On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:23:08 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45edbfa2$0$27253$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:

>> I sill take issue with the concept of "costly AMPS coverage." Taking low-
>> usage rural towers in consideration for the moment, how is leaving
>> working AMPS equipment in place to rot more "costly" than replacing it
>> with additional unneeded digital capacity?
>
>For rural carriers, the loss of AMPS coverage will be costly because of
>roaming revenue.

Just the opposite -- the opportunity for digital roaming revenue is
orders of magnitude greater than AMPS.

>In several industries, including trucking, AMPS is
>still widely used.

It's actually being phased out rapidly, and isn't a major factor.

>[SMIP Cingular flame/troll]

Grow up, and quit trolling here. Since you're such a big fan of
Verizon, kindly stick to the Verizon group.

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