Burger King Whopper Neutrality $4-26

[inv4zn]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

Okay, great object lesson, kudos to BK. Social media buzzing and got some people wanting whoppers as well.

Content should be neutral (no bottleneck) agreed. But ... the fact that you get more and faster broadband if you are willing to pay more ... what exactly is the issue there? Isn't that how all our internet rates are structured? What are net neutrality people pushing for as an alternative ... everybody pays a flat/same rate and gets the same speed? I don't get that part.

Can someone explain? Isn't that just how life works, if you can afford to pay for an MRI at a private lab instead of waiting through the system, you get results quicker.

It's not whether or not you pay more for faster overall internet, it's that ISPs can choose what content is delivered to you at what speed.

So AT&T wants to merge with Time Warner. Time Warner owns HBO. So it's now in AT&T's best interest to get more people to watch HBO instead of Netflix.

With NN, they couldn't slow down your netflix stream speeds, or conversely increase HBO speeds. With NN repealed, they can do so. Or you can pay extra $$ to 'unlock' Netflix Compatible Package or some bs -- something which you already had.

It's also trouble in the US because their ISPs have mysteriously created geographical boundaries they don't cross -- so in any area that's not a metropolis there really isn't much choice. Imagine if Telus was only available in bby, newwest and tricities, and Shaw was only available in Van and Richmond, surrey. If one fucks you, there's nowhere else to go to. Anyway that's the gist of it.

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by PeanutButter

What is the significance of this?

Burger King Makes the Case for Net Neutrality [VIDEO] ? Variety

The Burger King video ends with an apparent dig at FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who championed the repeal of the rules, as the Burger King character is shown drinking from an oversized Reese’s coffee mug. That is the type of coffee mug that Pai uses at FCC meetings. He has made his own humorous net neutrality video, but Reese’s has not weighed in.

[MG1]

Originally Posted by snowball

Imagine this, you live right between Richmond Centre and Metrotown so you can go to either mall. It takes the exact same time to get to both malls because your car can go 50km/h to Metro and 50 km/h to RC.

Well, one way increases your chances of getting you into an accident.

Just saiyan..............

[MG1]

Originally Posted by EDawg

how are you able to get so many? i used the $1 offer yesterday but mobile order says it's limited to one per week

I have no idea, either. It could be that I've gone to different locations? Right now, I can't seem to get one, but come tomorrow, who knows? It's really weird. I even get e-mails reminding me to check the app.

[whitev70r]

Thanks to those who gave better explanation of the issue here. Content neutrality, I get and understand the need for.

Like I alluded to, BK was cute and got people talking about it and wanting whoppers but seriously, it didn't really explain net neutrality that well.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

Like I alluded to, BK was cute and got people talking about it and wanting whoppers but seriously, it didn't really explain net neutrality that well.

basically, they used peoples lack of knowledge to drum up hypothetical dangers.
seems to be the trend.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

You mean BC Hydro and .... ICBC ... hmmmm, we sure we want THAT?

don't worry. government run monopolies are more of a canadian thing

[originalhypa]

^
bravo!
The Canadian gov't loves to run their own monopolistic businesses. The problem is that they run them like they're public services, and not like a corporation. Anyone who has ever had to deal with a gov't agency knows what I'm talking about. Whether it's the unions, or the ideology of the gov't worker, they would never survive without the monopolies.

Originally Posted by quasi

I'm craving a Whopper now it's been at least 15 years since the last one.

There's one in Langley on Fraser hwy that's been there since I was just a little guy. It's so old and run down now that I'm pretty sure the ketchup will give you Hepatitis.

*the more you know

[MSREE]

Originally Posted by Klondike

Also Arbys. Only one left is Coquitlam Centre.

Curly fries

[Manic!]

If people think BC Hydro is bad look at California.

[freakshow]

Originally Posted by snowball

This commercial's analogy isn't the best to understand the basics of net neutrality. Imagine this, you live right between Richmond Centre and Metrotown so you can go to either mall. It takes the exact same time to get to both malls because your car can go 50km/h to Metro and 50 km/h to RC.

Then RC comes along and sponsors the manufacturer of your vehicle with some money. Their agreement is that when you're driving to Metro you can only go 40km/h but you can go 60 km/h if you go to RC...

I don't think your analogy works because RC is imposing more limits on you, which isn't the case in NN.
I think this would be more accurate:
You have a Ferrari, I have a Pinto. You get to the mall faster, but it costs you more. I get there slower, but i'm saving money on gas and a cheaper car. The government comes along (NN) and forces us to both driver there at the same rate.
This limits your Ferrari, and forces me to pay more to get my Pinto up to speed.

[whitev70r]

I don't really think we have to dumb things down. In the US, some internet providers are intentionally slowing down content from other competitors. it's as simple as that. The BK little social media cutesy video doesn't really illustrate this effectively.

Eg. In the States Comcast would be slowing down content from Vonage (their competitor). Verizon was caught slowing down content from Netflix and Youtube. This falls under content neutrality which I think is a good idea, levels the playing field.

BK dumb things down and made it look like if you want to pay for a faster internet connection (rate that you get your whopper), you can't or shouldn't be able to .. well, yah, in real life, you can pay more to get something faster. Talk to Amazon, UPS, Fed Ex, Canada Post ... that's a fact of life.

[CorneringArtist]

For those pining for Arby's, one is opening at the strip mall next to Tsawassen Mills.

[inv4zn]

To everyone poorly attempting to dumb things down, let's try again with something that may hit closer to home.

Let's pretend Shaw owns pornhub and earn ad revenue. With NN, Shaw couldn't throttle your speeds to xvideos, so you got the same quality porn on whatever site.

Now with NN repealed, every other porn site you visit is slow as fuck and all the tits are pixelated. Except pornhub. So you call Shaw, and they explain that government shouldn't control porn content, and that competition is good and all is fair business. Except you can't switch to Telus because conveniently Telus doesn't provide internet where you live. They do across the street, but then again there's no Shaw there.

So now you can either only wank to pornhub, watch dial-up quality porn, or you can pay Shaw for their Advanced Porn Package which is $15 on top of your bill every month.

The issue at hand isn't whether government oversight is good or bad, nor is this some left vs right bullshit - it's the notion that ISPs control the internet to the consumer as a way to boost profit. An even larger issue is that the government body overseeing this (the FCC) is corrupt as fuck. "Draining the swamp".

Seriously, it's incredulous that there are morons who are making this an ideology thing. There is 0 benefit to repealing NN for any average citizen. Zero.

[twitchyzero]

i think people just wanna ask the implications of the repeal it has in Canada, if any

does Shaw still throttle peer sharing?

[Traum]

Also, for those who are complaining the BK vid didn't do a good enough job of explaining what NN is or why it is important, remember what the video is -- it is first and foremost a BK marketing scheme (ie. a BK ad), and then subsequently it is an analogy, a parody, etc. It isn't going to be the perfect tool to explain what NN is, but it is a good conversation starter.

[inv4zn]

Originally Posted by Traum

Also, for those who are complaining the BK vid didn't do a good enough job of explaining what NN is or why it is important, remember what the video is -- it is first and foremost a BK marketing scheme (ie. a BK ad), and then subsequently it is an analogy, a parody, etc. It isn't going to be the perfect tool to explain what NN is, but it is a good conversation starter.

In BK's defense, it was only the whopper that was tiered, as it's undoubtedly their most popular item. You could still get the chicken burger without paying extra to get it fast. So while it wasn't pulled off quite as well, the analogy was true.

[Hehe]

Net Neutrality is really simple:

ISPs don't get to be a gatekeeper for the contents. By prioritizing content delivery speed, they can effectively control how we consume content. Inv4zn explained it great above.

Think it the other way around... if ISPs get to be the gatekeeper, they can also control it depending on who pays them more for prioritizing their connections. Say site A pays $10 for priority while its competitor, site B pays nothing to the ISP. Site A charges $20 to its users while B charges 10 offering the identical service/product. ISP makes site B so slow that it's almost unreachable 80% of the time. Would anyone still use site B? nop.

So, it harms the competition and innovation greatly as only sites who can afford to pay (big ass corps) ISPs would have access to the general public who doesn't pay "premium" to have a un-regulated internet connection.

[snowball]

Originally Posted by freakshow

I don't think your analogy works because RC is imposing more limits on you, which isn't the case in NN.
I think this would be more accurate:
You have a Ferrari, I have a Pinto. You get to the mall faster, but it costs you more. I get there slower, but i'm saving money on gas and a cheaper car. The government comes along (NN) and forces us to both driver there at the same rate.
This limits your Ferrari, and forces me to pay more to get my Pinto up to speed.

The essence of net neutrality is that they could theoretically throttle the competitor site like verizon is said to have done with Netflix. Basically verizon did little tricks to blame the slowdown of netflix on other stuff like "incompatible video optimization" which made things slower... without NN there wouldn't be any investigation about whether or not this was true, we would just have to take their word for it.

Your analogy would be more like paying more money for a different tier ie/ 25 Mb/s vs 75 Mb/s or switching to a company that provides faster internet. For NN, they are controlling the speed of the same mode of access to different locations.

[welfare]

A few points that have been overlooked through the multiple tactical analogies:

1) the section that has been repealed, categorizing IS as a utility, was only enacted in 2015. Guess what. The internet was fine before then, it'll be fine now.
The FTC policed it then, they'll police it now. It's not some wild west free for all. Consumers will be protected.

2) I find it a little absurd that people believe all traffic deserves the same priority. Sorry, but loading videos from your favorite free porn site shouldn't hold the same precedent as a Dr performing a highly advanced surgical procedure.
And with 5g around the corner, there are going to be a colossal number of devices, from all sorts of fields, beyond just phones, fridges and TV's. To restrict them all to one speed I think is just silly.
Here's an analogy: in your car, would it make sense to run data from your crash sensors at the same speed as your heated seats?

3) there is the possibility that a tiered system would actually speed up the "slow" lane by reducing traffic.

4) this repeal is going to generate funds for ISP's. And that's a good thing. These funds can be used to advance IS technology. This idea that ISP's are the bogeyman out to screw their customers in every way possible really defies the basic logic behind running a business. Big or small.

5) it's the US. I venture to guess that the number of people effected here by their regulation practices is low to nil. So who really gives a shit?

[Bouncing Bettys]

Have to disagree with you there.

Originally Posted by welfare

A few points that have been overlooked through the multiple tactical analogies:

1) the section that has been repealed, categorizing IS as a utility, was only enacted in 2015. Guess what. The internet was fine before then, it'll be fine now.
The FTC policed it then, they'll police it now. It's not some wild west free for all. Consumers will be protected.
Net Neutrality was not a case of creating a solution to a non existent problem. There are countless examples of ISPs exercising the very tactics which net neutrality seeked to prevent. Remember in 2005 when Telus blocked access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company? Telus cuts subscriber access to pro-union website - Canada - CBC News
2) I find it a little absurd that people believe all traffic deserves the same priority. Sorry, but loading videos from your favorite free porn site shouldn't hold the same precedent as a Dr performing a highly advanced surgical procedure. And if a small practice Dr comes up with an even safer/better procedure, but it stands to cut into the profits of a major health provider who pays for the better internet access? Are you ok with preventing him from succeeding if the ISP is paid to choke his ability to get the word out? Who should decided what is priority? The ISP's who will do whatever they are paid to like a porn star?
And with 5g around the corner, there are going to be a colossal number of devices, from all sorts of fields, beyond just phones, fridges and TV's. To restrict them all to one speed I think is just silly.
Here's an analogy: in your car, would it make sense to run data from your crash sensors at the same speed as your heated seats? I would not be surprised if the manufacturer of the heated seats was willing to pay more to have their data reach the computer at a faster speed at the expense of all others just so it could use that as a selling feature. Would you rather a car manufacturer demand all data from all sensors be sent at the same speeds or that they give priority to whichever features pay the most?

3) there is the possibility that a tiered system would actually speed up the "slow" lane by reducing traffic. riiiiight

4) this repeal is going to generate funds for ISP's. And that's a good thing. These funds can be used to advance IS technology. This idea that ISP's are the bogeyman out to screw their customers in every way possible really defies the basic logic behind running a business. Big or small. Yet you say: "The internet was fine before then, it'll be fine now." Would you say the ISP's invested well in infrastructure prior to net neutrality?

5) it's the US. I venture to guess that the number of people effected here by their regulation practices is low to nil. So who really gives a shit?Do we not share much of the same infrastructure? Our ISP's have used similar practices and have shown a desire to follow the USA's lead in ridding itself of Net Neutrality. The USA is often a leader in trends which other nations are quick to follow.

[welfare]

1) there are not countless examples. There were something like three times that ISP's were caught throttling. And the FTC caught it. My point is, it's not something that will just go unchecked.

2) again, it's not a pay for choke free for all. There are still rules and a commission overseeing.

No one would notice if the signal for your seat heater reached a control module 50 ms faster. But 50 ms could mean the difference between death and serious injury in a crash.
But yes, if a company wanted to pay for that 50 ms faster heater signal, they could. My guess is they wouldn't. And they also wouldn't be able to pay to have the crash signal slowed.

3) that's not an argument.

4) prior to 2015, yes, absolutely. It may not have been invested into fiber optics as much, but huge amounts had and continue to be invested into wireless. That's the route ISP's decided to go, and maybe we should be thankful they did.

5) net neutrality has been around since the nineties. It's not being rid of. This is just a section that's been repealed. That said, maybe we should wait to see the outcome before we start raising hysteria. These days it's like the verdict is in long before the trial even occurs. We're so quick to jump on a narrative without even taking the time to understand it.
I don't know what will happen. Nobody does. We're fortunate enough to be in a good position to observe though.

[Badhobz]

Wait....This isn't about burgers !?!?

[ae101]

Originally Posted by Traum

I just watched the Facebook version of this, and it is mind-blowning to see the number of idiots not understanding why the repealing of net neutrality is bad, but still insist on commenting anyway.

https://www.facebook.com/burgerking/...23453391001320

Why did I read the comments? So many morons on there, "Ya I just go to Wendy's or McDonald's when this starts"

McDonald will be the 1st to jump on the boat if this actually starts

[Traum]

Why do I even bother feeding the troll when he is full of bullshxt?

Originally Posted by welfare

3) there is the possibility that a tiered system would actually speed up the "slow" lane by reducing traffic.

Just like how the Laffer curve / supply side economics, and trickle down economics would benefit the working class, right?