Dick (and MJBOW), I work with a gent fresh from the centre that is responsible for the airspace you mention (Williamsport). He states several things:
1. There are 60 sectors around that airspace. Did you take that in? 60 (six zero) sectors. They have the movements to justify this level of service provision.
2. They call it "E" airspace, but as mentioned by previous posters and in previous threads, in no way does it operate as "E" as understood in Australia, or ICAO. It is a uniquely US variation (as stated), and is actually very restrictive to IFR aircraft that operate into Williamsport. It is definately less restrictive to VFR. I get either blank looks or howls of laughter when I describe ausNAS (ICAO E without radar).
3. Given the difference in the level of resources available in the US and oz (affordable safety), why would you try and implement widespread adoption of alphabet airspace? (his words).
4. The surveillance capability in that area is nowhere near as lacking as in oz (for eg. Benalla)- he gave me a hand sketched diagram of PRIMARY radar heads/coverage in the area.
5. He detailed many differences in resourcing, procedures etc. that show the actual magnitude of the changes required to "transplant" the US system into oz- changes beyond just reclassifying airspace; even down to cultural changes in the way ATC is done and the service delivered. All of it spoke volumes on how little the ausNAS change attempted was understood by it's proponents (both within and outside of ATC).
It all seems so simple to a private pilot, looking in. Surely you agree?