|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
Dynamic T1 Services Take Root
Friday September 19, 2008,
11:29 am ET
PIONEERVILLE, Idaho, Sep. 19 /Brendan Luna/ --
During the 2000 Internet bubble meltdown, the telecom industry learned the hard way that
wild spending on network infrastructure was not the best approach to attracting new business
and investment. Over the past 7 years the industry, particularly the CLECs (Competitive
Local Exchange Carriers) have been focusing on building products that offer more bang
for the buck in order to compete with the Bells in their own backyards. One product that
has become the flagship offering to small to medium size businesses is the dynamic integrated
T1 line, which combines all the usefulness of 24 regular phone lines into a singe T-1
capable of delivering high-speed broadband on the same connection.
The irony of the new small business communications revolution is that it took so long
to gain traction. The whole idea of reclaiming inactive voice channels for data applications
is not new, and was introduced by many CLEC operators over five years ago. So why did
it take so long for SMB's to adopt the technology and make the change? One might argue
that the Internet bubble burst in 2000 shook many people's confidence in telecommunications,
one of the hardest hit industries. With so many telecoms going out of business, or merging
with other small players just to stay solvent, many customers took the "wait and see"
approach before making the decision to entrust their communications with a company not
associated with Ma Bell. Now that economic Darwinism has taken hold, the remaining companies
are attracting new customers who see the benefits of the new technology without the downside
risk of loosing service or not being able to get through to customer service in the pinch.
"I think the telecom industry in general has turned a corner" opined Jerry Gold of
Boston, Massachusetts. "They have finally developed products that are understandable
by the industry outsider and, thanks to competition, priced these services in a
range that most small businesses can afford. For over 20 years I dreaded dealing
with 'the phone company'. But now that I've switched over to One Communications,
my integrated T1 is doing everything I need it to, for under $450/month. One
actually answers their customer service calls and makes me feel like I'm part
of their family. It was a long time coming, but I'm finally able to end the
fight with the phone company so I can focus on my sports memorabilia store."
To illustrate the types of decisions that small business owners are faced with
on a daily basis, we interviewed Glenda Probst, small business owner in Los
Angeles, California, about her recent move to a dynamic integrated T-1.
"I was in a quandary about how to go about expanding the number of voice
lines to my business. Before making the move to a dynamic integrated line,
I was using POTs lines. After the fifth line, my bill was above $300/month,
not including my $100/month DSL connection. Now, I have 12 pure digital
voice lines, 1.5 MB of broadband, and I pay under $400 for it. It was a major
upgrade in service with a reduction in total price. I only wish I'd learned
about this product sooner."
Change does not happen quickly in an industry as so heavily regulated as Telecommunications.
Recent industry consolidation has provided huge alternatives to the incumbents, who
are now under pressure to keep up with new technologies while charging better prices
to retain and attract new customer bases.
The recent progress made by CLECs leaves us thinking in hypotheticals. "What if the
Clinton administration wouldn't have passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requiring
RBOCs to lease their lines at reduces rates to the CLECs?" "Will the FCC continue to
enforce this law, or will it be overturned by the powerful AT&T and Verizon lobbyists?"
It is impossible to know either way, but for the time being we can just be grateful
that the industry has evolved to the point were small businesses can actually benefit
from telecommunications at an affordable rate.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|