Burger King's BRILLIANT New Ad Teaches Important Lesson

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?

 

Every problem is not government. Ruthless business, like current ISP practices, are also to blame. I am uninterested in a one sided discussion where you assume only gov't is the problem.

Gov't stepped in to stop uncouth business practices. As far as ISP monopolies go - I'd buy your argument if it weren't for the fact that cable companies have kept their shitty package services in place, with obscene prices, despite competition.

You will never see "$5 a month just for internet banking" because that is not in the interest of any company to offer.

 

It will never ****ing happen and people like me are not willing to pay for it. You want it? Go and tell your ISP you WANT less internet for the same price. None of us do.

 

The reason I keep repeating the question is because you won't answer it.

Instead, you keep posting erroneous descriptions of net neutrality, and clearly don't understand how it impacts ISP operations now, let alone if net neutrality regulations are abolished.

For instance, you say that net neutrality "forces ISPs to charge you for things you don’t use". And say, "Why in the heck do you think all these major tech companies have come out in favor of it?"

These statements alone make it perfectly clear that you're seriously confused.

 

Trust me, they'll all be doing the same. Why? Because there's money to be made.

Your choice = rock or hard place.

Why do want to relinquish access to the entire internet, in order to profit ISPs?

 

???????

An ISP is literally an Internet service provider. It is literally their function to provide users with Internet access. No, they have no business screwing with any of the access or flows after users paid for the access.

The government is trying to keep the ISPs from interfering with the way you use the internet.

 

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.

 

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.

 

They haven't all done the same, and they won't if they want to stay in business.

If they chase off their customers, there is not money to be made.

And you aren't relinquishing access, if there is a demand it will be met.

 

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.

 

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?

 

That's supremely naive.

Competition will prove a leveling process - the bar will be lowered across the board so that if they're all bad, no one's at risk of going out of business. You, on the other hand, will be left to make your pick of a poor bunch.

If you want to do away with net neutrality, of course you're relinquishing access.

You will no longer be able to access the whole of the internet.

You'll have to accept what's available.

 

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.

 

Who in their right mind would want the "contracts" that ISPs would offer when they already have access to the entire internet?

 

I see you are falling back to talking points. Go with it.

 

To your last questions: we cannot compare phone companies, which could only deal mostly with local access, to ISPs which grant you access to the world web.

 

Dodge.

 

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.

 

The infrastructure is not so dissimilar. Comcast has a network backbone that has to interface with other content providers AND other carrier backbones in the same way telecom networks interfaced.

 

For a reduced fee?

ISPs simply connect you to the internet. That's what their fee is for. What you do on the internet makes no difference to them.

 

There are some fundamental differences though. With telecoms you have dedicated networks owned by the telecoms themselves whereas with ISPs you are given access to networks of networks, which aren't owned by ISPs.

 

It illustrates why there isn't a problem that net nutrality is repealed. If you had to pay 25 dollars for a burger you wouldn't buy burgers from them asn't more.

Net nutrality only was in effect from 2015. Applying net nutrality didn't correct or fix any problem.

 

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.

 

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?

 

The telecoms did the same thing. Every building in NY had its own private phone network that the telecoms would interact with. Still does.

Dial 9 for an outside line? That's not a telecom owned network...