I suppose the point I was trying to make is that retaining old technology
- like copper to premises - gets in the way of rolling out better technology because of the sunk cost and the "if it works, leave it" attitude that a lot of us have.
In a lot of developing countries that never really had much of this older infrastructure, they seem to be going down different paths with wireless (and other) Telecom technologies that may well result in these places having a far better infrastructure situation than a lot of first-world countries that hold on tightly to these old things!
Maybe the best question would be to ask - on the assumption that nothing currently existed - what is current/future technology that should be used right now to solve the need for the particular service to be delivered?
The follow-up question would be that if we aren't using that better technology, is it because the old technology is "in the way"?