[Bob Seger]

You missed the whole point. The point is, that due to the money AB puts in the pockets of politicians. And yes the Beer lobby is a huge lobby in DC believe it or not. These politicians make sure laws and regulations are in place to ensure AB maintain a monopoly on the market. If AB wants to pick a distributor, that is fine, and that would be no big deal, but there are very few distributors per region. AB has ensured this.

Choices are robbed from the population. It spits right in the face of free markets. There is no way for a new beer company to distribute their beer due to govt. regulations put in place by politicians who were paid off.

If you don't see the problem with that, then Im not sure there is much more to discuss with you.

No, I am not missing any point. What you are going on about has absolutely nothing to do with the government or lobbiests.

If you distribute this product you are given a certain geographical area when you are granted a franchise and that is considered your territory to service. There will in turn be another distributor that will service another geographic area that will butt-up to the other distributor's area. The geographic area will be defined by whatever territory the brewer deems necessesary to maintain consistant coverage of their products nationwide and to assure that national chains receive consistant service levels and pricing.

The point is, you are trying to imply that the government intervenes, due to big money contributors that will restrict and pressure the little guy from being able to sell their products to a designated AB distributor, by AB lobbiests lining the pockets of polititians. That is false..... false..... false. There is not one word of truth to that. As I mentioned before, AB requires their distributors to sell their products EXCLUSIVELY, unless their is another approved product that they will grant the distributor to sell. I assure you that another competitors product will not be one of those approved products. Once more, this is a binding CONTRACT aggreed to by both the distributor and the bottler. Violation of the contact will more than likely result in the voidment of the franchise. The government plays exactly ZERO into it. There are absoluely ZERO regulations that the government imposes on any of this.

See how long a McDonald's franchisee will retain his franchise if he is caught selling Wendy's french fries on the side. McDonalds will pull it in a heartbeat. It's no different than the beer story. If an AB distributor violates the terms of the contract they with AB, then they're history, that is as far s being able to distribute AB products.

Your fabrication of this whole scenerio is ridiculous. Does AB have the resources to drive an upstart out of business? Yes indeed they do, and will do it in a heartbeat if their market domination is deemed threatened. You obviously dont have a clue as to what slotting fees and shelf space fees are all about, do you?. That is something that is negotiated between the brewer/distributor and the retailer and has nothing to do with any kind of government regulations.. Sometimes the result of slotting/shelf space agreements will leave someone's product being pushed to the wayside. That is a whole nother story that can be discussed more in detail if you wish, but what you are describing is a fictional made up story, and try as you may to buffalo us, you have no clue of any thing about..

There is not much more to discuss with me on this subject because you dont have the first inkling of what you are talking about to begin with. As I mentioned earlier you are always the square peg trying to fit into the masses of round holes on just about everything you jibber jabber on about.