T1 Internet Service Prices and Rates Quotes in Ewtrford

Momentum Builds for CLECs

Friday August 08, 2008, 01:14 am ET

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, Aug. 08 /Patrick Oborn/ -- 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.

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.

Pennsylvania is a place that we found was a hot spot for small business owners making the move over to dynamic T-1 lines. One business owner that we interviewed gave glowing reviews of his move to TelePacific's "OnePac" dynamic product. Keith Gray explained "I used to have a regular integrated T1 with 10 voice lines and 14 data channels. When no one was using the phone in my office, we were limited to just 896 KB of bandwidth. After searching on the Internet for better options, I found that I could reduce my price from $850/month to $500/month, and at the same time have 14 voice lines and 1.5 mbps of broadband. I didn't take long for me to pull the trigger and make the change."

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.

Evolution has lead to a better, cheaper alternative to TDM services that the Bells were peddling for decades in a vacuum of competition. Now the industry, lead by the innovation and great business practices of the CLECs, seems to have turned a corner - leaving the incumbents playing catchup. Obviously, the main benefactor of all of this competition is the small to medium size business - a segment of the market that was taken for granted until today. Hopefully the CLECs can continue to push the boundaries of innovation and economics. The only thing that can keep them from the promise land is the gatekeeper of competition: the Federal Communications Commission, and the huge Bells (AT&T and Verizon - that's you) who make it a point to spend more money lobbying in Washington DC than Exxon Mobile.