 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
This NEWS item involves political power which drives the forces being employed to accomplish specific things.
The bottom line here, it seems to me, is the use of power to accomplish the job of eliminating competition.
That is what criminals do, and this should be knowable by everyone who is a potential victim.
Criminals eliminate competition, that is what they do, they cannot ever allow competition.
One way to eliminate competition is to physically destroy all competitors, another way is to cooperate with potential competitors and form a co-op, or cartel, or cabal, or whatever word accurately identifies two or more criminals dividing their turf into zones - rather than fighting each other for control of the whole enchilada.
Readers may wonder what this idiot is going on about, while the topic is Net Neutrality, and I can respond to such notions with a few facts.
The supposed "law of the land" here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) has long since been corrupted into organized crime, and the supposed "law" being enforced is, in fact, an effort by criminals to destroy competition. if you don't know that, then you probably think that I am strange, and you probably think that my words are false - but who, really, is looking through false filters?
Really?
The supposed law makers are specifically, not ambiguously, destroying competition with these things they are doing now. These things they are doing now can be called laws, if you wish to call them laws, or these things they are doing now can be called something more accurate, if that is what you want to do, which do you prefer?
A. Call these things by names that do not describe them accurately.
B. Call these things by names that describe them accurately.
I prefer B.
Group A has the power to capture a large portion of a large market. Group A can produce many things and sell many things to many people.
How does the introduction of a Group B affect the power wielded by Group A over "the market"?
The introduction of a Group B will force both groups to increase the quality of what they produce and the introduction of a Group B will force both groups to lower the price charged to "the market".
Will Group A spend limited resources toward producing higher quality products at lower costs, because Group B will exist if Group B doesn't yet exist, or because Group B already exists and therefore it is necessary, absolutely necessary for Group A to spend limited resource toward producing higher quality products at lower costs, or, on the other hand, will Group A spend limited resources toward eliminating Group B, and/or incorporate Group B into a cartel?
If you don't ask the above question, you can never know the answer.
The answer is answered once Group A accesses LAW, and uses LAW, to do something.
What is meant by the word: Lobby?
LAW is used to eliminate the competition.
Once the competition is eliminated the force that drives quality up and cost (price) down is eliminated.
LAW can be something other than a power used in the job of eliminating competition, and then what is LAW?
What is LAW when LAW is employed in the work of eliminating competition?
How does all that above relate to Net Neutrality?
if "the market" demands unlimited access, then that is a measure of quality, and if the suppliers don't deliver unlimited access there must then be a force preventing competition because, and this is true, because this is true, and not because I see it, and not because you don't see it, yet, BECAUSE "the market" will choose the higher quality product at the lower cost when not forced to choose the lower quality product at a higher cost - it is simply true - actually true - in reality.
The forces behind eliminating Net Neutrality must eliminate or incorporate the competition, if they don't, then "the market" will get what they actually want.
That is the connection.
Do you want to connect to who you want, when you want, or do you want someone forcing you to settle for less?
Who has the power, and what are they doing with it?