Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Jon Baker Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Screwy PUC Policies Message-ID: <8681@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 5 Jun 90 17:20:15 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: gte Lines: 19 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 414, Message 10 of 10 In article <8641@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > would be converted to the 5E, but not in California. The PUC seems to > be of the opinion that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It probably has more to do with capital depreciation over the expected life cycle of the equipment, but ... > ... the X-bar was installed in 1956 and one might think that 34 years > is sufficient service life. But the twenty-year-old ESS? Hell, that's > still cooking along just fine. Certainly 34 years is a sufficient time for the equipment to fully depreciate. One would also think that 20 years is sufficient for the #1. Typical depreciation on modern digital switches is 20 years. The telco can't get rid of it before then even if they want to.