|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
The Evolution of Integrated T1 Service
Monday August 04, 2008,
05:45 pm ET
BOWERBANK, Maine, Aug. 04 /Craig Docken/ --
The digital universe, and the way people connect to it, is changing. Small businesses, in
particular, are discovering new high-speed Internet and telecom options that are now
squarely within their budgets. Through a myriad of mergers and acquisitions, telecommunication
providers have greatly enhanced their integrated T1 products with features that businesses
can't live without, all while dropping the price to about half of what they were just
two years ago.
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.
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 old-school integrated T-1 was analog in nature, and came with 24 configurable
channels (called a trunk) which could be configured to carry either voice or data
traffic. The new "dynamic" trunks are all-digital and can change on-the-fly
to carry either data or voice traffic. This comes in handy when none of the voice
lines are in use - all channels can revert to carrying data traffic, giving the
end-use a full 1.5 MBPS of broadband. Each phone call requires only 64K of bandwidth,
so even a small handful of calls only slows down the data connection by a nominal
amount.
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.
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.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
