constantly fund-raising; take on a project you can afford.
3. Do – Finally, we’re doing something! It is important that the actions be supported before commencement. Many small communities –faced with a crisis – want to just get on with “it”, only to see volunteer and political support erode as “it” means different things to different people.
As with any endeavor, leadership is the key. Who is the person accountable for success? Who has agreed to help and follow this leadership? Are tasks laid-out, understood and publically supported?
We have seen how much just a few key people can do in a small community. Your larger competitors will be months just introducing themselves; while you are making progress with community leaders you know and trust.
Specific Considerations for Smaller Com munities
The factors that hinder a small community – lack of staffing and resources, limited workforce pool, remote locations, and minimal infrastructure - are realities. But a small community also offers advantages. These include:
Flexible, honest and accessible governments: that provides suggestions to make things happen, versus official reasons why it is not exactly permitted.
Small is good: To make a difference, you do not need big wins. Pay attention to the one-person enterprise that would be lost in a large city, and build loyalty as the company grows.
Network your “captured market”; find and network the enterprising people who already have made the commitment to live in or near the community, who don’t need convincing why this community is a great place. They will find opportunities once they meet each other.
Know your employers: most small communities can easily name – and subsequently visit with – their top employers before trouble hits.
Limit your appetite. A new employer will want to be in an area that offers at least a 20-1 “qualified applicant” to hire ratio. Consider your community: determine what is 1/20th of the qualified workforce, and that is the maximum employer size you should target.
No place like home. Establishing support for networking “Free Agents”; people who are home workers connected to national clients, which can produce new ventures and a positive “buzz” about the community. Make work-at-home easy by encouraging land-use permitting that is flexible for small home-based business.
Build upon existing niche strengths. Why is your community unique? Do you have a cadre of early retirees from similar industries? Is there any grouping of like companies – wineries, marinas, food processors, engineers, organic farmers – that could form the base of a “cluster” strategy – a niche others will seek?
A credible message and messenger. In 20 words or less: why your community? Who is the go-to person when there is an inquiry, or who will follow-up on “a business-is-failing” (or growing) rumor, or the state wants someone to attend a workshop? Who knows how to speak to the media, and has local credibility? Do others confirm the same message?
Congratulations: You have taken on a very important service for your community, ensuring its future viability. Small-community economy development does not have the big headlines wins. But it also does not have the big headaches. Utilize your smaller size to be flexible, accessible, creative and accountable. Small wins add up, and patience prevails. And remember to have some fun!
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Net Neutrality Explained
Understanding Net Neutrality and economic development(NN)
A popular truism is “…it all depends what end of the (gun) barrel you are looking down…” That is, the situation is different if you are pointing the barrel, or if it’s pointed at you. While Network Neutrality (NN) is not about gun barrels, it is about pipes, and it also depends on your perspective.
A word of caution: nothing regarding this subject - or perhaps anything pertaining to the internet and the economy - is without exceptions, so allow for this blog being under-nuanced.
The internet experience is made up of two essential elements: the content (such as this message) and the means to get it to you; the “pipeline” from my keyboard to your PC or cell-phone screen. Like an energy pipeline, it has many components.
The NN debate is generally between those who provide the pipelines – who have paid the significant costs of providing internet wires, switches and black boxes – and those who's content fills up those pipes.
The pipeline owners pay for these pipes by collecting fees from users. Most of us pay a commercial Internet Service Provider (such as AT&T, Comcast, AOL) a fee for these connections. These providers subsequently utilize bigger pipes from other “wholesalers”, and the data get mixed up and is directed through many different paths to get to the users.
Larger users may utilize several pipeline sources, and may also augment these commercial connections with their own lines, especially if they have unusual needs, such as big blobs of data, or extra security requirements, for defense, credit information, or proprietary research.
The owners of these pipes believe it is their right to control, or at least to prioritize and/or price differently – the volume and content coming through their pipes. Of particular debate recently have been the content providers that send either unusually large blobs that can slow other signals (such as results from search engines; Google is a big and visible player in the NN debate) or content that is legally questionable, such as sites that share music without copyright approvals. Seems reasonable, huh?
Not so fast. The content providers and many users believe that any differentiation is counter to the genius of the internet, and its no-rules freedom. This perspective is that to have “toll-booths” or “slow-fast lanes” within the pipelines will constrain the innovation of the internet, and may allow the pipeline companies to increase the costs, and give preference to their customers, or to their own content. Net neutrality advocates also point out the continuing saga of “haves-and-have-nots” of high-speed service; as pipeline companies have not adequately delivered broadband to rural areas. Allowing traffic charges will just allow more “creaming” by their servicing just wealthier markets. The battle cry is that “…the (Inter)Net needs to be neutral” to what goes through the pipes, hence the “Net Neutral” tag-line.
This stand-off is confused by the federal government’s roles. First, the federal regulator of some of these pipelines (note: not all information pipelines are regulated) is the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). While they have issued several partial decisions, they have most recently been more pro-neutral than not. Their recent National Broadband Plan envisions a greater role for FCC playing traffic cop, as well as coming up with significant new “pipeline capacity” via the release of wireless spectrum (another LONG story). Depending upon which end of the pipeline to we see, this is either great news for innovation and freedom, or the socialization of private property which will be a disincentive for additional private investment that the Internet needs.
Secondly, the Obama Administration has included partial Net Neutrality into key provisions of the $7b funding for broadband grants under the national recovery funding bill. Consequently, this has made them friends, and some not-so-friendly respondents. So it would seem that we are going toward the NN model nationally, yes? Not so fast.
Adding to this mix is a recent federal appeal court decision that ruled in favor of a pipeline company (Comcast) and specifically rebuked the FCC. Federal courts have a way of getting people’s attention.
An interesting side-bar has been the recent Google announcement that it plans to also begin test building its own pipelines, but at much faster capacities. Many communities are now encouraging Google to select them as a host of a proposed Google high-speed network. Conversely, pipeline companies are increasingly becoming content providers, competing against search engine companies for your home-page, and for all-important advertising.
Local Economy Development Thoughts:
Expect this stand-off to continue, as there is too much at stake for many very serious, well-healed companies. Good time to be a telecom lobbyist, however…. So be thinking of plans that encourage both perspectives, either additional private pipeline expansion -such as aggregation contracts, public-private shared lines, credit-enhancements for providers to enter into underserved markets - as well as strategies that encourage greater public ownership via broadband grants, municipal broadband utilities, and public and residential sharing.
Hope this helps.
Stu
Stuart T. Arnett is the principal of the Arnett Development Group that includes a spectrum of subject matter experts dealing with technology and how it affects the economy and community development.
He Chaired the New Hampshire Telecom Initiative for six years.
A popular truism is “…it all depends what end of the (gun) barrel you are looking down…” That is, the situation is different if you are pointing the barrel, or if it’s pointed at you. While Network Neutrality (NN) is not about gun barrels, it is about pipes, and it also depends on your perspective.
A word of caution: nothing regarding this subject - or perhaps anything pertaining to the internet and the economy - is without exceptions, so allow for this blog being under-nuanced.
The internet experience is made up of two essential elements: the content (such as this message) and the means to get it to you; the “pipeline” from my keyboard to your PC or cell-phone screen. Like an energy pipeline, it has many components.
The NN debate is generally between those who provide the pipelines – who have paid the significant costs of providing internet wires, switches and black boxes – and those who's content fills up those pipes.
The pipeline owners pay for these pipes by collecting fees from users. Most of us pay a commercial Internet Service Provider (such as AT&T, Comcast, AOL) a fee for these connections. These providers subsequently utilize bigger pipes from other “wholesalers”, and the data get mixed up and is directed through many different paths to get to the users.
Larger users may utilize several pipeline sources, and may also augment these commercial connections with their own lines, especially if they have unusual needs, such as big blobs of data, or extra security requirements, for defense, credit information, or proprietary research.
The owners of these pipes believe it is their right to control, or at least to prioritize and/or price differently – the volume and content coming through their pipes. Of particular debate recently have been the content providers that send either unusually large blobs that can slow other signals (such as results from search engines; Google is a big and visible player in the NN debate) or content that is legally questionable, such as sites that share music without copyright approvals. Seems reasonable, huh?
Not so fast. The content providers and many users believe that any differentiation is counter to the genius of the internet, and its no-rules freedom. This perspective is that to have “toll-booths” or “slow-fast lanes” within the pipelines will constrain the innovation of the internet, and may allow the pipeline companies to increase the costs, and give preference to their customers, or to their own content. Net neutrality advocates also point out the continuing saga of “haves-and-have-nots” of high-speed service; as pipeline companies have not adequately delivered broadband to rural areas. Allowing traffic charges will just allow more “creaming” by their servicing just wealthier markets. The battle cry is that “…the (Inter)Net needs to be neutral” to what goes through the pipes, hence the “Net Neutral” tag-line.
This stand-off is confused by the federal government’s roles. First, the federal regulator of some of these pipelines (note: not all information pipelines are regulated) is the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). While they have issued several partial decisions, they have most recently been more pro-neutral than not. Their recent National Broadband Plan envisions a greater role for FCC playing traffic cop, as well as coming up with significant new “pipeline capacity” via the release of wireless spectrum (another LONG story). Depending upon which end of the pipeline to we see, this is either great news for innovation and freedom, or the socialization of private property which will be a disincentive for additional private investment that the Internet needs.
Secondly, the Obama Administration has included partial Net Neutrality into key provisions of the $7b funding for broadband grants under the national recovery funding bill. Consequently, this has made them friends, and some not-so-friendly respondents. So it would seem that we are going toward the NN model nationally, yes? Not so fast.
Adding to this mix is a recent federal appeal court decision that ruled in favor of a pipeline company (Comcast) and specifically rebuked the FCC. Federal courts have a way of getting people’s attention.
An interesting side-bar has been the recent Google announcement that it plans to also begin test building its own pipelines, but at much faster capacities. Many communities are now encouraging Google to select them as a host of a proposed Google high-speed network. Conversely, pipeline companies are increasingly becoming content providers, competing against search engine companies for your home-page, and for all-important advertising.
Local Economy Development Thoughts:
Expect this stand-off to continue, as there is too much at stake for many very serious, well-healed companies. Good time to be a telecom lobbyist, however…. So be thinking of plans that encourage both perspectives, either additional private pipeline expansion -such as aggregation contracts, public-private shared lines, credit-enhancements for providers to enter into underserved markets - as well as strategies that encourage greater public ownership via broadband grants, municipal broadband utilities, and public and residential sharing.
Hope this helps.
Stu
Stuart T. Arnett is the principal of the Arnett Development Group that includes a spectrum of subject matter experts dealing with technology and how it affects the economy and community development.
He Chaired the New Hampshire Telecom Initiative for six years.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Greetings to the ADG blog. We -like everyone - are seeking he best ways to re-develop economies and businesses in this "challenging" environment.
We are focused now on the federal Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act - The economic stimulas legislation that budget over $800 billiob ("Billion with a "B"!) for stimulus. Another package is coming for residential relief. So here is what we are doing:
We are focused now on the federal Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act - The economic stimulas legislation that budget over $800 billiob ("Billion with a "B"!) for stimulus. Another package is coming for residential relief. So here is what we are doing:
- Information, information and more information. Please share what you hear, too.
- Comunications with legislators, federal fiels staff, other providors
- Search for good projects that are ready, and match them to the best source(s) of funding
- It will be interesting if/how the many federal administrative rules will be bent or modified, to facilitate rapid deployment.
Can we answer any stimuls questions for you?
Stu Arnett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
