|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Flexible Products, Lower Prices
Tuesday June 30, 2009,
04:33 pm ET
PRETTY LAKE, Indiana, Jun. 30 /Kim Mankaryous/ --
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.
Indiana, ordinarily not known for its telecom prowace, has been a hotbed
for businesses making the move to dynamic telecom lines. One local business
owner - Linda Peterson - who operates a travel agency, recently told us that
"I never expected the phone company to come out with anything that would
help me lower my costs. On the contrary. Ma Bell has had a history of raising
my rates and making my life difficult. When I heard about the XO Flex package
(offering 10 dynamic voice lines and 1.5 mbps of high speed Internet) at a price
of under $500, I couldn't move over fast enough." Since then Linda reported
a $150/month savings in her telecom expenses.
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.
The question remains, if this new technology is so progressive, why did it take over five
years to gain broad appeal to SMB's across the country? One industry analyst from the
Telecommunications Research Institute observed that many customers who consume commercial-grade
phone service became very untrusting of telecom providers after the Internet bubble burst
in 2000 and the MCI bankruptcy proceedings full of allegations of fraud and embezzlement.
After all, no customer wants to come to work one day just to find out that their connection
to the outside world has been shut down due to financially unstable service providers not
being able to run a profitable or ethical business. Now, due to a series of acquisitions
and mergers, the "survivors" are offering great products at rates that SMB's can't continue
to ignore. The CLEC's and Bells are quickly gaining traction with the very important
demographic.
CLECs are continuing to find new and loyal customers in the small business space, but
for how long will this trend continue? Will the RBOCs ever be able to give them a fight
on a level playing field? Only the FCC knows that answer to that question - all we can
do is be thankful for the past 12 years of progress and hope we never return to the
pre-1996 era of Telecommunications.
Evolution has lead to a better, cheaper alternative to TDM services that the Bells were
peddling for decades in a vacuum of competition. Now the industry, lead by the innovation
and great business practices of the CLECs, seems to have turned a corner - leaving the
incumbents playing catchup. Obviously, the main benefactor of all of this competition
is the small to medium size business - a segment of the market that was taken for granted
until today.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
