|
Courtesy of ShopforT1.com
Definition 1. -
A type of high speed Internet connection that provides a great deal of bandwidth. Many businesses lease T1 lines to connect to the Internet, but because they are expensive and offer more bandwidth than most small businesses and homes need, they are not realistic solutions for small and low-demand Internet users.
Definition 2. -
The T-carrier system, introduced by the Bell system in the US in the 1960's, was the first successful system that supported digitalised voice transmission. The original transmission rate (1.544 Mbps) in the Pierce T1 line is in common use today in ISP (Internet Service Provider) connections to the Internet
Definition 3. -
The T1 (or T-1) carrier is the most commonly used digital line in the United States, Canada, and Japan. In these countries, it carries 24 pulse code modulation (PCM) signals using time-division multiplexing (TDM) at an overall rate of 1.544 million bits per second (Mbps). T1 lines use copper wire and span distances within and between major metropolitan areas. A T1 Outstate System has been developed for longer distances between cities.
Definition 4. -
A high-speed digital connection capable of transmitting data at a rate of approximately 1.5 million bits per second. A T1 line is typically used by small and medium-sized companies with heavy network traffic. It is large enough to send and receive very large text files, graphics, sounds, and databases instantaneously, and is the fastest speed commonly used to connect networks to the Internet. Sometimes referred to as a leased line, a T1 is basically too large and too expensive for individual home use.
|
Thursday June 19, 2008,
06:01 am ET
Pierce, Idaho, Jun. 19 /Zackary Smith/ --
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.
Idaho, ordinarily not known for its telecom prowace, has been a hotbed
for businesses making the move to dynamic telecom lines. One local business
owner - Linda Peterson - who operates a travel agency, recently told us that
"I never expected the phone company to come out with anything that would
help me lower my costs. On the contrary. Ma Bell has had a history of raising
my rates and making my life difficult. When I heard about the XO Flex package
(offering 10 dynamic voice lines and 1.5 mbps of high speed Internet) at a price
of under $500, I couldn't move over fast enough." Since then Linda reported
a $150/month savings in her telecom expenses.
From 1997 to 2007, the average cost of a POTS (plain old telephone service) line from the
Bells has hovered in the $50 - $80 per month price range. During this same time period,
integrated DS1 (digital signal 1) lines - which is the equivalent of 24 standard lines -
have come down in price from $1000 per month to $400. Small to medium size businesses
who have more than 5 phone lines can now actually save money by upgrading their service.
According to a recent study conducted by PK Communications Telecom Brokers Inc., the average
cost of a POTS (plain old telephone service) line serviced by the Bells (AT&T, Verizon,
and Qwest) have changed very little over the 10 year span from 1996, the year the
Clinton Administration signed into law the Telecommunications Act, to 2006. The real
change in the industry came in the T-carrier class of products, where customers can
get up to 1.5 Mbps of bandwidth and 24 digital phone lines all in one package. Some
CLECs like XO, TelePacific, Nuvox, One Communications, and even Covad are now offering
rates well below the $550/month level, making the change seem like a no-brainer to
thousands of customers.
Ultimately it all comes down to basic economics. Whenever a technology can offer
more features for less money that what businesses are currently paying, it's just
a matter of time before the flood gates open up with companies wanting to adapt
the new standard. According to the Telecommunications Research Institute, headquartered
in Miami, Florida, the mass migration to dynamic integrated service offerings
is only being held back by a lack of education and/or the ability of carriers to
reach their target market. "Most people are leery of advertising and solicitations
by phone company salesman." comment Bill Bradley, analyst.
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.
Recent advances in technology, fostered by competition from growing CLECs, is bringing
integrated T1 services to small business everywhere. And the trend doesn't look like
it will change anytime soon. CLECs continue to grow their networks, offering more
advanced services like metro ethernet, MPLS, and more. Will this train of innovation, lower prices, and services that add value to SMB's continue
to roll down the tracks of progress? It's all up to our government - and which political
party controls the FCC. Without the deregulation act of 1996, we would have never known
just how much the CLECs were capable of.
|