Friday September 19, 2008,
01:26 am ET
Maple Springs, New York, Sep. 19 /Jeff Johnson/ --
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.
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.
"The marriage of lower price points and feature-rich T-1 services have made it so that
customers can now get more bang for less buck" observed Kent Stallions, telecom expert
at PK Communications. "The good old days of the Bells charging people $50/month for
regular POTs lines without them having another alternative are over. With the advent
of sub-$450 dynamic integrated T1 service, businesses are able to get up to 1.5 Mbps
of Internet connectivity and 24 phone lines all in one package, for less than what they
pay now for 5 regular phone lines" Stallions continued.
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 early adapters of this new technology have realized a cost savings that helps
them be more competitive in the market space. By saving hundreds of dollars each
month, which equates to thousands of dollars per year, small businesses are able
to do more while spending less on their telecom bill. This savings allows for
hiring of additional staff, upgrading equipment, and other activities that make
the enterprise more productive and profitable. Many in the industry see the
lack of mass adoption of this new technology as just shear ignorance and/or
a lack of trust for telecom sales people.
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. As the competitive local exchange carriers continue to compete by introducing new and
exciting products at prices most small businesses can afford, they are coming up against
increasing resistance from the RBOCs who are forces to lease their own copper lines
to these CLECs at reduced rates. This reality has the CLECs rushing to deploy their
own networks and fiber routes, but the FCC may ultimately relax the mandate - leaving
all of us wondering how long the party is going to last.
|
|
Courtesy of ShopforT1.com
Definition 1. -
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 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 Maple Springs 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 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.
|