Snarek,
I agree that ADS-B is a great bit of kit. Especially from a cockpit aspect of increased situational awareness and traffic alerting capability. I also believe the attraction to AirServices corporate side (read government) is purley on financial grounds in two aspects - 1. potential reduction in SSR commissioning / maintenance, 2. onselling of technology rights overseas especially to emerging nations ATM systems.
Franky I think that is where it ends for them - who pays for the installation will be another great argument that will end up in political circles, just like the argument over whi pays for the waiving Enroute airways charges for RPT ACFT <15K Tonne MTOW.
Your suggestion of just telling them to be compliant smacks of the kind of dictatorial stance that I thought AOPA were opposed to? And does it make economic sense? It is all very well to say it is just a $5000 bit of kit but the logistics of your suggestion go way beyond that when you sit down and look at it - let me say ADS-B is not my forte, but I can see readiuly that their will be company issues stretching well beyond the solution of whacking it in lighting the fires and blasting off. Radar will be here for quite a while yet, and we havent even mentioned primary radar and the 'saves' it makes each day.
With respect to helping you tie the timelines how do you really expect a simple controller to make ADS-B happen now!? The technology and deployment rollout is still evolving isn't it?
NAS does not depend on ADS-B. All the arguments that have been made on this forum by the supporters of NAS have not been dependant upon the accelerated deployment of a new technology have they?
The issues that make NAS reduce our overall level of safety and efficiency have nothing to do with ADS-B.
I support ADS-B in it's own right - but not as a crutch to hold up a flawed airspace reform.