BIK_116.80
A “frequency boundary” is not something that is relevant to ICAO class G airspace because there is no “correct ATS frequency”.
But we
will have Class G with DTI in NAS 2B, and in many instances the area frequency will also be the the Class E frequency, so there
is a "correct ATS frequency". Your argument that frequency boundaries can be removed because the airspace is not what you think it should be is frivolous.
Do you think that this is safer? Is anybody saving money with the boundaries removed?
If the area frequency becomes irrelevant in a later stage of NAS, then why not wait until that stage to remove the boundaries?
I am still interested to see what snarek/AOPA think of the frequency boundary issue, since it has safety ramifications when the change is made in November.
On a completely different note - those who joke that the picture posted here with the Cessna in the windscreen is indicative of IFR pilots not looking out the window and thus causing the situation, what is the Cessna pilot doing?