|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Prices Continue to Come Down on Integrated Products
Wednesday May 27, 2009,
09:57 pm ET
SEYMOUR, Missouri, May. 27 /Chris McMillen/ --
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.
"Even though we have been witnessing the re-consolidation of AT&T, we will never go
back to the dark ages of telecom where customers were stuck with bad customer service
and high prices" commented Troy Karlson, telecom analyst for e-STAR. "The competitive
local exchange carriers (CLECs), all whom own their own networks and compete directly
with the Bells, have created products such as dynamic T1 service that enables its
customers to connect to the Internet at 1.5 MBPS and have up to 24 regular voice lines,
packed with a feature-rich suite of add-ons, all for under what it costs to have
6 regular phone lines from Qwest/AT&T/Verizon.
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.
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.
Hopefully the CLECs can continue to push the boundaries of innovation and economics.
The only thing that can keep them from the promise land is the gatekeeper of competition:
the Federal Communications Commission, and the huge Bells (AT&T and Verizon - that's you)
who make it a point to spend more money lobbying in Washington DC than Exxon Mobile.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
