Burger King Has an Opinion on Net Neutrality(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Burger King Has an Opinion on Net Neutrality
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-24/net-neutrality-movement-finds-a-fast-food-friend-in-burger-king
108 comments
Not sure I agree with your points. If this were a fatter pipe situation, it'd be like $26 gets a Triple Whopper or something (is that a thing there? Don't know). Instead, it is a matter of getting access to it quicker. With ISPs, you're not paying for the data (it is owned/provided by someone else), you're paying for the capacity to access it. What it is saying is that you'd be prioritized in queue to get to the data (Whopper) based on paying extra with no direct impact to quality of the data (paying extra for fatter pipe does impact quality of streaming, download speed, etc. though, but again, they don't say that the $26 Whopper is any better than the $5 one).
You make some valid points, but considering that the anti-net neutrality folks are making some terrible comparisons and lies to lure the public into backing them, is it really so bad for burger king to do the same?
yes? What's the point of combatting misinformation with misinformation?
not as bad of course, plus the intentions seem good, but still.
not as bad of course, plus the intentions seem good, but still.
When your opponent will win at any cost, sometimes you just have to do the same.
We saw bad (but winning) analogies in the UK media with the refendum on voting reform[0]. Ultimately the pro-reform side didnt have good analogies, and people failed to understand what they were voting for. FPTP is easy to explain and feels fair when explained in the laziest way.
"One person, one vote" was the winning campaign slogan. Powerful stuff.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...
We saw bad (but winning) analogies in the UK media with the refendum on voting reform[0]. Ultimately the pro-reform side didnt have good analogies, and people failed to understand what they were voting for. FPTP is easy to explain and feels fair when explained in the laziest way.
"One person, one vote" was the winning campaign slogan. Powerful stuff.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...
What lies are being used?
the main one I have seen them say is that "we didn't have net neutrality back in the day and everything was great" when there was throttling and disabling of services that actually triggered NN to be codified as law.
Well the more careful claim it that none of the violations were that bad and definitely not enough to justify regulation across the board, Stratchery sketches out that argument reasonably well.
I think it's broadly true that the internet was not, in fact, a dystopia during those times.
I think it's broadly true that the internet was not, in fact, a dystopia during those times.
>The issue is preferentially charging for data based on who is dumping it to their side of that pipe.
This has nothing to do with the recent order, it was legal before.
This has nothing to do with the recent order, it was legal before.
Think the ad adequately replicated the consumer frustrations to be had without net neutrality.
The consumer environment and drivers will be different, but the frustration will be the same.
The consumer environment and drivers will be different, but the frustration will be the same.
Regarding #2...if only there was a Burger King that I could pay to give me food as good as what they had 15 years ago.
We geeks do indeed need to be armed with apt analogies for Net Neutrality and its absence.
My current favorite is: toll booths that charge you different amounts depending on your destination. Or, highways with different speed limits depending on your destination.
My current favorite is: toll booths that charge you different amounts depending on your destination. Or, highways with different speed limits depending on your destination.
Mine is electricity. Imagine your electricity only allowed you to use Samsung's electronic. You can't use Phillips anymore, and you have to pay extra if you want to use Sony.
Normally, with competition between power supply companies, the result would be you get lower electricity price if you use Samsung's electronic, you are still allowed to use other brands' electronics, but you need to pay regular/higher price.
Nice one. Can I use that?
Those are both confusing analogies to me. Don't toll booths already charge you different amounts depending on your destination? We don't have "toll booths" here in Canada that I'm aware of, but on the express toll routes such as the 407 through Toronto, you're charged based on the distance you travel. Is it not the same in the US? I seem to recall that on the Ohio Turnpike you end up paying more if you're going from Toledo to Cleveland than you would if you got off at Sandusky, because you go through more booths.
Seems to me a more apt analogy would be that they lower the speed limit across the board, and then charge drivers more to get the original speed limit back.
Seems to me a more apt analogy would be that they lower the speed limit across the board, and then charge drivers more to get the original speed limit back.
You're paying for distance traveled, not the destination.
In Cleveland, the Great Lakes Science Center sits directly between the stadium where the Browns play, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which are all on the same block. https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=41.508389&mlon=-81.6955&...
Now say the stadium and the Rock and Roll Hall of fame have an agreement where customers get their tolls covered, but the Science Center doesn't.
In Cleveland, the Great Lakes Science Center sits directly between the stadium where the Browns play, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which are all on the same block. https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=41.508389&mlon=-81.6955&...
Now say the stadium and the Rock and Roll Hall of fame have an agreement where customers get their tolls covered, but the Science Center doesn't.
I think the parent meant they charge you different prices for going the same distance on the toll road, if e.g. one driver's final destination was the movie theater, and the other driver's was the post office next door.
>Seems to me a more apt analogy would be that they lower the speed limit across the board, and then charge drivers more to get the original speed limit back.
That would be a jerk move, but not a violation of road/net neutrality since it applies equally to all.
(I generally don't like how people call every bad ISP practice a violation of net neutrality; not everything bad is a violation.)
>Seems to me a more apt analogy would be that they lower the speed limit across the board, and then charge drivers more to get the original speed limit back.
That would be a jerk move, but not a violation of road/net neutrality since it applies equally to all.
(I generally don't like how people call every bad ISP practice a violation of net neutrality; not everything bad is a violation.)
Thanks for the thoughts. Room for improvement.
I had in mind something more like a bridge toll. Two people leaving NYC, one going to New Jersey, the other to Pennsylvania. To get over the George Washington bridge, they are charged different amounts.
The bridge authority (Comcast) is in bed with Jersey (Netflix), so they have an incentive to Charge the PA people (Hulu) more and keep the Jersey traffic flowing.
I had in mind something more like a bridge toll. Two people leaving NYC, one going to New Jersey, the other to Pennsylvania. To get over the George Washington bridge, they are charged different amounts.
The bridge authority (Comcast) is in bed with Jersey (Netflix), so they have an incentive to Charge the PA people (Hulu) more and keep the Jersey traffic flowing.
nitpick: Comcast owns a 30% stake in hulu. If anything, the preferential treatment would be the other way around.
Toll booths charging more if your car is red, or if it’s a certain brand, or if you have a Wyoming license plate.
A highway intentionally halving its speed limit, and then asking you money if you wish to drive fast (at the original speed limit)
An airline charging you extra if you have a certain brand of products in your checked bag, even though it’s within the weight allowances.
A highway intentionally halving its speed limit, and then asking you money if you wish to drive fast (at the original speed limit)
An airline charging you extra if you have a certain brand of products in your checked bag, even though it’s within the weight allowances.
An electric company charging a different rate based of the brand of devices you use (e.g. higher rate for companies that didn't made deal with them), and outright blocking battery packs and solar panels.
No No, the bridge decides that Toyota is too popular so when you drive across in a Prius they put you in the really bumpy slow lane that sometimes has a hole through the bottom of the bridge in it. XD
> Don't toll booths already charge you different amounts depending on your destination
Yea the mid-west toll roads and the Chicago Skyway will charge per segment (I think). The DC metro system and Seattle's Link Lightrail also charges you based on how far you ride (you tap in and out and it calculates the fare based on zones traveled. Seattle just has two zones though).
A lot of transit systems charge by zone, and with network traffic you're really talking about fair relaying between all intermediate hops. The analogy doesn't really work. I don't think I'd try to use it.
Yea the mid-west toll roads and the Chicago Skyway will charge per segment (I think). The DC metro system and Seattle's Link Lightrail also charges you based on how far you ride (you tap in and out and it calculates the fare based on zones traveled. Seattle just has two zones though).
A lot of transit systems charge by zone, and with network traffic you're really talking about fair relaying between all intermediate hops. The analogy doesn't really work. I don't think I'd try to use it.
Not anywhere I've been on a toll road in New England. If I go from Kittery to Kennebunk, I pay the same $3 toll at the York tollbooths as if I drove all the way up to Portland. Bizarrely, there are some interesting loopholes you can hit to avoid tolls by getting on and off at certain exits, as opposed to other neighboring exits.
I commuted the Maine Turnpike for a little over a year, and the difference between naive routing and toll-optimized routing could be five or six dollars a day.
I commuted the Maine Turnpike for a little over a year, and the difference between naive routing and toll-optimized routing could be five or six dollars a day.
Perhaps drivers should be offered a discount if they're willing to drive slower or shorter distances.
These arguments presuppose that rates will go up, and maybe they will. But then that's the real argument: you'll pay more for what you're getting today.
These arguments presuppose that rates will go up, and maybe they will. But then that's the real argument: you'll pay more for what you're getting today.
[deleted]
Agree. A better food analogy would be like some all-you-can-eat 'consignment-style' buffet where a venue provides booths for vendors and charges customers an entry fee. Then at some point the venue realizes that customers are really liking one or two vendors, consuming a lot of their food, so the venue decides to also start charging those vendors people consume the most food from.
Or alternatively, customers can pay an extra $X per month to get unlimited food from the most popular vendors. But now other vendors are suffering because no-one wants to pay for them when they've already paid for their free pass to the popular ones.
Net neutrality isn't always charging more for things. Often it's more like "all our mobile plans come with UNLIMITED data for Facebook and YouTube." Which actually seems nice for consumers but hurts any other site trying to inhabit the same space.
Net neutrality isn't always charging more for things. Often it's more like "all our mobile plans come with UNLIMITED data for Facebook and YouTube." Which actually seems nice for consumers but hurts any other site trying to inhabit the same space.
That's a key question - if dropping NN benefited just the titans, that would certainly be stifling the competition. But is it?
The most infamous example in the US is TMobile's Binge On, which has a pretty big list of participating services [1] including even a few porn sites. I just don't see evidence that this is tilting things further towards entrenched powers (yet).
1: https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video-list...
The most infamous example in the US is TMobile's Binge On, which has a pretty big list of participating services [1] including even a few porn sites. I just don't see evidence that this is tilting things further towards entrenched powers (yet).
1: https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video-list...
I have just the worst feeling looking at this page.
How do you qualify your service to get into that offering? What happens when t-mobile gets bought be someone who wants to make a youtube competitor?
How do you qualify your service to get into that offering? What happens when t-mobile gets bought be someone who wants to make a youtube competitor?
If I had T-Mobile I would definitely take advantage of zero-rated streaming. Naturally this service is influencing people's choices about what sites to visit and 'binge on' when they have down time. Evidence of this can be gleaned from the reviews from content providers that have gotten themselves onto T-Mobile's Binge-On list...
Of course there is always a catch. I was interested in what that catch currently looks like, since it will never be more mild than now. I've facetiously paraphrased it for ya'll (if you'd rather read the policy first hand, without the snark, I've linked it below)...
--------------------
Binge-On Content Provider Policy and Technical Criteria To be included, a content provider's video delivery will meet the following requirements:
A. [Allow us to identify and monitor your content, and we will help you degrade its quality, otherwise we'll make our best effort to degrade it for you lol]. Use of technology protocols which make detection of video difficult such as https and UDP require additional collaboration with T‐Mobile to enable the video detection.
B. [Any decisions to change the way you deliver video must flow through us.]. T-Mobile reserves the right to suspend the content provider’s participation in Binge On
C. [Your video content is all we want. You're a video streaming service, just stay a video streaming service. If you try to deliver other content, we will count that against our customers data cap].
D.The network caps the bandwidth to detectable videos to 1.5 Mbps and as a result, many video services will deliver videos at lower resolutions that will look good on mobile devices, typically 480p
F. T-Mobile reserves the right to [degrade] your content in the event of consistent failure to [degrade your own] content within our guidelines
[Lastly, for those that want to opt-out, fine. Just... keep in mind our customers have Bing-On switched on basically always, so that all content delivered to them is under 1.5 Mbps ~480p. If your company can't deal with that for technical reasons, you must OPT-IN to OPT-OUT, per se. That is, we need to identify and monitor your content (ie. stop using https) so we know not to throttle the content when our customers are using Binge-On (aka all our customers, always).
-------------------------
[1] https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Vi...
What Binge On providers
are saying. Many of the
smaller video providers
rave about Binge On and
what it means for their
business:
Since joining Binge On,
we’ve seen twice the
flow of new T-Mobile
customers coming to the
app and spending twice
as long than customers
of the carriers.”
-- David Moffly,
CEO, Baeble Media
Of course there is always a catch. I was interested in what that catch currently looks like, since it will never be more mild than now. I've facetiously paraphrased it for ya'll (if you'd rather read the policy first hand, without the snark, I've linked it below)...
--------------------
Binge-On Content Provider Policy and Technical Criteria To be included, a content provider's video delivery will meet the following requirements:
A. [Allow us to identify and monitor your content, and we will help you degrade its quality, otherwise we'll make our best effort to degrade it for you lol]. Use of technology protocols which make detection of video difficult such as https and UDP require additional collaboration with T‐Mobile to enable the video detection.
B. [Any decisions to change the way you deliver video must flow through us.]. T-Mobile reserves the right to suspend the content provider’s participation in Binge On
C. [Your video content is all we want. You're a video streaming service, just stay a video streaming service. If you try to deliver other content, we will count that against our customers data cap].
D.The network caps the bandwidth to detectable videos to 1.5 Mbps and as a result, many video services will deliver videos at lower resolutions that will look good on mobile devices, typically 480p
F. T-Mobile reserves the right to [degrade] your content in the event of consistent failure to [degrade your own] content within our guidelines
[Lastly, for those that want to opt-out, fine. Just... keep in mind our customers have Bing-On switched on basically always, so that all content delivered to them is under 1.5 Mbps ~480p. If your company can't deal with that for technical reasons, you must OPT-IN to OPT-OUT, per se. That is, we need to identify and monitor your content (ie. stop using https) so we know not to throttle the content when our customers are using Binge-On (aka all our customers, always).
-------------------------
[1] https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Vi...
Just to play devils advocate for a moment :)
1) The video showed that you could receive a chicken sandwich now. That you were only paying more to receive only ,specifically, a whooper faster. This I thought shows preferential treatment over different types of food (data).
2) the quality of the food was not an issue in this video everyone was receiving the 'same' whooper, presumably.
3) The example burger king made was not quite the same as bribing a Maitre d' to get a table faster than other customers due to limited table resources. The video showed them withholding whoopers that were already made and ready to go, for a certain time-frame, in order to shake down the customer for more money. The idea that others who paid more for their whooper got it faster, due to limited supply of whoopers, was not the issue. The issue was that burger king would be falsely creating a pipeline delay, simply to get money out of the end user.
Although, all metaphors will be mostly speculation, as far as how it will directly relate to future ISP behavior and it's relationship with the end users. How exactly US ISP's decide to use the repeal of net neutrality, debatably, remains to be seen. It would be quite hard to form a 100% accurate metaphor for something that hasn't been fully realized quite yet. I do not mean this to imply that the behavior would in anyway be good. simply that the specifics of it are still unknown.
As a side note I like to think burger king is also inadvertently creating a self-deprecating metaphor. I hope that in the Internet world it is also only the shitty food that is being tiered. If you have to pay more to get Google, Facebook, Amazon (terrible junk food) then no worries for me. Unfortunately that bit of speculation is probably way to optimistic. ;)
1) The video showed that you could receive a chicken sandwich now. That you were only paying more to receive only ,specifically, a whooper faster. This I thought shows preferential treatment over different types of food (data).
2) the quality of the food was not an issue in this video everyone was receiving the 'same' whooper, presumably.
3) The example burger king made was not quite the same as bribing a Maitre d' to get a table faster than other customers due to limited table resources. The video showed them withholding whoopers that were already made and ready to go, for a certain time-frame, in order to shake down the customer for more money. The idea that others who paid more for their whooper got it faster, due to limited supply of whoopers, was not the issue. The issue was that burger king would be falsely creating a pipeline delay, simply to get money out of the end user.
Although, all metaphors will be mostly speculation, as far as how it will directly relate to future ISP behavior and it's relationship with the end users. How exactly US ISP's decide to use the repeal of net neutrality, debatably, remains to be seen. It would be quite hard to form a 100% accurate metaphor for something that hasn't been fully realized quite yet. I do not mean this to imply that the behavior would in anyway be good. simply that the specifics of it are still unknown.
As a side note I like to think burger king is also inadvertently creating a self-deprecating metaphor. I hope that in the Internet world it is also only the shitty food that is being tiered. If you have to pay more to get Google, Facebook, Amazon (terrible junk food) then no worries for me. Unfortunately that bit of speculation is probably way to optimistic. ;)
Yea, the chicken sandwich example is .. interesting. I mean it works in this really basic example and I think it will help the lay-person get the general idea.
A more accurate analogy would be in a food court:
For free, you're allowed to access Taco Hell, Burger Thing, and Mc Doubles.
For $5/month, you get a special pass that also sets you access Suppression Chicken[1], Pizza Slut and Baskin Toboggans
For $8/month, you get an extended pass that lets you get into the line for a few more diabetes joins.
You can get in any of those lines without a pass, but it will cost $1/visit.
This is of course, limitation of service (which is already done in some countries, like Optus Australia which gives you unmetered Facebook and Twitter that doesn't count against your mobile data), or African ISPs that give people free Wikipedia (which is arguably, kinda a good thing -- which is what makes this tricky).
The other aspect is quality of service. Say you could get to all those fast food joins for free, but you bought passes that put you in different positions in the queues (which is more like what we see with the Burger King example). It's like the airport pre-check. Pay government extortion prices and you get to jump to the front of the line, while everyone else gets molested by the TSA.
[1] Chick-Fil-A .. if you didn't get that one
Edit: formatting
A more accurate analogy would be in a food court:
For free, you're allowed to access Taco Hell, Burger Thing, and Mc Doubles.
For $5/month, you get a special pass that also sets you access Suppression Chicken[1], Pizza Slut and Baskin Toboggans
For $8/month, you get an extended pass that lets you get into the line for a few more diabetes joins.
You can get in any of those lines without a pass, but it will cost $1/visit.
This is of course, limitation of service (which is already done in some countries, like Optus Australia which gives you unmetered Facebook and Twitter that doesn't count against your mobile data), or African ISPs that give people free Wikipedia (which is arguably, kinda a good thing -- which is what makes this tricky).
The other aspect is quality of service. Say you could get to all those fast food joins for free, but you bought passes that put you in different positions in the queues (which is more like what we see with the Burger King example). It's like the airport pre-check. Pay government extortion prices and you get to jump to the front of the line, while everyone else gets molested by the TSA.
[1] Chick-Fil-A .. if you didn't get that one
Edit: formatting
> Suppression Chicken[1]
>
> [1] Chick-Fil-A .. if you didn't get that one
CFA stopped funding all the super-militant anti-LGBT groups years ago. Huffington Post featured a story [1] about the CFA founder, Dan Cathy, becoming friends with prominent gay rights activist Shane Windmeyer, and some of the subsequent changes in how the organization handles things.
Unless you were referring to some other nefarious/sinister business aspect of which I am unaware? (Totally possible; I don't follow them terribly closely.)
[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-l-windmeyer/dan-cathy-c...
>
> [1] Chick-Fil-A .. if you didn't get that one
CFA stopped funding all the super-militant anti-LGBT groups years ago. Huffington Post featured a story [1] about the CFA founder, Dan Cathy, becoming friends with prominent gay rights activist Shane Windmeyer, and some of the subsequent changes in how the organization handles things.
Unless you were referring to some other nefarious/sinister business aspect of which I am unaware? (Totally possible; I don't follow them terribly closely.)
[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-l-windmeyer/dan-cathy-c...
I think the problem with this analogy is that nobody would argue that a mall or theme park doesn't have the right to do this. Hell delivery services could also do this too without much fuss. If Taco Hell wants to pay DoorStash to get preferential treatment on deliveries or to be excmpted from delivery fees they wouldn't even have to be sneaky about it -- both companies would probably advertise it as a feature.
> nobody would argue that a mall or theme park doesn't have the right to do this
I feel like the DisneyWorld / SixFlags priority / qbot system is all the commercial we should need to explain why fast lanes are bad. You can ride 4 rides in the time I stand in one line? you elitist pig.
I feel like the DisneyWorld / SixFlags priority / qbot system is all the commercial we should need to explain why fast lanes are bad. You can ride 4 rides in the time I stand in one line? you elitist pig.
Thanks, you just reminded me of the cringe worthy commercial-inside-a-commercial that theme parks like to do on the radio now. xD
Wikipedia is a nonprofit, so it is arguably different from a commercial company paying for preferential access.
> 1) The video showed that you could receive a chicken sandwich now. That you were only paying more to receive only ,specifically, a whooper faster. This I thought shows preferential treatment over different types of food (data).
I felt this wasn't emphasized enough.
I felt this wasn't emphasized enough.
The message was clear to me yet open to different interpretations.
1) The difference in cholesterol bandwidth is paid for by who is sponsoring this chicken sandwich. 2) Same, but colder. And waaaay late. Too bad their preferential sandwich is not sponsored to be in the "fast-lane" regardless of the subscribers plan. 3) Non-preferential content (ie. those who didn't pay off the ISP to fast-track their content) is at a competitive disadvantage.
1) The difference in cholesterol bandwidth is paid for by who is sponsoring this chicken sandwich. 2) Same, but colder. And waaaay late. Too bad their preferential sandwich is not sponsored to be in the "fast-lane" regardless of the subscribers plan. 3) Non-preferential content (ie. those who didn't pay off the ISP to fast-track their content) is at a competitive disadvantage.
Re #2, I hate it when my burgers are cold.
Maybe you weren't paying enough attention to the video. Customers could get chicken sandwiches quickly, but if they wanted a whopper quickly they had to pay extra. This is actually a pretty good analogy for net neutrality. Some things will be delivered at "full throttle" relative to whatever speed internet you've signed up for, other things (whoppers) will be throttled or even restricted in access, and you'll have to pay extra to unlock "full throttle" access.
I thought they handled 1) by acknowledging that paying for "faster" service was really just paying for the service they used to get by default. They weren't really creating a fast lane as much as artificially slowing down the normal lane, which is I think an apt analogy.
As for 3, that seems kind of a stretch. I thought they did a half decent job, I don't think it does more harm than good for sure.
As for 3, that seems kind of a stretch. I thought they did a half decent job, I don't think it does more harm than good for sure.
> 1) by acknowledging that paying for "faster" service was really just paying for the service they used to get by default.
This is what everyone is missing. There is no "fast lane" and we need to stop acknowledging that phrase. There is only "your "the service you currently pay for" and "artificially slowed traffic".
This is what everyone is missing. There is no "fast lane" and we need to stop acknowledging that phrase. There is only "your "the service you currently pay for" and "artificially slowed traffic".
This is one of the worst things Obama did for Net Neutrality -- tying its fate to paid prioritization because the public is too ignorant to understand any of the real complexities of NN.
The analogy works because the customers were portrayed to be 'trapped' in the slow lane, with no option but to pay the extra fee or wait. This is a compelling real life example that anyone can relate to. Of course, repeat customers would avoid such a burger joint - but it's a real debate if they would be able to avoid data selective ISPs given the low competition in most markets.
From an advocacy and PR point of view, it's a very good piece that conveys the extreme case in which they are not able to switch ISP.
From an advocacy and PR point of view, it's a very good piece that conveys the extreme case in which they are not able to switch ISP.
> This is a compelling real life example that anyone can relate to.
But that's not what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality is about netflix not being able to take more bandwidth than other streaming services. Net neutrality is fundamentally about producers and consumers sharing a path between them, with that path being neutral towards producers.
The burger king analogy pushes the costs of having a faster path to the consumer. In the case of net neutrality, the producers would be able to pay more to take more of the bandwidth. This wouldn't negatively affect consumers financially, but would affect the quality of service of other consumers.
It's important to get the distinction right because the consumers wouldn't be affected like the video portrays. They would simply get burgers at burger king faster, but much slower at mcdonalds. They wouldn't understand why mcdonalds isn't able to produce burgers faster, and they wouldn't be able to pay to get faster mcdonalds burgers. They would simply go to burger king.
But that's not what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality is about netflix not being able to take more bandwidth than other streaming services. Net neutrality is fundamentally about producers and consumers sharing a path between them, with that path being neutral towards producers.
The burger king analogy pushes the costs of having a faster path to the consumer. In the case of net neutrality, the producers would be able to pay more to take more of the bandwidth. This wouldn't negatively affect consumers financially, but would affect the quality of service of other consumers.
It's important to get the distinction right because the consumers wouldn't be affected like the video portrays. They would simply get burgers at burger king faster, but much slower at mcdonalds. They wouldn't understand why mcdonalds isn't able to produce burgers faster, and they wouldn't be able to pay to get faster mcdonalds burgers. They would simply go to burger king.
Burger King could pay for a larger store, with wider queues, but they're disincentivised from doing so without pushing the extra overhead onto the customer.
Same with Netflix, they could pay all of the tolls with all the of the ISPs, but do you really think they wont push that cost onto the user?
Same with Netflix, they could pay all of the tolls with all the of the ISPs, but do you really think they wont push that cost onto the user?
You may think this is funny, but Burger King is actually burger-washing a very serious issue.
Not only is fast food convenient, it is essential to the most vulnerable in our society. Burger King provides food fast and cheaply. Simply stated, working class people cannot afford not to eat fast food [1].
In many locations, Burger King is the only fast food restaurant in the area [2]. In many of those same locations, public transit is inadequate for the purposes of going to a competing fast food restaurant. Establishing a fast food restaurant that can compete with Burger King requires so much work and capital that doing so is impossible for someone already working two jobs. For all intents and purposes, Burger King has a monopoly on an essential service.
Here's where it gets scary. Burger King preferentially serves proprietary, branded food items, and beverages from Coca-Cola, for which they've made an exclusive, behind-closed-doors deal... for money [3]. Have you ever noticed that it's impossible to get a McDonald's Burger or a Pepsi at a Burger King? With customers being shut out from these discussions, it's not surprising that the products they serve are unhealthy.
The common sense solution to all of this is to classify fast food joints as public utilities, and then demand that they serve food without regard to its origin. Fast food is far more important than high speed internet. And while the repeal of net neutrality regulations lead to the death of the internet... the lack of food neutrality will lead to death.
/s
[1] http://frac.org/obesity-health/low-income-food-insecure-peop...
[2] http://www.fastfoodmaps.com/
[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/restaurants-that-serve-coke-v...
Not only is fast food convenient, it is essential to the most vulnerable in our society. Burger King provides food fast and cheaply. Simply stated, working class people cannot afford not to eat fast food [1].
In many locations, Burger King is the only fast food restaurant in the area [2]. In many of those same locations, public transit is inadequate for the purposes of going to a competing fast food restaurant. Establishing a fast food restaurant that can compete with Burger King requires so much work and capital that doing so is impossible for someone already working two jobs. For all intents and purposes, Burger King has a monopoly on an essential service.
Here's where it gets scary. Burger King preferentially serves proprietary, branded food items, and beverages from Coca-Cola, for which they've made an exclusive, behind-closed-doors deal... for money [3]. Have you ever noticed that it's impossible to get a McDonald's Burger or a Pepsi at a Burger King? With customers being shut out from these discussions, it's not surprising that the products they serve are unhealthy.
The common sense solution to all of this is to classify fast food joints as public utilities, and then demand that they serve food without regard to its origin. Fast food is far more important than high speed internet. And while the repeal of net neutrality regulations lead to the death of the internet... the lack of food neutrality will lead to death.
/s
[1] http://frac.org/obesity-health/low-income-food-insecure-peop...
[2] http://www.fastfoodmaps.com/
[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/restaurants-that-serve-coke-v...
The problem with this analogy is that the government don't give out the only available land to Burger King restaurants for free while at the same time make it practically impossible for any other restaurants to get access to land and compete. Government created monopolies on food access are indeed a major issue in nations which has had that (east Germany, war time rationing) and it would be more important than high speed internet.
Thankfully this doesn't happen with Burger King. Burger joints are common simply because the ease of starting one up and access to customers. No requirement to go and dig cables on government land, no last mile issues, just make a safe building and edible food and off you go.
Thankfully this doesn't happen with Burger King. Burger joints are common simply because the ease of starting one up and access to customers. No requirement to go and dig cables on government land, no last mile issues, just make a safe building and edible food and off you go.
In many places, the government's barriers to entry are worse for a fast food restaurant [1] than for, e.g., creating a WISP. So, I don't think your argument breaks the analogy.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/01/why-o...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/01/why-o...
Not to nit too much, but working class people certainly can afford to not eat fast food. In fact, it's cheaper and faster to cook simple meals. I believe you might have meant "working poor" instead.
I'm honestly not sure if all of your comment is meant sarcastically or just the end.
The statement that fast food be cheap and thus essential to "working class people" is utter nonsense, so I guess it is ironic.
The statement that fast food be cheap and thus essential to "working class people" is utter nonsense, so I guess it is ironic.
The entire comment was meant sarcastically ;-)
Well, /s or not, in Brazil Burger King is not allowed to close an exclusive deal with Coca-Cola.
They are still allowed to only sell Coca-Cola, but exclusive deals are viewed as an anti-consumer mechanism.
They are still allowed to only sell Coca-Cola, but exclusive deals are viewed as an anti-consumer mechanism.
You say this sarcastically, but I would seriously 100% support the government creating public cafeterias / "Automats" with prepared food served cheaply and without profit, to help increase the availability of nutrition for both poor and working class people.
A "public food utility" in the US is actually a really great idea that should happen, similar to how public drinking water utilities in the US exist.
A "public food utility" in the US is actually a really great idea that should happen, similar to how public drinking water utilities in the US exist.
> similar to how public drinking water utilities in the US
But way more similar to a large number of good intentions that resulted in mass starvation.
But way more similar to a large number of good intentions that resulted in mass starvation.
> Burger King restaurants are independent franchisees but the brand is owned by Restaurant Brands International, based in Ontario, Canada.
While it's true that the headquarters is in Ontario, RBI is majority owned by 3G Capital out of Brazil. They moved the RBI HQ to Ontario ostensibly for tax reasons when they acquired Tim Horton's. Burger King's HQ still appears to be in Miami. So I'm not sure if it's wholly honest to make this seem like a Canadian company doing this, they're just the middle parent of a U.S. HQ > Canada HQ > Brazil HQ ownership chain.
While it's true that the headquarters is in Ontario, RBI is majority owned by 3G Capital out of Brazil. They moved the RBI HQ to Ontario ostensibly for tax reasons when they acquired Tim Horton's. Burger King's HQ still appears to be in Miami. So I'm not sure if it's wholly honest to make this seem like a Canadian company doing this, they're just the middle parent of a U.S. HQ > Canada HQ > Brazil HQ ownership chain.
Anyone else notice the name tags on the employees? Vint (Cerf) and Robert (Kahn)!
Perhaps we can just embrace this new reality of corporate decision making in politics, and game the system. If companies like Burger King can be brought to the consumer's side on certain issues, perhaps it's possible to rally many others to bring powerful special interests to heel. Imagine a future where rather than jamming stupid advertisements down our throats, companies can just straight up "buy" the good will of their consumers for a time by openly opposing certain things legally. If the citizen's only worth to political discourse is the amount of cash they have in the bank and how they spend it, then maybe this is just the natural evolution of democracy to a more pure, unpretentious form.
Special interest groups already dictate policy. There have been actual studies on that, and I did a video on one of them a while back:
http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen...
I'm currently working on a post called "You can't vote with your purchases" which is something I feel a lot of libertarians and capitalists spew out. Don't like Wal-Mart? Don't shop there.
The trouble is you really can't. Edward Bernays and Anna Freud really changed the game when they started teaching companies how to market to people emotionally to draw them in. I know tons of people, myself included, who don't shop at Wal-Mart, but it doesn't make a dent. Wal-Mart can still manipulate millions of people with their extensive ad campaigns, and most people simply don't care.
Tobacco companies got women to smoke more by disusing it as being part of women's rights (look up Torches of Freedom).
McDonalds led a PR campaign against "frivolous lawsuits" from the women who got 3rd degree, life threatening burns from their coffee, that people still believe to this day (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ).
The Baptist church didn't put a dent in Disney by boycotting them. Even MLKings Montgomery bus boycotts didn't succeed due to financial pressure. They succeeded because the news and media attention got so huge that the Supreme Court had to step in.
Every company does something unethical. Your processors are manufactured in Malaysia by people who get paid barely enough to live on, your shoes are made in Africa by companies driving people off their land and into the cities to work in factories, your shirts are made in South American sweat shops .. just by living in a high income country (US, EU, AU, even Russia) you are part of a river of exploitation (the book The Culture of Make Believe goes into this in detail).
To vote with purchases requires all the actors to be active, uncompromising and aware .. and that simply never will be the case.
http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen...
I'm currently working on a post called "You can't vote with your purchases" which is something I feel a lot of libertarians and capitalists spew out. Don't like Wal-Mart? Don't shop there.
The trouble is you really can't. Edward Bernays and Anna Freud really changed the game when they started teaching companies how to market to people emotionally to draw them in. I know tons of people, myself included, who don't shop at Wal-Mart, but it doesn't make a dent. Wal-Mart can still manipulate millions of people with their extensive ad campaigns, and most people simply don't care.
Tobacco companies got women to smoke more by disusing it as being part of women's rights (look up Torches of Freedom).
McDonalds led a PR campaign against "frivolous lawsuits" from the women who got 3rd degree, life threatening burns from their coffee, that people still believe to this day (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ).
The Baptist church didn't put a dent in Disney by boycotting them. Even MLKings Montgomery bus boycotts didn't succeed due to financial pressure. They succeeded because the news and media attention got so huge that the Supreme Court had to step in.
Every company does something unethical. Your processors are manufactured in Malaysia by people who get paid barely enough to live on, your shoes are made in Africa by companies driving people off their land and into the cities to work in factories, your shirts are made in South American sweat shops .. just by living in a high income country (US, EU, AU, even Russia) you are part of a river of exploitation (the book The Culture of Make Believe goes into this in detail).
To vote with purchases requires all the actors to be active, uncompromising and aware .. and that simply never will be the case.
There are efforts to record the history and origin of manufactured items using bkockchain in the supply chain. It will probably end up increasing the price of the items though because only items created in a sustainable way will want to publish to a public ledger. You will be able to vote with purchase, it will just become increadibly expenisve to do so.
Seems to show the opposite point: there is no law requiring BK to not have a, say, faster drive thru or counter for more money. Yet we survive.
Well BK operates in a very competitive industry, and I'm not aware of any major (or even minor) player doing something like this. I know if I was waiting in line watching other people get their food first because they can afford to pay a premium for that service (thus pushing my order further back in the queue), I would ask for my money back and would not return because there are hundreds of other food options available in my city. If BK was the only food option available in my city (and local community supported alternatives outlawed at the state level), then I guess I would just have to live with it, or go without.
> If BK was the only food option available in my city (and local community supported alternatives outlawed at the state level)
Then the best solution would be to rally support to change the law to allow more food options to operate in your city. Spending time trying to dictate exactly how your one food option should operate its cashier line won't give you nearly as improved a consumer experience as getting a few competitors to open up.
Then the best solution would be to rally support to change the law to allow more food options to operate in your city. Spending time trying to dictate exactly how your one food option should operate its cashier line won't give you nearly as improved a consumer experience as getting a few competitors to open up.
Right, so an extremely flawed analogy. Muddies the water I'd say, and I am disappointed it gets large coverage without pointing out the glaring flaw. But a nice way for them to get their name in the proverbial paper, let's just hope they haven't taken coverage away from more apt stories on the issue since there's surely a limit before saturation occurs.
Fast food has competition, unlike internet service.
Which I think illustrates how NN is just nibbling at the edges of the problem. Competition is the real solution. If we could get the same lobbying efforts and grass roots passion behind removing local barriers to entry in the ISP market as there is behind NN, I think we'd be much better off.
I feel as if competition could make ISP's strive to provide reliable and fast connections if they had competition.
Well you can cook at home, but you can't just start an internet for yourself, as its value comes from all the other computers connected to it. It's not very fruitful to stretch the analogy in every direction. This does demonstrate, albeit approximatively, the situation.
> Burger King corporation believes they can sell more and make more money selling chicken sandwiches and chicken fries so now they're slowing down the access to the whopper.
Quoted from the video, this is the actual analogy that makes sense.
However, under no net neutrality, would customers be able to pay extra to get faster access to services that are pushed to the slow lane like the customers here can pay for the whopper?
Quoted from the video, this is the actual analogy that makes sense.
However, under no net neutrality, would customers be able to pay extra to get faster access to services that are pushed to the slow lane like the customers here can pay for the whopper?
Being vegetarian the bar is quite high when it comes to burger companies and their marketing efforts - I am not going to be spending money in Burger King ever. However, after seeing this ad I do think that Burger King have a bit more to them than that rival burger chain.
They have been smart here because nobody wants to pay more for priority interwebs access - the fast lane pass. But actually they have done a good job of hopping on this bandwagon. It is okay to be against the government on something like this where riots are not going to happen, it is tame.
Now they could not do this jump on the bandwagon marketing with the other thing of the moment - crypto currency addiction, but this could be on either the side of government or the bitcoin-bores.
If they sided with government and went the extra mile to protect their customers from spending their money on alt-coins then there would be a lot of the bitcoin addicted that would take issue with this (probably starting with the semantics of bitcoin). Burger King could have a parody pyramid scheme burger store where none of the food was regulated, just regurgitated. People could be HODLing onto their burgers and fries could end up being used to back a new blockchain based currency for burgers, so everyone could convert their useless fiat money into fries, with those fries being convertible to good as gold bitcoin at any time, subject to transaction fees that can be paid in USD or BTC. Naturally there would be a fixed 22 billion fries to buy, no more. And funny stories about people who bought a pizza with ten million fries not realising how many burgers you could get with that.
Of course such a marketing campaign would alienate lots of customers, even if it was educational. So the net neutrality topic is extremely conveniently tame plus they can take the people vs the government on it, to play the underdog.
They have been smart here because nobody wants to pay more for priority interwebs access - the fast lane pass. But actually they have done a good job of hopping on this bandwagon. It is okay to be against the government on something like this where riots are not going to happen, it is tame.
Now they could not do this jump on the bandwagon marketing with the other thing of the moment - crypto currency addiction, but this could be on either the side of government or the bitcoin-bores.
If they sided with government and went the extra mile to protect their customers from spending their money on alt-coins then there would be a lot of the bitcoin addicted that would take issue with this (probably starting with the semantics of bitcoin). Burger King could have a parody pyramid scheme burger store where none of the food was regulated, just regurgitated. People could be HODLing onto their burgers and fries could end up being used to back a new blockchain based currency for burgers, so everyone could convert their useless fiat money into fries, with those fries being convertible to good as gold bitcoin at any time, subject to transaction fees that can be paid in USD or BTC. Naturally there would be a fixed 22 billion fries to buy, no more. And funny stories about people who bought a pizza with ten million fries not realising how many burgers you could get with that.
Of course such a marketing campaign would alienate lots of customers, even if it was educational. So the net neutrality topic is extremely conveniently tame plus they can take the people vs the government on it, to play the underdog.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't spend money in a burger king as a vegetarian. They are one of the few burger chains that offers a vegetarian burger. If you ask for a veggie burger in Wendy's they'll give you a bun with lettuce and tomato. If you ask in a McDonald's they'll just laugh at you.
Don't get me wrong, Burger king is absolutely disgusting food no matter your dietary restrictions. But at least they try.
Also their advertising campaigns make me want to smash my TV, Alexa and computer.
Don't get me wrong, Burger king is absolutely disgusting food no matter your dietary restrictions. But at least they try.
Also their advertising campaigns make me want to smash my TV, Alexa and computer.
They've had one for years too, I remember being pretty young and them being the only chain almost (aside from taco bell) that we could go to. It isn't a good veggie burger really, but at least they tried.
This a great example of a great marketing team. Capitalize on a trending news item. While you may upset some people you will just as likely get a smirk out of them. Yet in all cases your name gets more exposure which is still important regardless of your position in the market.
Given that BK is also launching WhopperCoin in Russia, they've definitely done a good job adopting tech fads for the sake of news exposure. Eat your heart out, Denny's Twitter account marketing team.
Makes me think of the Maddox rant against Arby's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KejoG56uQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KejoG56uQ
All their customers would just walk over to McDonald's instead.
Yeah, unlike Net Neutrality. Joke's on the internet customers!
Burger King has a pretty nifty marketing team, probably with some half geeks in there (or full, i.e. see comment of biggieshellz below). Nothing more, nothing less. Remember their Google home calling commercial? There will be more of this, way more, from many more companies.
Why is BK trying to look so stupid. They appear to actually be for net-neutrality by showing a non-regulated BK that has a bunch of crazy things that no one would ever pay for like a $26 fast lane Whopper. It's scare mongering and playing on emotions really.
But the irony is there is no burger-neutrality in the real world and none of the featured horrors has happened. There is a free market that has prevented all of the things they are espousing that a free market internet would cause (but somehow has not occurred in other markets). So it is like they are making an argument against net-neutrality.
Am I missing something here?
Perhaps they are just saying that if BK had zero competition, there would be price gouging somehow. But there IS competition in the ISP market for almost everyone. If ISP's ever start doing crazy things, it's just going to open up the door for more competitors too. In some places where there wasn't good competition. ISP's were told they couldn't do certain things because of antitrust laws. Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem.
I see people exclaiming their shame often of the lack of good internet service in the USA compared to Hong Kong ETC. I know the geographical challenges are often stated as a reason why. That is true in some cases, but what many people don't realize is that government has made it too difficult and expensive for competitors to come into the market. Bit ISP's have even lobbied for more laws and regulations in some cases because they can afford it and it will actually cost them less than having competition.
So government causes a problem with laws and regulations that it passes, then people want it to pass more laws to compensate for a hypothetical problem that the government in the first place. So in the end we have all this bureaucracy mucking everything up just to get us back to the equilibrium that a free market had brought us to and people are actually OK with this??? I am seriously boggled.
Less regulation in this space will spur more and more competition. Antitrust laws and media pressure + PR has been absolutely adequate. What am I missing?
But the irony is there is no burger-neutrality in the real world and none of the featured horrors has happened. There is a free market that has prevented all of the things they are espousing that a free market internet would cause (but somehow has not occurred in other markets). So it is like they are making an argument against net-neutrality.
Am I missing something here?
Perhaps they are just saying that if BK had zero competition, there would be price gouging somehow. But there IS competition in the ISP market for almost everyone. If ISP's ever start doing crazy things, it's just going to open up the door for more competitors too. In some places where there wasn't good competition. ISP's were told they couldn't do certain things because of antitrust laws. Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem.
I see people exclaiming their shame often of the lack of good internet service in the USA compared to Hong Kong ETC. I know the geographical challenges are often stated as a reason why. That is true in some cases, but what many people don't realize is that government has made it too difficult and expensive for competitors to come into the market. Bit ISP's have even lobbied for more laws and regulations in some cases because they can afford it and it will actually cost them less than having competition.
So government causes a problem with laws and regulations that it passes, then people want it to pass more laws to compensate for a hypothetical problem that the government in the first place. So in the end we have all this bureaucracy mucking everything up just to get us back to the equilibrium that a free market had brought us to and people are actually OK with this??? I am seriously boggled.
Less regulation in this space will spur more and more competition. Antitrust laws and media pressure + PR has been absolutely adequate. What am I missing?
BK pandering to the ever increasing socialist millennial. Which my generation has been unfortunately tricked into. And despite all the
down-votes from all my socialist friends on this site, you are absolutely correct. The BK depicted in this ad would fail and fail spectacularly. It would take 1 company making burgers at a flat predictable cost/speed and this BK would have to change it's policy to survive. In the end, the consumer always wins in the free market. But these socialists think more government is the answer to all of societies ills. They will just create more stagnation and problems they claim to fight.
This is a strange analogy. A better picture of what food neutrality is would be a menu with identical prices for every meal, be it a three-store burger or a 1 oz of ketchup.
But it's easy to understand for people with a non-tech background. If they had made it more realistic (representing how net neutrality really affects people), it would've been much less entertaining and harder to understand. The analogy of no net neutrality=slow access to service is easy to get for customers and still somewhat true.
By this logic, the FDA should make a burger-neutrality law, which would prevent burger joints from making people wait for their food unless they pay extra.
Burger King is known for their odd marketing campaigns... I won't be surprised if we see them launch their own crypto currency too
Guess I should invest in their stock in case they do announce something crypto related soon, it's only a matter of time before they read your comment and take the idea
Too late! WhopperCoin has been out for months. Seriously, although seems to be limited to Russia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41082388
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41082388
mikejarema pointed it out, but yes, WhopperCoin has been a thing for months.
[deleted]
I have to admit, the dig with the oversized Reese's coffee cup at the end made me LOL.
In case you doubted the idea that corporations are people, they can have opinions now.
Nice mug at the end. Lookin' at you, Ajit Pai ;-)
This could actually be in a South Park episode.
Pretty good actors. (Some) real folks would’ve pulled out a handgun... which they won't be able to do sitting at home, angry at their ISP.
Pure genius.
They're hoping we forget they moved out of the US to avoid paying taxes; its nice they want to raise awareness, but you ditched the US, so your opinion doesn't matter here anymore.
I'm a strong believer of "If you don't vote, you can't bitch" :)
I'm a strong believer of "If you don't vote, you can't bitch" :)
They moved out of the US to avoid paying taxes on worldwide income, they still pay taxes on US income - all foreign companies that operate in the US do! Just like all US companies that operate in Canada pay Canadian corporate income taxes...
No taxation without representation.
No taxation without representation.
Ok, so only their us based subsidiary has a say, if that. That'd be like Huawei suddenly decided to have an opinion on the subject because they have a US branch...
Anyways, the core point was they moved out to avoid paying taxes, and that's exactly what they did. The $2 left isn't worth talking about
The alternative was to make Tim Hortons a US company, that would have sucked.
1)
>Video portrays a world where patrons pay more for fast service
Paying more for faster service is orthogonal to Net Neutrality. Of course you can pay more for a fatter pipe. No one has a problem with this. The issue is preferentially charging for data based on who is dumping it to their side of that pipe.
2) In the food world, you can already, likewise, pay more for better quality food. No one has a problem with that.
3) You can also, more controversially, bribe or tip the staff to get preferential service. That's widely accepted. The food service world is already more like net non-neutrality.