[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think there are two questions that then come from this:

1) How much of that profit should be channelled into one person's hands?

2) What happens when a product dominates the market to such an extent even superior products can't get a look in? This is especially true of products where critical mass is important - think Uber - so first mover advantage becomes the only thing that matters.

Define “superior” ?

Betamax was supposedly technologically superior to VHS. But VHS was superior on price, availability, manufacture.............

The danger we face now is more and more processes will become automated which will cut more people out of the jobs in creating that wealth giving more of it to a narrower group of people at the top.

And that is different from the Luddites and saboteurs of a few hundred years ago how?

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I didn’t see the value of responding to your point.

Because you can’t. Well not with an intelligent argument anyway

And BT continue to benefit from the customers and infrastructure carried over from the nationalised company. The network isn’t just the fibre, it’s the poles, ducts, property and network they benefit from.

A competitor can’t just dig up Britain and deploy an identical network and give us competition which is why regulation is required.

Ha, that is what is happening all over the nation as we speak. As It did in the early 90’s

Please don’t comment on sectors you clearly know nothing about.

From their own pockets or from the revenues. If it’s the latter, which we know it is, ultimately that comes from the customer.

I asked who the billionaires were, clearly you don’t know, maybe there aren’t any, maybe there are.......but you don’t know either way.

If there’s genuine competition and innovation why would they?

so you agree privatisation works in principle?