On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:54:59 -0700, Todd Allcock
<ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<455a7c95$0$21105$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>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.

The problem is backlash from degrading service, which is why most
companies won't do that -- if not turned off, it must be supported, so
what they want is turn it off.

>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?

Little cost to just turn it off -- there's only significant cost to
redeploy the infrastructure and spectrum, for which there may be enough
service revenue to make it worthwhile.

>> 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.

If it made sense (demand and economics), then the market would provide
it. When that hasn't happened, then either demand or economics aren't
there.

With regard to economics, I'm willing to be that most people would
object to paying (say) even $5/month more to have better service in some
remote rural areas. (I know I would.)

>The whole point of the USF is to provide "modern"
>service to unserved areas.

It's inefficient and counterproductive to have one service subsidize
another. USF primarily supports libraries and schools, and even there
it doesn't make sense, since it interferes with free market
alternatives.

The big obstacle to wider availability of digital in rural areas has
been the AMPS mandate (government interference in the market). Once
that mandate sunsets (long overdue), we'll be much more likely to get
improved digital coverage in rural areas. In other words, the solution
is less government interference, not more government interference.

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