|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
The Evolution of Integrated T1 Service
Wednesday April 22, 2009,
05:01 am ET
CAYCE, Kentucky, Apr. 22 /Kim Mankaryous/ --
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.
With any new advancement in technology there is usually a lag in the time it take
users known as "early adapters" to try out and begin using the new services themselves.
Although dynamic T1 service has been available in many US markets since 2005, it's
just now that we have observed people beginning to embrace the new technology. One
such business that recently changed from a voice PRI and data T1 line on to one,
dynamic T1 line is Jason Oliver, a small business owner in Los Angeles, California.
"When I found out that I could replace my two T1's with one single dynamic integrated
circuit (offered by TelePacific Communications), I had two thoughts: 1- where do I
sign, and 2- why didn't someone tell me about this sooner!"
Kentucky is a place that we found was a hot spot for small business owners
making the move over to dynamic T-1 lines. One business owner that we interviewed
gave glowing reviews of his move to TelePacific's "OnePac" dynamic product.
Keith Gray explained "I used to have a regular integrated T1 with 10 voice
lines and 14 data channels. When no one was using the phone in my office,
we were limited to just 896 KB of bandwidth. After searching on the Internet
for better options, I found that I could reduce my price from $850/month to
$500/month, and at the same time have 14 voice lines and 1.5 mbps of broadband.
I didn't take long for me to pull the trigger and make the change."
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.
Recent advances in technology, fostered by competition from growing CLECs, is bringing
integrated T1 services to small business everywhere. And the trend doesn't look like
it will change anytime soon. CLECs continue to grow their networks, offering more
advanced services like metro ethernet, MPLS, and more.
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.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
