|
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 Jamestown 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. -
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 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.
|
Thursday July 31, 2008,
08:43 pm ET
Jamestown, Michigan, Jul. 31 /Michael Johnson/ --
The digital universe, and the way people connect to it, is changing. Small businesses, in
particular, are discovering new high-speed Internet and telecom options that are now
squarely within their budgets. Through a myriad of mergers and acquisitions, telecommunication
providers have greatly enhanced their integrated T1 products with features that businesses
can't live without, all while dropping the price to about half of what they were just
two years ago.
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.
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.
Prior to the advent of the "all digital" integrated T-1 in 2005, customers only had
one choice when it came to dedicated service: analog trunks (24 line bundles).
Not only where analog trunks expensive - the average cost ranging from $800 to
$1500 per month depending on the user's geographic proximity to the LECs point
of presence - they could not re-allocate unused voice channels to carry data.
Digital trunks, on the other hand, can reclaim voice lines not in use and put
them to work carrying high-speed data packets. That means users enjoy the full
1.5 Mbps of broadband when they are not on the phone.
"I am very satisfied with my new XO dynamic T1" added Mike McLoude, a small business
owner in Santa Monica, California. "The flexible nature of the system allows me to
conduct business with the same efficiency as many of my bigger competitors, for less
than what they pay." Mr. McLoude is not alone - many Californians are seeing the
technology light and taking the leap of faith away from traditional TDM.
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.
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.
|
If you would like to get a real-time 
