|
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 Tell T1 line is in common use today in ISP (Internet Service Provider) connections to the Internet
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 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 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.
|
Thursday August 14, 2008,
12:28 am ET
Tell, Pennsylvania, Aug. 14 /Hunter Sheffield/ --
The way business connect to the digital universe is changing. More and more enterprises are
discovering the new broadband options made available to them through a series of cost cutting
measures by telecommunication providers. With the recent rush to consolidate, more and more
features are being crammed into the current service offerings, which continue to fall in price
bringing products like integrated T1 service into the price range of the vast majority of
small to medium-size businesses.
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.
"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.
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 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.
With the help of super-CLECs like XO Communications, PAETEC, Nuvox, One Communications,
Cavalier Telephone, and TelePacific, small business owners everywhere now have access
to non-Bell service that is on par or better than those being offered by the former
Bells. Integrated T1s that do more and cost less have transformed into a solid beach
head for the newcomers. 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.
|