|
Dynamic T1 Services Take Root
Thursday December 08, 2011,
09:36 am ET
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, Dec. 08 /Patrick Oborn/ --
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.
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 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.
The recent progress made by CLECs leaves us thinking in hypotheticals. "What if the
Clinton administration wouldn't have passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requiring
RBOCs to lease their lines at reduces rates to the CLECs?" "Will the FCC continue to
enforce this law, or will it be overturned by the powerful AT&T and Verizon lobbyists?"
It is impossible to know either way, but for the time being we can just be grateful
that the industry has evolved to the point were small businesses can actually benefit
from telecommunications at an affordable rate.
The golden age of telecommunications may be upon us, based upon our research and
recent uptick in customer satisfaction. Although the industry has years of
bad blood to overcome, recent innovations such as the dynamically configuring
T1 line are proof that progress is indeed being made.
|
|
|
