At 14 Nov 2006 22:08:52 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> Actually there is an incentive, because it's expensive to support and
> maintain service for limited demand.

I would argue that it's cheaper to let the current infrastructure stand
than convert any existing analog capacity to digital, assuming the extra
digital capacity isn't needed currently.
>
> >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.

There's a cost to replace worn components surely, but there's little
extra cost in letting a working system stand. Again, the analog
infrastructure will be replaced as it wears out, but where's the "cost
savings" in rolling out a bunch of trucks and technicians the day they're
allowed to to replace perfectly good components?
> >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.

I'm normally against government interference, but cellular's been around
over 20 years, and the "free market" has still left much of this country
without service. The whole point of the USF is to provide "modern"
service to unserved areas.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com