|
Courtesy of ShopforT1.com
Definition 1. -
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 Oakdale T1 line is in common use today in ISP (Internet Service Provider) connections to the Internet
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. -
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 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.
|
Thursday December 25, 2008,
12:17 am ET
Oakdale, Massachusetts, Dec. 25 /Hunter Sheffield/ --
Is there a resurgence in the popularity of telecommunications providers that compares with
the late 1990's? The answer may surprise you. Since the crash of the Internet bubble,
struggling telecoms have seen Darwin in action as many companies were forced with the
choice of bankruptcy or forced consolidation. However, some companies chose the road less
traveled: innovation. By offering customers more for less, many small to medium size
business customers are finding that they can upgrade to integrated T1 service for the
same cost of five regular phone lines.
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.
"True convergence means that I can finally have just one phone company, without being
at the mercy of Ma Bell" added Steven Lankto of Jersey City. "Having a data pipe that
is intelligent enough to know when it needs to become a voice pipe, without any input
from me, is genius. I'm glad that the technology is here and in the price range
of businesses like mine." Mr. Lankto isn't alone; there is now widespread acceptance
of integrated voice and data service in the New York metro area and across most
larger U.S. cities.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
|