|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
The Evolution of Integrated T1 Service
Monday June 23, 2008,
10:31 pm ET
HARTFORD, Tennessee, Jun. 23 /David Onaindia/ --
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 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.
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.
To illustrate the types of decisions that small business owners are faced with
on a daily basis, we interviewed Glenda Probst, small business owner in Los
Angeles, California, about her recent move to a dynamic integrated T-1.
"I was in a quandary about how to go about expanding the number of voice
lines to my business. Before making the move to a dynamic integrated line,
I was using POTs lines. After the fifth line, my bill was above $300/month,
not including my $100/month DSL connection. Now, I have 12 pure digital
voice lines, 1.5 MB of broadband, and I pay under $400 for it. It was a major
upgrade in service with a reduction in total price. I only wish I'd learned
about this product sooner."
The golden age of telecommunications may be upon us, based upon our research and
recent uptick in customer satisfaction. Although the industry has years of
bad blood to overcome, recent innovations such as the dynamically configuring
T1 line are proof that progress is indeed being made.
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.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
