On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:23:18 -0700, Todd Allcock
<ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<455a2dcf$0$21151$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>... if a rural tower is not utilizing anything close to it's
>capacity, there's no incentive to shut of the "bandwith wasting" analog
>channels

Actually there is an incentive, because it's expensive to support and
maintain service for limited demand.

>Agreed- why would Verizon reduce coverage in low-usage rural areas, or
>spend money updating the system when the leaving the status quo costs
>nothing?

Because that's a misconception -- there is a very real cost to support
and maintain such service, a problem when there's so little demand.

>> Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
>towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
>on the towers. No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
>investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.
>
>Agreed- it would be a reasonable use of Universal Service Fund fees
>collected from cellular customers.

Again, terrible idea -- that kind of government interference in the
market only serves to create *dis*incentives.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>