|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Flexible Products, Lower Prices
Friday July 25, 2008,
05:35 am ET
TILLMAN COUNTY, Oklahoma, Jul. 25 /Kiersten Thomas/ --
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.
The two basic Integrated T1 line configurations, as they exist in today's
market, are analog and digital. Commonly referred to as "trunks", these 24-channel
bundles transmit TDM signals directly to the service provider's network via a
local loop. Unlike analog trunks, whose configuration can not change once the
channels have been allocated, digital "dynamic" lines can change reconfigure
themselves from data, to voice, and back again. This ability to reclaim voice
channels for data broadband access when not in use gives the user the performance
of two T1's in one.
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.
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.
But how much longer will we continue to see improved technology, services, and prices?
It's all in the hands of the Federal Communications Commission, as they have the power
to sqwash the CLECs by proxy. No wonder AT&T and Verizon are the two biggest lobbying
powers in Washington. It makes you wonder what kind of services they would be able to
offer had they plowed that money into R&D instead of politics.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
