Burger King's BRILLIANT New Ad Teaches Important Lesson

I know several people who have bought goats to extricate themselves from that market.

 

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

 

I’d love to buy goats and chickens. There’s over 100 acres of preservation farm land right across the street, and 60 acres of golf course right behind me, but because my property is less than 2 acres, Uncle Sam says I can’t have either. Who should I sick the government on to solve that problem?

 

What is "govt control when competition"?

 

We need social media neutrality.

 

While I wait for you to clarify "govt control when competition", why would you like your ISP to choose which places you can visit online.

 

Competition and lack of regulation is what made the internet into what it is.

Govt control stifles this.

 

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.

 

Net neutrality quashes control. Specifically, it quashes control by ISPs. It enables all of us to go where we want on the internet.

Why would you like your ISP to regulate which places you can visit online?

 

Again, a regulation looking for a problem.

 

You have it exactly backwards.

If you'd think past your connection speed when playing world of warcraft you'd know this.

Competition benefits you. Govt control does not.

 

As this comment and your various previous analogies suggest, you haven't grasped what net neutrality - nor it's removal - means.

It has nothing to do with limited access to ISPs.

It concerns ISPs limiting your access to the internet - deciding which sites you can and cannot visit.

 

How so?

 

How awful was the internet in 2015 before this grab for power by the government?

 

The fabrication is that traffic non optimized would suffer from it's current delivery. As always, unconscious mouthbreathing from the left....

 

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

 

I would point out that McDonalds is already doing this, as they have added phone ahead orders at their stores, creating an additional pay extra line for better services.....

 

I don't it have it backwards at all - perhaps you don't understand what net neutrality is.

Removing net neutrality means ISPs can regulate which sites you visit online.

Again, please explain why would you like your ISP to control what you do online?

 

In what way did having the freedom to visit whichever sites you like make the internet "awful"?

 

And what if everywhere else is playing the same game - and you can bet they would be if there's money to be made.

 

You did before NN, and you still do. So what did NN do for you?

 

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?

 

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?

 

Net neutrality has always existed. Net neutrality regulations were introduced to maintain neutrality, further to violations by Comcast, Verizon and others.

So, what has it done? Allowed me to go wherever I want on the internet, both before and after 2015. And you too. This is something we taken for granted - not noticed as such.

On the other hand, a lack of net neutrality - losing the freedom we've always enjoyed - will be noticed.

 

Again, what did Obama's NN do for you. What was wrong with Clinton's NN?

If anything, the power grab by government would allow a partisan FCC to pick and choose winners. When it was democrat heavy there was a lot of talk about regulating content on the web. Do you really want government to have that power?