Friday July 25, 2008,
06:56 pm ET
Marion County, Texas, Jul. 25 /Cynthia Thomas/ --
Business broadband, its price, and who can afford it, are changing. Every day an increasing number
of business are finding the new broadband services made available to them by the "new" telecommunications
companies that are emerging from the latest round of mergers and acquisitions. Overlapping networks
are being consolidated into bigger and leaner footprints, lowering the cost of dynamic integrated
digital signal 1 (DS1) service to the price range of about five regular phone lines. Small to medium
size business can now afford services once reserved for the Fortune 1000 companies.
From 1997 to 2007, the average cost of a POTS (plain old telephone service) line from the
Bells has hovered in the $50 - $80 per month price range. During this same time period,
integrated DS1 (digital signal 1) lines - which is the equivalent of 24 standard lines -
have come down in price from $1000 per month to $400. Small to medium size businesses
who have more than 5 phone lines can now actually save money by upgrading their service.
"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.
When asked about his recent decision to replace his TDM channelized T1 with a
SIP-enabled dynamic T1, Robert Probst, small business owner in San Diego, explained
that "it was really an easy decision to make. My business was growing and I couldn't
afford the cost of more voice trunks. When I learned that it was possible to
have up to 16 voice lines, and a full data T1 of high speed Internet bandwidth,
all on the same line, for under $500 - I was sold. I ended up expanding the
telecom capability of my business, improving the quality of my Internet connection,
and saved money while doing it."
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 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.
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. 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.
|
|
Courtesy of ShopforT1.com
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.
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 T1 line is in common use today in ISP (Internet Service Provider) connections to the Internet
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.
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.
|