Market Manipulation AGAINST Heavier Lift Technology

Is the FCC preventing heavier lift technology from being contemplated
by using market manipulation? Who are the market manipulators of the
telecommunications industry?

Want to try the FCC?

In the article “Back Door Deregulation of Advanced Telecommunicatioons
is Bad Law, … is Bad Policy”, the following conclusion is reached:

“The economics of communications networks indicates there will never
be enough facilities based competition to ensure truly competitive
markets. The policy pushed by the FCC in all of these proceedings –
emphasizing intermodal, facility-based competition at the expense
intramodal content and service competition – undermines the
fundamental economic force that drove the Internet and dooms consumers
to persistent problems of abusive pricing, limitation of choice, and
denial of access in broadband Internet services.”

Does this not sound a lot like

“Every coercive monopoly was created by government (FCC) intervention
into the economy: by special privaledges, such as franchises or
subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field,
by legislative action. (For a full demonstration of this fact, I refer
you to the works of the best economists.)”

From “Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason”, The Objectivist Newsletter
(1962 – 1965)

Who wants to expand telecommunications for the entire world, in order
to provide a reason for the heavier lift technology to be
simultaneously accredited? What sort of monopolization exists in this
country that makes U.S. citizens greedy capitalists, and gives
creedence to “transfer of wealth” through progressivism and increased
government intervention – using special regulation, subsidies, and
franchises?

Yet we’re not supposed to be forcing these kinds of coercive
monopolies using rigid and stagnant technologies – such as the kind we
find with the Saturn 1B blueprints in the National Archives, or Cape
Kennedy 500-F series test articles, or the already-metallurgical
aspects of all materials used in space that have been researched
against those used in the construction of the ISS – which can only end
up as reference material for later projects.

Heavier lift technology needs to be developed with its OWN R&D, and
should NEVER become telecommunicationally contingent – I’m looking for
a more localized but pro-nationally based infrastructure that endorses
competition with its own end product, rather than stifling it at the
expense of some co-dependent industry.

The “end user” here has the opportunity to purchase pre-spectrographed
and screened asteroidal material (metal primitives) with a reasonable
investment on their return – that goes right back into the R&D heavy
lift program.

Everyone wins in this game except a one-world government – THAT would
automatically have to stifle innovation indefinitely!

Constitutionalized governments auto-limit their power by protecting
free markets from rigid and stagnant, coercive and re-bureaucratized
(inner-loop, backwards-masked), monopolies.


American

“If a man proposes to re-distribute wealth, he means explicitly and
necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in
the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government
(tyranny); if in the name of society, then it belongs to society
(anarchy). No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference
between that proposal and the basic principle of communism.”

- “The Dead End”, The Ayn Rand Letter (1971 – 1976)

On Apr 21, 12:56*pm, American wrote:
Is the FCC preventing heavier lift technology from being contemplated
by using market manipulation?

No, it isn't.

On Apr 21, 3:31*pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:56*pm, American wrote:

Is the FCC preventing heavier lift technology from being contemplated
by using market manipulation?

No, it isn't.

So companies like Globalstar receive “ancillary” (secondary or
subordinate) terrestrial component authority using TDMA (Time Division
Multiple Access) while Iridium gets CDMA (Code Division Multiple
Access) using the multiplexing spread-spectrum method.

There must be something overlooked here – FDMA gets to access all
three TDMA, CDMA, or SDMA (Space Division Multiple Access), but not HC-
SDMA, or High Capacity Spatial Division Multiple Access, with only one
Canadian vendor operating at the 1.8GHz frequency.

Directive 2002/22/EC outlined plans for the regulation of
telecommunications markets throughout the “North American Union”. The
U.S. is therefore, under this NWO jurisdiction, limited in its
ability to create free market capitalization in the areas of
telecommunications listed, due to something holding the lid on the
technology.

The European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on
“universal service and users' rights relating to electronic
communications networks and services” (Universal Service Directive)
states as follows:

"Whereas:

(1) The liberalisation of the telecommunications sector and increasing
competition and choice for communications services go hand in hand
with parallel action to create a harmonised regulatory framework which
secures the delivery of universal service. The concept of universal
service should evolve to reflect advances in technology, market
developments and changes in user demand. The regulatory framework
established for the full liberalisation of the telecommunications
market in 1998 in the Community defined the minimum scope of universal
service obligations and established rules for its costing and
financing."

So, the order of the day must be that since only wealthy (or EU-
accessed??) Americans can guarantee more “popular” access to such
things as HC-SDMA, either the barbarians are at the gate because of
cyber-terrorism or the NWO is forcing their agenda over the FCC in
limiting access without constraining the markets.

How are markets constrained? Want to try satellite launches, which
would become (popularly) dependent upon terrestrial
telecommunications, which IMO doesn't ever look at the LOCAL
potential ROI, given FCC controls, that have effectively put the lid
on enterprises that can't afford anything beyond "ancillary access".

With terrestrial usage on the rise, there is absolutely no doubt that
more of these kinds of industries will be required in the not-so-
distant future.

So why is there even a populist sort of logjam with orbital/
transorbital propulsion technology? Aren't our telecommunications
industries being invaded from abroad?

What else is there to lose here except co-dependent jobs at home?


American

"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored
under a desk."

- Ronald Reagan

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:56:07 -0700, American wrote:

Is the FCC preventing heavier lift technology from being contemplated by
using market manipulation? Who are the market manipulators of the
telecommunications industry?

Since you posted this to rec.arts.sf.written, which is for the discussion
of written science fiction and fantasy, are we to assume that you feel
the above process is described in a science fiction or fantasy novel? If
so, what is the novel? If not, why post this in rec.arts.sf.written?

--
John F. Eldredge --
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

On 4/21/2010 4:39 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

Is the FCC preventing heavier lift technology from being contemplated by
using market manipulation? Who are the market manipulators of the
telecommunications industry?

Since you posted this to rec.arts.sf.written, which is for the discussion
of written science fiction and fantasy, are we to assume that you feel
the above process is described in a science fiction or fantasy novel? If
so, what is the novel? If not, why post this in rec.arts.sf.written?

He grokked wrongness on the FCC's part? ;-)

Pat

On Apr 21, 9:56*pm, American wrote:
Is the FCC preventing heavier lift technology from being contemplated
by using market manipulation? Who are the market manipulators of the
telecommunications industry?


Just a couple of questions.

1. what is heavier lift technology?

2. What is the FCC?

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:31:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Grosberg
wrote:

2. What is the FCC?

Federal Communications Commission. That's the government agency that
regulates telecommunications in the U.S.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html

On Apr 22, 10:58 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:31:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Grosberg

wrote:
Just a couple of questions.

1. what is heavier lift technology?
2. What is the FCC?

Federal Communications Commission. That's the government agency that
regulates telecommunications in the U.S.

Yeah, and I'm still trying to figure out how the Communications
regulators are preventing the development of vehicles to lift large
payloads into space...

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:45:31 -0700 (PDT), trag wrote:

On Apr 22, 10:58 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:31:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Grosberg

wrote:
Just a couple of questions.

1. what is heavier lift technology?
2. What is the FCC?

Federal Communications Commission. That's the government agency that
regulates telecommunications in the U.S.

Yeah, and I'm still trying to figure out how the Communications
regulators are preventing the development of vehicles to lift large
payloads into space...

Then you see why I didn't answer the first question.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html

Directive 2002/22/EC outlined plans for the regulation of
telecommunications markets throughout the “North American Union

There is no such thing.