|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
CLECs Target SMBs with Dynamic T1
Thursday June 11, 2009,
12:59 pm ET
BUFFALO MILLS, Pennsylvania, Jun. 11 /Dolf Olviederlag/ --
For many small to medium size businesses, higher productivity with relation to their broadband
and voice services is just around the corner. Thanks in part to the recent price reduction trend
in the industry, carriers have deemed it necessary to consolidate in order to offer more services
at a lower cost than their rivals. Overlapping networks have been consolidated into leaner, more
feature-rich versions of their previous selves, dramatically lowering the price small businesses
pay for the popular dynamic integrated T-carrier (T-1) lines that combine local voice and
high-speed Internet service into one connection.
Integrated T1s comes in two basic configurations: digital and analog trunks, with a trunk
being a 24-line (or channel) bundle. The newer, digital trunks, however, are able to
run both voice and data over the same channels. By assigning priority to the voice
traffic whenever it is present, a dynamic integrated trunk can provide the end-user
with a full 1.5 MBPS of data throughput if no phone calls are in progress. As more
voice lines are required, less data lines are available. Analog trunks are all
pre-assigned to either voice or data traffic, and do not reconfigure in the event
there is no voice traffic.
The adoption of any new telecommunications platform is never instantaneous. Many
technologies, like VoIP for example, have been in the works for years without
gaining much traction. Enterprises see communications as their life blood. Even
though many are becoming aware of newer, cheaper mediums by which they can conduct
business, the risk still outweighs the rewards in their minds. Couple the
'if it isn't broken, why fix it?' mind set with the telecom meltdown of the early
2000's and it isn't surprising that widespread adoption of new telecom services
has lagged. However, the new technologies of IP-based voice systems are finally
starting to gain an audience, and the chorus of satisfied customers continues to
grow. As this momentum pushes forward, so does general acceptance of it viability.
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.
Once a forgotten segment of the business telecommunication landscape, small to medium
size businesses are finally being serviced with products (like the dynamic integrated
T1 line) at prices they can afford. Gone are the days when the Bells can shove TDM
services down the collective throats of SMB's at prices that resemble a mortgage rather
than a telephone service.
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.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
