|
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. -
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.
Definition 3. -
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 Crystal T1 line is in common use today in ISP (Internet Service Provider) connections to the Internet
Definition 4. -
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.
|
Friday November 28, 2008,
10:51 am ET
Crystal, Kentucky, Nov. 28 /Don Romburgh/ --
Small businesses all over the country are discovering a whole new universe of broadband access.
As the price of commercial-grade telecommunication services continues to drop, more and more
enterprises are starting to drop their plain old telephone service lines in favor of all-digital
T1 trunks that deliver voice and data over the same connection. These new enhancements were
made possible by the increasing pace of consolidation in the telecommunication industry along
with the increasing value bigger phone companies can provide.
When asked about his recent decision to replace his TDM channelized T1 with a
SIP-enabled dynamic T1, Robert Probst, small business owner in San Diego, explained
that "it was really an easy decision to make. My business was growing and I couldn't
afford the cost of more voice trunks. When I learned that it was possible to
have up to 16 voice lines, and a full data T1 of high speed Internet bandwidth,
all on the same line, for under $500 - I was sold. I ended up expanding the
telecom capability of my business, improving the quality of my Internet connection,
and saved money while doing it."
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.
Adoption of new technologies take time, and dynamic integrated T1 service is no
different. Since the telephone service is regarded more as a utility than anything,
business pay very little attention to changes in the industry. Significant price
reductions and incentive packages need to be placed on their doorstep by proactive
consultants and telecom salespeople in order to grab their attention. However, once
the new technology begins becoming commonplace in the industry, momentum builds
and soon the new products become standard. Businesses soon see themselves at a
disadvantage to their piers if they don't adapt and keep up.
"Commercial telecommunication providers were never on my Christmas card list"
commented Jake Chang, a small business owner in Denver, Colorado. "Dealing with them
meant erroneous bills, long wait times when trying to reach customer service, and
taxes I could never understand. Now that we migrated to a dynamic integrated
T1, my phone lines and high speed internet are bundled into one line with super
reliability. Not to mention the fact that XO Communications, a CLEC, treats me
like they actually want my business - not like I'm a pain in the you-know-what."
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.
Change does not happen quickly in an industry as so heavily regulated as Telecommunications.
Recent industry consolidation has provided huge alternatives to the incumbents, who
are now under pressure to keep up with new technologies while charging better prices
to retain and attract new customer bases. 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.
|