Burger King's BRILLIANT New Ad Teaches Important Lesson

Explain the ethical problem with Disney charging more for faster access to a ride? What if Disney simply got rid of the fast pass, but raised the price for everyone to compensate for the loss in revenue, would you like that better?

 

...who are wheelchair bound...

Just me? It seems to me that people should have free/cheap access to a neutral internet.

 

Cheap would be fine, including somewhat slower, as long as all have equal access to a neutral internet.

I think Jesus would have had the same difficulties, but His problem, yeah.

 

Company start up would be very easy if Comcast was creating a queue of disatisfied customers, like you claim they have the ability to do. Beyond that, start up companies can compete at a different service level. Comcast can’t be all things to all people, and competition drives new companies to innovate new services. A start up simply needs to provide customers with something that Comcast is not...better service, faster access to things that Comcast is limiting, etc.

The only thing that makes Monopolies difficult to uproot is the government regulation that supports them in the first place

 

Antiduopolist and Fangbeer are my two of my favorite posters. Sorry for the confusion.

First query: After googling "What limits the number of ISPs in Antiduopolist's area" I discovered there is a good chance that government regulations are what limits the number of ISPs in your area.

Examples from: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-ne...-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property.

and...

So the real bottleneck isn’t incumbent providers of broadband, but incumbent providers of rights-of-way. These incumbents — the real monopolists — also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval.

But still, don't you have access to several wireless services? HughesNet? AT&T? Others?

As for the second query, while I can see your point, I am torn between government control and free market implementation of this service. Because of my beliefs, I am tending toward a free market solution, but certainly realize it isn't quite that simple.

 

Do I get to make out with Minnie Mouse?

The necessity of cheap/free neutral internet access does not = a day at Disneyland.

 

Ooo - thank you.

I think monopoly is the big issue here, as with 3rd party political start ups. The fix is in 69 ways from Sunday; the roadblocks have been carefully built and are ruthlessly maintained. (Hence - for instance - why Bernie had to run Dem rather than Green or something else, but was still buggered.)

I live in a large metro area, but have two crappy & identically priced "choices" which charge obscene fixed prices for their monopolized services.

I think the free market can work with the goobermint or be left alone by it in many areas, but internet access has emerged as something much more necessary than luxurious, so we need to view it as more akin to public school access and less as a pathway to porn/Netflix shows.

 

Should I take this to mean you don’t have a problem with it? There doesn’t need to be a law that prevents Burger King from charging different rates for Whoppers based on the speed that the Whopper is delivered. After all, it’s exactly the same as Disney charging different rates for access to its rides, or ironically, Comcast charging different rates for different levels of bandwidth.

 

I'm not a christian, so I don't understand the relevance. But really, if you want something of value, you have to provide something of value. It's how things work in the real world.

 

I guess. Whatever they can afford.

Oreos are cheap.

 

There’s that government collusion there. Government ransom fees in the way of competition? Why do those fees need to be in the way? Why do net neutrality folks insist that the solution to government collusion is to place more regulatory control in the hands of .... government? That makes zero sense.

 

You are most welcome, thank you for your contributions to the forum.

I live in a rural area where the only choice is wireless. I had satellite internet which was crazy slow and went on the blink every time it rained. A small upstart company moved into our area, put up some antennas and started broadcasting internet through radio waves. We switched over to them, they removed my satellite dish, put up their receiver, and charged me a lower fee for internet service that is amazingly good.

I would imagine that it is government regulation that ultimately prevents other ISPs from coming into your area. I don't live within a municipal area so there is less regulation. The company we are with now is still quite small, serving only four counties in my state. More and more people have been switching to them and they are growing. Now THAT is the way it should work.

I think it is reasonable to compare it to the highway system. But I have not made up my mind on the issue. My intuition is telling me to side with a free market solution.

 

Nothing is free except the destruction of the value of labor by those on the left who want everything to be free or cheap.

 

I think it is reasonable to compare it to the highway system. But I have not made up my mind on the issue. My intuition is telling me to side with a free market solution.[/QUOTE]
In most places city governments make substantial money by selling monopoly rights to contractors for certain services. If you only have one or two providers blame your city fathers. Not Comcast or whoever.

 

Burger King has apparently lost sight of the reality that the only redeeming value to fast food is that it's fast and cheap.

 

Your quoting was mixed up, not sure if your reply was intended for me, it doesn't seem like it pertains to what I wrote. For example, I distinctly indicated that I do not live in a municipal area (meaning there are no city fathers).

 

This is like bringing a 40 ft python into your house to control the garden snakes in your back yard. You don't gain more control over your local government by empowering a central government that you have even less control over.

 

I think you're very good at micro-analysis, but you're not understanding the larger issues.

Kind of a tree/forest thing?

 

As long as folks have access to free/cheap neutral internet, it's all good.

 

^ Thread win.

 

Good points, but people do kinda need the internet these days...

 

I'm glad this worked out for you, and it CAN.

But honestly, regulation isn't the problem as much as collusion and monopoly is.

Big Telecom owns a stake in pretty much everything, including the goobermint.

Nightmare lays it out pretty well, so I won't try to compete.