|
Courtesy of ShopforT1.com
Definition 1. -
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 2. -
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 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 Landover T1 line is in common use today in ISP (Internet Service Provider) connections to the Internet
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.
|
Tuesday July 29, 2008,
06:38 pm ET
Landover, Maryland, Jul. 29 /Cynthia Thomas/ --
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.
"Like Forrest Gump said, finding the right phone service for your business is
like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're going to get" joked
Elizabeth Forest of Detroit, Michigan. "Before finding Cavalier Telephone
through my Telarus agent, I was mislead into signing up for services that weren't
a good fit for my business. Add to that the billing inaccuracies and the hassle
it was to get everything straightened out. My new integrated T1 works flawlessly,
I am able to get full T1 data speeds when no one is on the phone, and I don't
fear opening the bill when it arrives in the mail each month."
Min Lieu owns a small insurance agency in Maryland. Five years ago he signed up with
XO Communications for a TDM-based integrated T1 line for $870/month, which did not
include local or long distance calling. Recently, he was offered XO's version of
a dynamic circuit called "XO Flex" for half of the price he was already paying.
"I would have been a fool not to take the deal" stated Mr. Lieu. "I'm able to
add headcount with additional voice lines, without any increase in expense or
degradation in high-speed Internet performance."
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.
One might think that, given the cost - benefit analysis of the integrated T1 value
proposition, more businesses would be changing over to the new platform. However,
the rate of adaptation is rather slow. Rob Butler, head of the Telecommunications
Research Institute, thinks that "phone companies have a problem with trust amongst
their user base. For many years, customers have dealt with increasing rates, long
hold times, and frustration in general. Now, it appears, the ice is finally starting
to melt and customers are opening themselves up to new technology.
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.
Once a forgotten segment of the business telecommunication landscape, small to medium
size businesses are finally being serviced with products (like the dynamic integrated
T1 line) at prices they can afford. Gone are the days when the Bells can shove TDM
services down the collective throats of SMB's at prices that resemble a mortgage rather
than a telephone service. 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.
|