Net Neutrality Your Way

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,532
Whopper Neutrality was repealed so now how many MBPS (Making Burgers Per Second) are you willing to pay for? Hats off to Burger King for explaining the basics of Net Neutrality to the layman. And kudos for getting us to put a free Burger King ad on our news page. Well played Mr. King, well played. Damn shame the closest Burger King is ten miles away and Kelly's Burger Stand is right next door. Thanks cageymaru.

Check out the video.

The repeal of Net Neutrality is a hot topic in America, but it can be very difficult to understand. That’s why the BURGER KING brand created WHOPPER Neutrality, a social experiment that explains the effects of the repeal of Net Neutrality by putting it in terms anyone can understand: A WHOPPER sandwich.
 
This is kinda retarded.
Guys, this is fast and slow internet.
Just like how every single ISP currently prices their speed packages.
FIOS (verizon) sells access at 10mbit, 30mbit, 50mbit, 100mbit, 1000mbit. Each one comes at different price points.
Guess what? Prices increases with faster speed.
How does net neutrality address that? It doesn't. Therefore this analogy sucks and doesn't apply.
 
A better analogy would be if burger king decided to sell big macs and wendy's frosty's.
If you wanted a big mac, you'll have to wait 15 minutes because it's a competing product. Mcdonalds didn't pay burgerking anything so they feel the need to slow down the amount they can give to the customer (because they're purposely slowing it down).
Wendy's frosty's on the other hand they can spit out right away because wendy's cut them a deal where they pay burgerking 25% of all sales.

That would be an example of net neutrality. This? It just confuses people. NN was never made to make sure everyone gets the same speed, which is what this "experiment" is implying.
 
This is kinda retarded.
Guys, this is fast and slow internet.
Just like how every single ISP currently prices their speed packages.
FIOS (verizon) sells access at 10mbit, 30mbit, 50mbit, 100mbit, 1000mbit. Each one comes at different price points.
Guess what? Prices increases with faster speed.
How does net neutrality address that? It doesn't. Therefore this analogy sucks and doesn't apply.


And with NN gone, you can be paying for 1000Mb/s (Capital M, Lowercase b), but VZ only gives you those speed to their own network (which would be intranet service, not internet). Then on the backend they throttle services like netflix to 10Mb/s unless you pay an additional fee, on top of your 'INTERNET" fee.... It has nothing to do with the base speed you are paying for, and everything to do with ISPs manipulating traffic to kill competition, block news they don't agree with, or just plain effing extort companies for money....
 
And with NN gone, you can be paying for 1000Mb/s (Capital M, Lowercase b), but VZ only gives you those speed to their own network (which would be intranet service, not internet). Then on the backend they throttle services like netflix to 10Mb/s unless you pay an additional fee, on top of your 'INTERNET" fee.... It has nothing to do with the base speed you are paying for, and everything to do with ISPs manipulating traffic to kill competition, block news they don't agree with, or just plain effing extort companies for money....
But this analogy they're slowing down their own services/products for increased price. That's the problem. that's already being done and that's totally legal.
 
OMFG ... the best commercial I've ever seen.

The big cup at the end of the cherry on top.

Thanks for sharing. I'm linking this on facebook now.
 
But this analogy they're slowing down their own services/products for increased price. That's the problem. that's already being done and that's totally legal.

But within each one of those speed tiers with NN all traffic is treated equally. Without NN that's no longer the case. Indeed even at the slowest tiers an ISP can favor their traffic such that the prioritized traffic could have higher bandwidth than non-prioritized traffic at faster tiers.
 
A better analogy would be if burger king decided to sell big macs and wendy's frosty's.
If you wanted a big mac, you'll have to wait 15 minutes because it's a competing product. Mcdonalds didn't pay burgerking anything so they feel the need to slow down the amount they can give to the customer (because they're purposely slowing it down).
Wendy's frosty's on the other hand they can spit out right away because wendy's cut them a deal where they pay burgerking 25% of all sales.

That would be an example of net neutrality. This? It just confuses people. NN was never made to make sure everyone gets the same speed, which is what this "experiment" is implying.

Nope, that is a worse analogy, your analogy would be Comcast providing you with a Time Warner connection.

Also what Heatlesssun said, you pay for an access speed. What is going to happen is you will being paying for an access speed and also content access.
 
But this analogy they're slowing down their own services/products for increased price. That's the problem. that's already being done and that's totally legal.

Actually one person said in the video the burgers were clearly already made. Burger King employees were purposefully delaying the speed at which specific items were getting to the customer. You can even hear the employees offer alternative products at much faster speed (chicken sandwich). This is a pretty good comparison to what ISP are looking to capitalize on with the repeal of NN.

Speed of internet being paid for = burgers sitting in the heating lamp.
**IE same speed for the provider of service to create the product for reception


Speed lanes of internet with repeal of NN = Speed of handing out food to customers as the final product.

Your complaint is apples and oranges about what STAGE of the argument is being made here, kitchen stage or customer stage.
 
If you look at it as BK selling you a service and the burger is 3rd party content, then their analogy without NN is fine.
 
First off, these scenarios will probably never come to pass. Since NN has been repealed, which one of you has gotten a content service charge? "But muh portugal ISPs" really doens't apply to America.

Second, yes, if you treat the burgers as completely 3rd party content, then it makes sense, but even in that scenario, most of the ISPs have their own content that they're trying to peddle as a priority. Case and point with AT&T with Direct TV. In that case, they're just not counting caps for that service which they fully own. I don't know how NN would affect that since it's only there to address slow/fast lanes depending on the content.

In this particular analogy, what's to stop the customer from saying "Fuck this, i'm walking across the street to Mcdonalds"? Absolutely nothing. In a real world NN nightmare scenario, you have no choice.
 
This is already illegal, because this sort of favoritism would run into anti trust law. This is a dumb argument if you're arguing for net neutrality. If an ISP in an area where there was no alternative favored one company over another that was offering the exact same service sue to a private agreement, they'd get sued.
 
This is kinda retarded.
Guys, this is fast and slow internet.
Just like how every single ISP currently prices their speed packages.
FIOS (verizon) sells access at 10mbit, 30mbit, 50mbit, 100mbit, 1000mbit. Each one comes at different price points.
Guess what? Prices increases with faster speed.
How does net neutrality address that? It doesn't. Therefore this analogy sucks and doesn't apply.

No its not, its more like saying one of these two things:
  1. COMCAST: "Hey Netflix, you want access to our customers? You pay us $1 million each year for access to to Comcast customers, or, we will slow down traffic from Netflix to Comcast customers to 1Mbps."
  2. COMCAST: "Hey user, yes we know you pay for Netflix, but if you want to get more than 3Mbps access to Netflix, you pay us $5/month and you get HD video streaming on Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, SlingTV etc., and 100Mbps like normal to elsewhere."
Scenario one is MUCH more likely.
 
Last edited:
In this particular analogy, what's to stop the customer from saying "Fuck this, i'm walking across the street to Mcdonalds"? Absolutely nothing. In a real world NN nightmare scenario, you have no choice.

Repeal of NN isn't going to offer customer more choice. But it does give ISP more power to do what's good for them.
 
Misleading false analogy. NN was enacted in 2015. Repealing NN only means returning to the pre-2015 standards. The Burger King video misleads people by imposing new rules to ordering burgers when a correct analogy would show Burger King returning to an older rule for ordering burgers.

The internet grew and thrived without NN and their is no logical reason to assume it will not continue to do so. NN is only an example of governmental over-reach imposing itself on the free market.
 
First off, these scenarios will probably never come to pass. Since NN has been repealed, which one of you has gotten a content service charge? "But muh portugal ISPs" really doens't apply to America.

Second, yes, if you treat the burgers as completely 3rd party content, then it makes sense, but even in that scenario, most of the ISPs have their own content that they're trying to peddle as a priority. Case and point with AT&T with Direct TV. In that case, they're just not counting caps for that service which they fully own. I don't know how NN would affect that since it's only there to address slow/fast lanes depending on the content.

In this particular analogy, what's to stop the customer from saying "Fuck this, i'm walking across the street to Mcdonalds"? Absolutely nothing. In a real world NN nightmare scenario, you have no choice.
The Portuguese example also fails, because it is only one MOBILE ISP that is doing it. The overall price for an "unlimited plan" or "full internet package" didn't change either. So the mobile carrier changed their system for pricing but the overall cost of using all of those services didn't actually change. They just gave customers the option of using less services to pay less, and there is adequate competition between mobile carriers in Portugal, which is why they were allowed to do this. Portugal is a Net Neutrality regulated country.
 
Repeal of NN isn't going to offer customer more choice. But it does give ISP more power to do what's good for them.
Real of NN doesn't give the customer more choice, reenacting title 2 NN doesn't give the customer more choice either.

The point was that this doesn't address the underlying issue which is no choice. If the customer had a choice (in this case, burger king wanted to screw over the customer but there was an option a store away like a taco bell or mcdonalds) they could choose with their two feet and decide. In real life with ISPs, there is almost no choice.
 
Unless it's bk giving people food faster who pay for Express eating then the ad is bullshit.
 
First off, these scenarios will probably never come to pass. Since NN has been repealed, which one of you has gotten a content service charge? "But muh portugal ISPs" really doens't apply to America.

Second, yes, if you treat the burgers as completely 3rd party content, then it makes sense, but even in that scenario, most of the ISPs have their own content that they're trying to peddle as a priority. Case and point with AT&T with Direct TV. In that case, they're just not counting caps for that service which they fully own. I don't know how NN would affect that since it's only there to address slow/fast lanes depending on the content.

In this particular analogy, what's to stop the customer from saying "Fuck this, i'm walking across the street to Mcdonalds"? Absolutely nothing. In a real world NN nightmare scenario, you have no choice.

:LOL:

So what are you willing to bet that nothing will change? I'm willing to bet that your going to see exactly what I said over the next 3-5 years.
 
Net Neutrality is just more government regulation in an industry that absolutely does not need it. There wasn't a problem when it was enacted just a couple years ago and there hasn't been on since it was repealed. Many big corporations want it though, especially ones that dish out a ton of bandwidth. The free market will easily sort this out, though it will do so more effectively with more competition in the Internet provider market.
 
The Portuguese example also fails, because it is only one MOBILE ISP that is doing it. The overall price for an "unlimited plan" or "full internet package" didn't change either. So the mobile carrier changed their system for pricing but the overall cost of using all of those services didn't actually change. They just gave customers the option of using less services to pay less, and there is adequate competition between mobile carriers in Portugal, which is why they were allowed to do this. Portugal is a Net Neutrality regulated country.
I know, i actually looked up the website that the mobile company advertised (they still are advertising their very limited mobile internet packages which have select services) and saw that not only did they offer these limited internet for phone services, but also unlimited and regular service (by the gig). It was used as an example all over the place of how every single ISP will look like in the future if NN was repealed which is why i brought it up.
 
:LOL:

So what are you willing to bet that nothing will change? I'm willing to bet that your going to see exactly what I said over the next 3-5 years.
Sure, we'll see how it plays out in 3-5 years. The customer blow back for companies screwing around with their entertainment would be so huge because it's the #1 thing that most Americans care about.

I think any company that tries to force this on a customer is basically committing corporate suicide.
 
NN limits the power of ISPs to impact negatively its customers.
NN through title 2 enforces utility like regulations on an industry which is for profit (unlike the utility companies which have been under title 2 for the longest time and are mostly non-profit).
I'd say that it does nothing to address the service issue which exists in many ISPs, it doesn't force them to invest in infrastructure (thus not increasing speeds for the longest time) and it doesn't address increases in price for the same service.

So throttling which is an issue (almost no ISP admitted to throttling netflix because they would have been taken to the FTC for resolution/fines as many in the past who tried to block competing services were) isn't the biggest issue when it comes to impacting the quality of the service to their customers.
 
Misleading false analogy. NN was enacted in 2015. Repealing NN only means returning to the pre-2015 standards. The Burger King video misleads people by imposing new rules to ordering burgers when a correct analogy would show Burger King returning to an older rule for ordering burgers.

The internet grew and thrived without NN and their is no logical reason to assume it will not continue to do so. NN is only an example of governmental over-reach imposing itself on the free market.

You're ignorant of the facts. Go back and look and do some research. You're doing not only yourself a disservice but this community as well by parroting what other ill-informed people have said. Lot's of companies withheld services and other types of asshatery type shit back in the day. Inform yourself. There are numerous instances and reasons why Net Neutrality was enacted. It just didn't suddenly POP! into the rule books overnight. Net Neutrality was not some political bs money grab law, unlike what repealing the existing law is. Net Neutrality was meant to protect you, myself, your Family and friends. Over-reach my ass. What do you think Trump and the FCC are doing? OVER-REACHING ..... open your eyes, educated yourself and inform others around you. This is not some political type bs ... it's a LAW to protect all of us. It's that simple.
 
You're ignorant of the facts. Go back and look and do some research. You're doing not only yourself a disservice but this community as well by parroting what other ill-informed people have said. Lot's of companies withheld services and other types of asshatery type shit back in the day. Inform yourself. There are numerous instances and reasons why Net Neutrality was enacted. It just didn't suddenly POP! into the rule books overnight. Net Neutrality was not some political bs money grab law, unlike what repealing it is. Net Neutrality it was meant to protect you, myself, your Family and friends. Over-reach my ass. What do you think Trump and the FCC are doing? OVER-REACHING ..... open your eyes, educated yourself and inform others around you. This is not some political type bs ... it's a LAW to protect all of us. It's that simple.
Companies have been taken to task in the past by the FTC, not the FCC. Repealing NN has to do with the title 2 utility like clause which was put into effect in 2015.
 
Sure, we'll see how it plays out in 3-5 years. The customer blow back for companies screwing around with their entertainment would be so huge because it's the #1 thing that most Americans care about.

I think any company that tries to force this on a customer is basically committing corporate suicide.

That would work if the majority of consumers had a choice, but ultimately what is done is done, and I do not see your current administration reversing anything, so we will see in 3-5 years.

Also I think entertainment will pony up to the ISP's to insure their content is not throttled, it'll be the sites that can't afford to, or refuse to that will suffer.
 
This is already illegal, because this sort of favoritism would run into anti trust law. This is a dumb argument if you're arguing for net neutrality. If an ISP in an area where there was no alternative favored one company over another that was offering the exact same service sue to a private agreement, they'd get sued.

Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act. Good luck getting the "what if" bunch to understand it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Croak
like this
Companies have been taken to task in the past by the FTC, not the FCC. Repealing NN has to do with the title 2 utility like clause which was put into effect in 2015.

What are you even talking about? It's as if you are purposely avoiding the real issue at hand in some attempt to mislead a few people here. No one is talking about title 2 utility. Do you see the public talking specifically about this? No. Was this brought up in the Burger King commercial this tread is based off of? No. It's the fact that ISP's can now prioritize traffic whenever they see fit. It's only a matter of time before these practices creep in. The smoking gun is too hot to the touch is the only reason why we've not seeing this yet. But it will come.

Let me ask you this, everything aside .... do you think you're ISP doesn't care about making profits? Do they not want to somehow charge you more money? If the parent company of an ISP launches a new product/service and they can somehow slow a competitor ... you're telling me now that they have those tools, they wouldn't do that?

You've got to be kidding me. Are you with us or are you taking sides with these ISP's? I don't get it.

Net Neutrality served the the people, the greater good, mankind. Everyone was equal. It didn't put a single cent of profit into any one persons pocket. But ... you .... you take issue with that? That's something that hurts you, bother you. It's wrong in your book?

Explain to all of us how Net Neutrality hurts yourself, your friends, your Family. Please. We would loooooooooove to hear this. Let me tell you.
 
What are you even talking about? It's as if you are purposely avoiding the real issue at hand in some attempt to mislead a few people here. No one is talking about title 2 utility. Do you see the public talking specifically about this? No. Was this brought up in the Burger King commercial this tread is based off of? No. It's the fact that ISP's can now prioritize traffic whenever they see fit. It's only a matter of time before these practices creep in. The smoking gun is too hot to the touch is the only reason why we've not seeing this yet. But it will come.

Let me ask you this, everything aside .... do you think you're ISP doesn't care about making profits? Do they not want to somehow charge you more money? If the parent company of an ISP launches a new product/service and they can somehow slow a competitor ... you're telling me now that they have those tools, they wouldn't do that?

You've got to be kidding me. Are you with us or are you taking sides with these ISP's? I don't get it.

Net Neutrality served the the people, the greater good, mankind. Everyone was equal. It didn't put a single cent of profit into any one persons pocket. But ... you .... you take issue with that? That's something that hurts you, bother you. It's wrong in your book?

Explain to all of us how Net Neutrality hurts yourself, your friends, your Family. Please. We would loooooooooove to hear this. Let me tell you.
FTC will slap them with a fine if they're being non-competitive and purposely shutting down access to competition.

"Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act[4] prohibits “unfair methods of competition,” a term that courts have held encompasses all violations of the Sherman Act,[5] the primary federal antitrust law.[6] In applying Section 5, the FTC assesses most restrictive business agreements under the antitrust “rule of reason,” which seeks to determine whether the overall effect of a particular restraint is beneficial rather than harmful to the competitive process. A smaller category of “inherently bad” restrictive agreements will be condemned out of hand (without regard to any possible justifications) as “per se” illegal.

Under the general rule-of-reason framework, restrictive agreements that are not illegal per se will be challenged only if their anticompetitive effects outweigh their procompetitive benefits.[7] The rule of reason can be boiled down into a multipoint inquiry, which normally proceeds as follows.[8]"

Ex: FTC sued AT&T in 2014: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-fight-against-att-unlimited-data-throttling/
There's a whole list of problematic historic ISPs actions which lead to the FTC taking action. I'll let you read this if you're interested:
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices
 
That would work if the majority of consumers had a choice, but ultimately what is done is done, and I do not see your current administration reversing anything, so we will see in 3-5 years.

Also I think entertainment will pony up to the ISP's to insure their content is not throttled, it'll be the sites that can't afford to, or refuse to that will suffer.

I actually know a lot of people that have gone without an ISP to save money for periods of time. My friend with two kids dropped his ISP service and used only 3g ov3r his phone network and downloaded videos at Starbucks using their Wi-Fi for 3 months. There is a point where people will find alternatives if ISPs go nuts. ISPs know this.
 
Misleading false analogy. NN was enacted in 2015. Repealing NN only means returning to the pre-2015 standards. The Burger King video misleads people by imposing new rules to ordering burgers when a correct analogy would show Burger King returning to an older rule for ordering burgers.

The internet grew and thrived without NN and their is no logical reason to assume it will not continue to do so. NN is only an example of governmental over-reach imposing itself on the free market.

This is not true at all. The FCC has been enforcing Net Neutrality for years, this is not reversing just the 2015 law. When AT&T tried to block Vonage... the FCC stepped in. When Comcast throttled BitTorrent traffic, the FCC stepped in, all well before 2015, under Net Neutrality. Then, Verizon argued with the court that the FCC did not have the RIGHT to enforce Net Neutrality like they have been for years.

The court agreed, but told the FCC that if they used Title 2 and classified the ISPs as common carriers, like they did for plain old telephone service, then they COULD regulate them, as a carrier, not as a provider of content. That was what happened in 2015, they passed a law using Title 2 saying, YES, we DO have the right to regulate ISPs as common carriers.

Now that this is being repealed, AT&T COULD stop Vonage from traffic on their network. Comcast CAN throttle BitTorrent, this doesn't just erase what happened in 2015, it erases the entire history of the FCC being able to enforce Net Neutrality.
 
Yeah, but Gigus Fire -- even the incredibly liberal 9th Circuit ruled in favor of AT&T. Also, this was during the period when common carrier rules were applied, and those have been repealed.

So no, under the current rules it is not unfair to prioritize your own traffic and slow others that use a lot of bandwidth (say Netflix unless they pay $x per month for higher speeds to the ISP).
 
First off, these scenarios will probably never come to pass. Since NN has been repealed, which one of you has gotten a content service charge? "But muh portugal ISPs" really doens't apply to America.

Second, yes, if you treat the burgers as completely 3rd party content, then it makes sense, but even in that scenario, most of the ISPs have their own content that they're trying to peddle as a priority. Case and point with AT&T with Direct TV. In that case, they're just not counting caps for that service which they fully own. I don't know how NN would affect that since it's only there to address slow/fast lanes depending on the content.

In this particular analogy, what's to stop the customer from saying "Fuck this, i'm walking across the street to Mcdonalds"? Absolutely nothing. In a real world NN nightmare scenario, you have no choice.

I've mentioned this before, but my $53/mo AT&T DSL service isn't fast enough to stream DirecTV On Demand. Since the repeal of NN, I also haven't seen them rush to up my speed to the point where I can stream their content. And this is their top tier service, it's not like I can pay more to get faster speed.
 
Not
This is not true at all. The FCC has been enforcing Net Neutrality for years, this is not reversing just the 2015 law. When AT&T tried to block Vonage... the FCC stepped in. When Comcast throttled BitTorrent traffic, the FCC stepped in, all well before 2015, under Net Neutrality. Then, Verizon argued with the court that the FCC did not have the RIGHT to enforce Net Neutrality like they have been for years.

The court agreed, but told the FCC that if they used Title 2 and classified the ISPs as common carriers, like they did for plain old telephone service, then they COULD regulate them, as a carrier, not as a provider of content. That was what happened in 2015, they passed a law using Title 2 saying, YES, we DO have the right to regulate ISPs as common carriers.

Now that this is being repealed, AT&T COULD stop Vonage from traffic on their network. Comcast CAN throttle BitTorrent, this doesn't just erase what happened in 2015, it erases the entire history of the FCC being able to enforce Net Neutrality.
This is not true at all. The FCC has been enforcing Net Neutrality for years, this is not reversing just the 2015 law. When AT&T tried to block Vonage... the FCC stepped in. When Comcast throttled BitTorrent traffic, the FCC stepped in, all well before 2015, under Net Neutrality. Then, Verizon argued with the court that the FCC did not have the RIGHT to enforce Net Neutrality like they have been for years.

The court agreed, but told the FCC that if they used Title 2 and classified the ISPs as common carriers, like they did for plain old telephone service, then they COULD regulate them, as a carrier, not as a provider of content. That was what happened in 2015, they passed a law using Title 2 saying, YES, we DO have the right to regulate ISPs as common carriers.

Now that this is being repealed, AT&T COULD stop Vonage from traffic on their network. Comcast CAN throttle BitTorrent, this doesn't just erase what happened in 2015, it erases the entire history of the FCC being able to enforce Net Neutrality.
No, they wouldn't. While it is true that the FCC wouldn't be able to stop them, the FTC WOULD.
 
Back
Top