 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Dynamic T1 Services Take Root
Monday June 22, 2009,
12:40 pm ET
PEKIN, Indiana, Jun. 22 /David Onaindia/ --
Is there a resurgence in the popularity of telecommunications providers that compares with
the late 1990's? The answer may surprise you. Since the crash of the Internet bubble,
struggling telecoms have seen Darwin in action as many companies were forced with the
choice of bankruptcy or forced consolidation. However, some companies chose the road less
traveled: innovation. By offering customers more for less, many small to medium size
business customers are finding that they can upgrade to integrated T1 service for the
same cost of five regular phone lines.
Given the fact that many companies still to this day have yet to make the change to digital
SIP-trunking enabled dynamic T1s, one must ask why the delay? The value proposition that
dynamic adds and the economic benefits are there, however, the technology is slow to be
adopted by mainstream corporations. One reason for this lag is the bad reputation that
telecom companies have built for themselves through the meltdown of the industry from
2000 to 2003, when many companies either went out of business, merged with other larger
companies, or just hunkered down and weathered the storm. Now that the industry has made
great strides to stabilize by offering better rates, better products, and better customer
service, small business owners are gradually starting to listen to the presentations being
made by consultants and inside sales agents. With that increase in confidence, and with
the growing number of testimonials being offered by happy customers, businesses are becoming
less reluctant to make the jump.
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.
When asked about his recent decision to replace his TDM channelized T1 with a
SIP-enabled dynamic T1, Robert Probst, small business owner in San Diego, explained
that "it was really an easy decision to make. My business was growing and I couldn't
afford the cost of more voice trunks. When I learned that it was possible to
have up to 16 voice lines, and a full data T1 of high speed Internet bandwidth,
all on the same line, for under $500 - I was sold. I ended up expanding the
telecom capability of my business, improving the quality of my Internet connection,
and saved money while doing it."
With the help of super-CLECs like XO Communications, PAETEC, Nuvox, One Communications,
Cavalier Telephone, and TelePacific, small business owners everywhere now have access
to non-Bell service that is on par or better than those being offered by the former
Bells. Integrated T1s that do more and cost less have transformed into a solid beach
head for the newcomers.
As the competitive local exchange carriers continue to compete by introducing new and
exciting products at prices most small businesses can afford, they are coming up against
increasing resistance from the RBOCs who are forces to lease their own copper lines
to these CLECs at reduced rates. This reality has the CLECs rushing to deploy their
own networks and fiber routes, but the FCC may ultimately relax the mandate - leaving
all of us wondering how long the party is going to last.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
