There’s a joke directed at FCC chair Ajit Pai end of the video, the Burger King drinking from a giant Reeses Peanut Butter Cup mug.
I Just went to Whataburger… The problem with this explanation is that it is government that for decades controlled the entire telecommunications delivery and now it is holding on to the last mile… It is not Comcast that stifled access in various cities… it is the cities themselves picking winners and losers. Thankfully, at least for now, the restrictions on making and distributing hamburgers are not controlled by the state… On the way over to Whataburger I saw a Brahms sign and pulled in for their burger, fries and a shake… (Brahms, for those who do not know, is regional… and they compete heads up with Burger King with their own unique and satisfying products)
@feddo if you are getting your education on Net Neutrality from Burger King, please eat as much of it as possible. The sooner you are out of the gene pool the better.
Bad morning at work already - needed the laugh.
Wha’s wrong with net neutrality feddo?
Prior to 1992 local governments often selected a single cable company to which they granted a local monopoly in exchange for payment (franchise fees) and other considerations such as local access channels. Even though exclusive agreements were banned by Congress in 1992, local governments can still charge for use of their right-of-way and the higher those fees are set the fewer companies will be interested in entering a local market.
Rather than trying to regulate how internet service providers operate their private businesses, government should leave them alone to try different business models, just like supermarkets. A better idea would be for the federal government to further limit the power of local governments to limit competition among internet service providers through their franchise fees and other operating restrictions.
If local governments were more accommodative of internet service providers, there would be more competition, more choices for consumers. Given choice, if some of those internet service providers do not practice net neutrality, the market will sort it out. Any provider acting in ways its customers do not like will lose those customers to its competitors. Options will exist, but those options will be the ones that appeal to a profitable segment of consumers.
What is needed is not neutrality, but differentiated choices. With enough choices for internet access, there would be no need for net neutrality rules. The market will ensure that internet service providers offer the options that customers demand.
Government, (local) chose winners and losers and now you want more government picking winners and losers.
As a side note do you know the regulations they enacted net neutrality under and the potential impact??
But then again responding to your post is a waste of time as you have once again hit and run with no response just like Stevie/johnny/monte.
Burger King’s Lecture on Net Neutrality Is as Bad as It Sounds
For some reason, one of the worst reviewed fast food restaurants in America has made the bold decision to get into political activism - and in doing so demonstrated how ridiculous the policy they are advocating truly is.
In order to protest last month’s decision to repeal Net Neutrality, Burger King has created a video for social media showing one of their restaurant repealing “Whopper neutrality.” In it, “customers” become outraged when they are told that they will have to pay extra in order to have their Whopper order fulfilled right away. As the BK Worker behind the counter explains “Burger King Corporation believes that they can sell more and make more money selling chicken sandwiches and chicken fries, so they are slowing down access to the Whopper.” The video ends with the customers claiming that their regrettable decision to eat at Burger King helped educate them on what net neutrality means to them.
Unfortunately their attempt at John Oliver-level policy analysis has some obvious problems.
For one, Burger King does not have a “Whopper neutrality” policy - and for good reason. If a family of five places a large order, while the next customer simply orders an ice cream cone, most Burger King employees will not refuse to serve up the dessert until after they fulfill the first order. The aim is to serve as many customers, as quickly as possible.
Similarly, a Whopper meal comes in various sizes - all with different prices - all so that customers have more flexibility based on having their food desires met. Imagine if a government regulator decided that since Americans have a right to have their thirst quenched - no matter its size - all fast food restaurants had to price all drink sizes the same? The result would be the prices for small drinks going up, while restaurants having to submit to occasional inspections by government agents to make sure no one was violating beverage neutrality laws. (This of course would still manage to not be the worst soda-related policy that’s been proposed.)
Additionally, Burger King certainly has the right to not prioritize delivering their customers food in a timely matter, just as customers have a right to avoid their services as a result. Whether or not the customers in the video were authentic or not, their reaction to the absurd fictional policy is how you’d expect someone to act. The video suggests that none of them would be excited about returning to Burger King if this had become actual franchise operating procedure. Once again, the market has its own ways of punishing bad actors.
Which is precisely why I will be avoiding Whoppers myself for the foreseeable future.