Burger King's BRILLIANT New Ad Teaches Important Lesson

Hoosier8 · Jan 29, 2018

clennan said: ↑

You're quite right. No one had a problem before 2015, because we had net neutrality. Then some companies starting violating net neutrality. So, neutrality regulations were introduced - to ensure that no one had a problem after 2015, either.
Click to expand...

suddenly in 2015 it became a problem?

clennan · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

Yeah, it does make a difference to them. They have to have the hardware infrastructure to support the activity that they sell. Their entire business is dedicated to the most efficient access to the internet. Knowing exactly how much bandwidth you’re going to use at any given moment is precisely in their interest. Frontier doesn’t want to put a piece of hardware on a pole in my street that has the capacity to serve 100mbps 24 hours a day 365 days a year to every body that lives on the street, or even every body that subscribes to their service. They want to put something on the pole that serves exactly what their clients want, when they want it.

Let’s say there is an ISP network that serves a town called bumblesnatch. They sell everyone in the town a 50mbps line. Their business model is based on the assumption that not everyone in the town will use the entire 50mbps of bandwidth 24 hours a day 365 days a year. They make this assumption because it’s true. They don’t have the capacity to serve that kind of bandwidth. Instead they have hardware to cover the normal min max usage. If they DID have to have the hardware to cover the potential bandwidth usage of all of their contacts the cost of those contracts would necessarily skyrocket because the hardware is expensive. On top of that they would be in possession of a whole bunch of unused hardware, because people would still not use their entire allotted bandwidth 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

This is one of the reasons that BIG ISP companies are FOR net neutrality. They have a much larger war chest available to ensure that their hardware can sit around doing nothing, yet still meet the claim that they can serve the entire bandwidth they sell at any given moment. There’s no way a start up can compete with that regulation.

Without competition, the BIG ISP can charge you whatever the hell they want for that 50mbps and still claim neutrality. So I’m not exactly sure what benefit you think you’re getting?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I'm quite sure that you're still confused.

clennan · Jan 29, 2018

Hoosier8 said: ↑

suddenly in 2015 it became a problem?
Click to expand...

Here's what I said:

You're quite right. No one had a problem before 2015, because we had net neutrality. Then some companies starting violating net neutrality. So, neutrality regulations were introduced - to ensure that no one had a problem after 2015, either.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a problem - with companies violating net neutrality.

Hoosier8 · Jan 29, 2018

clennan said: ↑

Here's what I said:

Yes, there was a problem - with companies violating net neutrality.
Click to expand...

We had Clinton’s light touch Net Neutrality up to 2015. Obama wanted heavy handed net neutrality giving another unelected bureaucracy more power. The FCC voted to not become part of a police State by removing the heavy hand of government leaving the internet free to innovate. You know, like all the innovations that made it what it became before Obama’s net neutrality.

Fangbeer · Jan 29, 2018

DarkSkies said: ↑

Their business is to provide access to the internet. Not dictate which sites I visit and how often because they want to charge by habits or any other measure which is none of their business in the first place.

Your questions suggest that ISPs should have more control over how we use the Internet and they shouldn't. Net neutrality means that, for hypothetical example, I and or PoliticalForum won't be charged more for the traffic used versus it being cheaper to visit CNN.com. I shouldn't pay more or less for the sites I visit or how I use the internet. Net neutrality ensures that.
Click to expand...

You’re assertion is 180 degrees out. I’m not suggesting the ISP have more control over us. I’m suggesting we have more control over them. Giving the government the control of ISP does not give US more control of ISPs. If an ISP does something I don’t like I want the option to go to a different ISP. If an ISP wants to provide a tailored contract to meet my specific needs I want them to be able to without being handcuffed by government regulation designed to meet the average person’s needs.

If I want to start an ISP that ONLY provides access to Microsoft’s network, and I buy the hardware to support that service, and I dedicate my entire bandwidth to serving Microsoft online clients, and I sell that service to people who only want to use their xbox live accounts, why is that a bad thing? Why is that...controlling what people have access to, or whatever? Not only would be making a lot of Xbox live players happy by being able to dedicate my service to their needs, but I’d also be freeing bandwidth for the people who would have had to compete with xbox users on their own ISPs.

Hell, you have a library in town, don’t you? Do you have to have free access to every book on the planet in order for it to call itself a library?

Fangbeer · Jan 29, 2018

clennan said: ↑

Unfortunately, I'm quite sure that you're still confused.
Click to expand...

Said the guy who has no argument to refute what I said.

Nightmare515 · Jan 29, 2018

Antiduopolist said: ↑

Good points again, but people - tens of millions - are MUCH more internet dependent than you may realize, from home businesses (as you mentioned), to older people, to the disabled, students & all manner of everyday types who perform all kinds of activities online.

A good example of this last is online banking, bill payment and even leasing - I understand that many landlords ONLY operate online now!

But other than this gap, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
Click to expand...

True but what did the elderly, disabled, etc folks do before the internet? They survived.

But trust me I get it, the internet is becoming almost necessary in many cases. My bank is online only, there are no physical locations except for the main HQ. Without internet in my home my life would become exponentially more difficult because nearly every single monetary transaction I make is digital. Even if your landlord only operated online there is still the option of using public internet access if necessary. Online transactions are extremely convenient but the key word there is convenient.

I realize full well how intertwined the internet is with everyday life now. I sure as hell enjoy having it. However, a good chunk of my family operates just fine without the internet the way everybody did during all those years prior to the introduction of public widespread internet.

My point is, if I were trapped in my house and my internet went out for the next 30 days then I wouldn't die. I wouldn't be able to enjoy media and I'd have to pay bills the old fashioned way and have my bank mail me physical copies of my check stubs so I could see my money but I wouldn't die. However, if my power went out for the next 30 days and I was trapped in this house then I would literally die here because I NEED heat to survive and I have no alternative forms of heating for my home such as a pellet stove or fireplace or anything.

That's why I fully support the governments decision to prohibit utility companies from cutting folks power off here during the winter even if they haven't paid the bill in months. People would literally freeze to death if they did that. The internet on the other hand....I don't know, still not convinced that it's a life or death type of necessity.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

ButterBalls said: ↑

It's already included with your cell service. If you need it for your other devices enable a hot spot, added cost for faster transfers rates is hardly new, they already exist presently.. Free is jus another liberal mantra we have all come to realize, what about free electricity for the poor leftist that use a desktop to access the itrawebz, oh the humanity!
Click to expand...

As long as access to a neutral internet is free or cheap, it's all good.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

I have to go where you’re leading.

Am I wrong that you said that regulation isn’t the problem, and then proceeded to define regulation as the problem? You realize that when you complain about big companies owning the government what you’re complaining about is regulation, right?

And what the Mercedes example describes is exactly the same as paying long distance for a telephone call. It doesn’t matter how much you paid for your telephone (computer) ATT (carrier) would charge you extra to make a call to areas outside of a specific region. Now that practice is mostly a thing of the past, and why? What hand did the government have in forcing it’s monopoly buddy ATT into stopping the practice of charging extra for long distance calls? Very little. Ironically it was competition from the wired digital network that drove the analog network to reduce its prices. Now it’s competition from wireless networks that causes the wired digital networks to react.

But even with that competition business are going to work together to find ways to be productive. That doesn’t mean you should have the government step in to stop them. That’s how innovation works. For example, I have an Amazon fire TV. Amazon just recently blocked the Youtube app from its devices. I don’t need the government to step in to force Amazon to allow me access to the Youtube app, just like I don’t need them to step in to force BK to serve Pepsi, or to force ATT to allow me to call Puerto Rico without a long distance charge.
Click to expand...

Monopoly and collusion, and the fruit thereof, are the problem, yes.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

US Conservative said: ↑

That isn't a problem. Govt control when competition is a good thing-is.
Click to expand...

There is no competition. There is collusion and monopoly.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

The purpose of government control is to reduce allowed forms of competition, not expand them. That is what he is calling the problem. Competition is a good thing. Government control of a competitor reduces the good that competition produces.

Again, the issue people have is that they have limited access to internet providers. They want to solve this problem by using the government to further limit the providers. That solution completely ignores the problem. In fact it doubles down on the cause of the problem. It’s the government that is limiting your access to these providers in the first place.

If you want to solve the actual problem, limit the government’s ability to limit your access to providers so that competition can make the problem go away.
Click to expand...

No; you're still in the weeds.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Mac-7 said: ↑

Its funny

But if that were a real life policy then probably none of those angry customers would return

Just a slow internet providers would suffer as their customers go somewhere else
Click to expand...

There is nowhere else to go; monopoly and collusion.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

No it doesn’t eliminate control. What it does is take the control away from consumers and place it in the hands of the government. You know, the same government that’s colluding with the ISPs to create ISP monopolies in the first place.

If the ISPs have control of the government to establish monopolies in the first place, how exactly are things going to change? For example, if you can’t charge different rates for access to content you can’t have a contract that REDUCES THE COST of access to certain areas of the internet either. The ability to customize price & service is necessary for the competitive process. Rather than everyone paying the same thing for access to everything, individuals need the ability to pay what they want for access to what they want. Why would you want to force them to pay for things they don’t need?
Click to expand...

Truly spectacular; this is the most delicately extruded notgettingitness I've ever witnessed.

Or maybe you work for Big Telecom.

Either way, bravo - simply spectacular.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

Many people have brought up the idea that people use the internet to perform essential public functions. Banking for example. The problem with this logic is that the internet is currently the most efficient way to perform these tasks. If ISPs intentionally limit the efficiency of the internet’s performance, then the public will respond accordingly. After all, people banked long before the internet existed. How did they manage?

People will simply shift back away from internet banking, banks will respond accordingly and ISPs will lose clients who only use the service for banking.

On the other hand, what’s wrong with the ISP selling a service to people who only want to use the internet for banking? What’s the matter with paying 5 dollars a month, but being excluded from access to Netflix and Hulu? Why is that wrong if that’s something someone might be interested in buying?
Click to expand...

Seriously dude: spectacular.

Maybe people could be charged $5/month for each site they need to visit?

Now THAT would be fair for EVERYONE!

Especially those with limited means.

Why, free speech would thrive!

Commerce too!

What you're suggesting would create complete havoc, and all in service to Big Telecom monopoly and collusion.

But honestly, your idea is so bad even Big Telecom would reject it.

Spectacular.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Channe said: ↑

BK: That will be a 20 minute wait because you ordered the whopper.

Me: **** that, I'm going to Taco Bell.

BK: wait - i'm sorry, just kidding. Here's a free one on the house !

That's how reality works, progressives.
Click to expand...

No; the reality is that "BK" is usually the ONLY game in town to get certain essential items, or if there is another, or two others, they charge the same prices and use the same dirty tactics.

That's the reality.

There is no competiton.

Only monopoly and collusion.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

You’re the one looking at the problem narrowly. You’re concerned that ISPs can limit your access to the internet and there’s nothing you can do about it because you can’t choose to go to a different ISP. Why can’t you use a different ISP? It’s because the government limits the ISPs in your area. Yes, it has everything to do with limited access to ISPs.
Click to expand...

Yes - monopoly and collusion are the problem.

Yes, this is the problem.

The problem, it is this.

There is no competition, yes.

There is only monopoly and collusion.

Do you understand?

Is?

This?

Thing?

On?

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

Which system is better? Is it a system that charges 1 person 50 bucks a month to access part of the internet with an additional streaming video charge of 20 bucks a month? Or is it a system in which everyone simply pays 70 bucks a month?

Under net neutrality the first option is illegal and the second option is legal. Which is better for the ISP?

Do you understand that Net Neutrality is NOT something that necessary hurts the ISP in any way.

Why in the heck do you think all these major tech companies have come out in favor of it? You think it’s because it hurts them?
Click to expand...

Neither.

$50/month is WAY too much.

A neutral internet should be accessible for free or much more cheaply.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

You know what I’d like to do? I’d like to have multiple ISP contracts. I’d like a dedicated ISP for access to gaming servers. I’d like a dedicated ISP for access to entertainment servers. I’d like a dedicated ISP for acces to social media & the public domain. Can that work under net Neutrality? Not in the way you people are framing the problem.
Click to expand...

You'd like complete chaos.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

US Conservative said: ↑

I don't like my ISP-I fire them. Others do the same and they go out of business.

Can't fire govt.

Does freedom of choice scare you?
Click to expand...

Can't fire the only game in town.

If there are two or three, they're all price fixing and playing the same dirty game otherwise.

There. Is. No. Freedom. Of. Choice.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

DarkSkies said: ↑

You and @Nightmare515 have some pretty good posts in here. I just wanted to agree and add on to your point that also businesses heavily rely on the Internet because it is far more cost effective for users to use online services than it is for a business to hire reps and physical locations. Also, the amount of information one can get online and the amount of work they can get done makes the internet more of an necessity than luxury.
Click to expand...

Exactly - if people had to pay $5/month to access EACH website of EACH business...

That isn't good for anybody.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

This is just a terrible arguement. My position is not reliant on all problems being caused by government. It’s not one sided. What I’m arguing is that the primary uncouth business practice in the net neutrality debate is the collusion that takes place with government to set up the monopoly in the first place.

If BK tries an “uncouth business practice” that I don’t like I can choose from 100 other companies willing to offer me services that I do like. If, however, BK had an exclusive license with the government to be the only restaurant in my town, then BK is not the problem. It’s the exclusive license that is the problem. When the uncouth business is the problem I find a new business. When government is the problem I can’t switch to a different government. Certainly MORE REGULATION isn’t the solution either. The solution is to fix the regulation that gives BK the unfair advantage in the first place.
Click to expand...

We MAY be getting somewhere here...

If people can have access to a neutral internet freely or cheaply, I'm down with it.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

They have no business in their own business? A company’s business model is it’s own business, not yours, not the government’s. What nonsense. If an ISP wants to offer tailored packages to targeted users, and the targeted users want those contracts why is that wrong? Net neutrality makes that wrong.

Was it wrong for phone companies to charge long distance rates? Did we need the government to end that practice?
Click to expand...

Annnnnnnnnnnnnd we're back to square one...

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

DarkSkies said: ↑

Their business is to provide access to the internet. Not dictate which sites I visit and how often because they want to charge by habits or any other measure which is none of their business in the first place.

Your questions suggest that ISPs should have more control over how we use the Internet and they shouldn't. Net neutrality means that, for hypothetical example, I and or PoliticalForum won't be charged more for the traffic used versus it being cheaper to visit CNN.com. I shouldn't pay more or less for the sites I visit or how I use the internet. Net neutrality ensures that.
Click to expand...

And the implications of your example for genuine free speech are HUGE.

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Fangbeer said: ↑

Someone on fixed income might be more than happy with limited access to the internet in exchange for a reduced fee. Someone with a gaming fixation might only want access to Microsoft Online, and not give a damn about Netflix or Hulu. Someone with a Netflix account might want an ISP that caters specifically to Netflix users. There’s lots of reasons why someone might want a specific internet package. Not everyone uses the internet like you use it.
Click to expand...

^ Chaos. Disaster for commerce and free speech. Crushing for the poor.

What's not to love?

Antiduopolist · Jan 29, 2018

Polydectes said: ↑

If you had to pay 25 bucks for something you could get elswhere for 3 bucks, the Persian charging 25 dollars would be out of business very quickly.

This applies to all products and services.
Click to expand...

Not ISPs.

They're the only game in town, or one of two or three with identical bad practices/fixed prices.

Log in or Sign up

Burger King's BRILLIANT New Ad Teaches Important Lesson

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

clennan Well-Known Member Past Donor

clennan Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Burger King's BRILLIANT New Ad Teaches Important Lesson

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

clennan Well-Known Member Past Donor

clennan Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Antiduopolist Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches