 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Only the FCC Can Stop CLEC Momentum
Friday November 25, 2011,
02:52 am ET
MAQUAM, Vermont, Nov. 25 /Hunter Sheffield/ --
For many small to medium size businesses, higher productivity with relation to their broadband
and voice services is just around the corner. Thanks in part to the recent price reduction trend
in the industry, carriers have deemed it necessary to consolidate in order to offer more services
at a lower cost than their rivals. Overlapping networks have been consolidated into leaner, more
feature-rich versions of their previous selves, dramatically lowering the price small businesses
pay for the popular dynamic integrated T-carrier (T-1) lines that combine local voice and
high-speed Internet service into one connection.
Given the fact that many companies still to this day have yet to make the change to digital
SIP-trunking enabled dynamic T1s, one must ask why the delay? The value proposition that
dynamic adds and the economic benefits are there, however, the technology is slow to be
adopted by mainstream corporations. One reason for this lag is the bad reputation that
telecom companies have built for themselves through the meltdown of the industry from
2000 to 2003, when many companies either went out of business, merged with other larger
companies, or just hunkered down and weathered the storm. Now that the industry has made
great strides to stabilize by offering better rates, better products, and better customer
service, small business owners are gradually starting to listen to the presentations being
made by consultants and inside sales agents. With that increase in confidence, and with
the growing number of testimonials being offered by happy customers, businesses are becoming
less reluctant to make the jump.
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.
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.
But how much longer will we continue to see improved technology, services, and prices?
It's all in the hands of the Federal Communications Commission, as they have the power
to sqwash the CLECs by proxy. No wonder AT&T and Verizon are the two biggest lobbying
powers in Washington. It makes you wonder what kind of services they would be able to
offer had they plowed that money into R&D instead of politics.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
