At 15 Nov 2006 05:34:29 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >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.

Not always- Steven's example of Rural Electric was spot on. Government's
job is to do what the people can't do for themselves.

> When that hasn't happened, then either demand or economics aren't
> there.


Arguably, the army isn't cost-effective, nor the police force. Sometimes
society has to pay for safety and convenience.
>
> 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.)

Agreed. I don't personally want to pay for E911 either, but nobody asked
me! I think blanket nationwide coverage would be a better way to
spendour telecommunications taxes and fees than on E911 and number
portability.
>
> >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.

What alternatives? As recently as just a couple of years ago, banks were
asking the Fed for permission to operate ISPs in rural areas just so
small towns could have an ISP to do online banking! (Post-depression-era
regulations prohibit banks from operating business not directly related
to banking.) We're talking about a rural need for dial-up ISPs! Not
even broadband. There's a digital divide that the free market doesn't
find economical to bridge.

> The big obstacle to wider availability of digital in rural areas has
> been the AMPS mandate (government interference in the market).

Nonsense. Your "free-market" should've fixed it by itself- if digital
was so superior and cheaper why haven't rural providers already upgraded
all of these AMPS sites to take advantage of these benefits? They
Could've left just a couple of AMPS channels for minimal compliance just
like the metro operators. The real reason is, just like AM radio was
never fully replaced by FM, AMPS works, and works well for what it is.

What hinders the migration to digital in rural areas is our stupid
multiple digital standards. Rural carriers have to replace/supplement
analog with multiple incompatible digital implementations to get roaming
revenue from all of the major carriers.

> 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.

The real solution is too late to implement, but the government should've
made the wireless companies choose a single national digital standard,
like they forced television broadcasters and manufacturers to create NTSC
fifty years ago. If the modern-era FCC had been running things 50 years
ago, we'd likely have needed two different sets to watch NBC and CBS!



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