Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    25 Jan '18 20:111 edit
    A group I was in recently began a discussion about the Net Neutrality Repeal. Some folks didn't seem to be able to understand the issue.

    Had I been aware of this Whopper Neutrality spot, I would have directed them to it: YouTube

    It drives the point home in an amusing way.
  2. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    26 Jan '18 14:33
    Originally posted by @thinkofone
    A group I was in recently began a discussion about the Net Neutrality Repeal. Some folks didn't seem to be able to understand the issue.

    Had I been aware of this Whopper Neutrality spot, I would have directed them to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q

    It drives the point home in an amusing way.
    Don't many industries already work like that? You pay more for USPS to deliver faster. You pay for for Amazon Prime. You pay your ISP or cell phone company more for more bandwidth and faster upload and download speeds. You pay more for fastpass at many amusement parks.

    That example (fast food) just happens to be in an industry wherein there's no market for faster service. If BK could get away with charging more for faster service and it would be profitable, don't you think they would? There's no government regulation stopping them from doing it. They only don't do it because there's no market for it.
  3. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81331
    26 Jan '18 15:22
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Don't many industries already work like that? You pay more for USPS to deliver faster. You pay for for Amazon Prime. You pay your ISP or cell phone company more for more bandwidth and faster upload and download speeds. You pay more for fastpass at many amusement parks.

    That example (fast food) just happens to be in an industry wherein there's no market for ...[text shortened]... regulation stopping them from doing it. They only don't do it because there's no market for it.
    that is not what net neutrality addresses necessarily. it addresses the content a provider allows.
  4. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    26 Jan '18 15:40
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    that is not what net neutrality addresses necessarily. it addresses the content a provider allows.
    Yes, net neutrality is a bit more nuanced than the Whopper neutrality example, but my point is that the Whopper neutrality example being lampooned is already reality in many contexts.
  5. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    26 Jan '18 15:463 edits
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Don't many industries already work like that? You pay more for USPS to deliver faster. You pay for for Amazon Prime. You pay your ISP or cell phone company more for more bandwidth and faster upload and download speeds. You pay more for fastpass at many amusement parks.

    That example (fast food) just happens to be in an industry wherein there's no market for ...[text shortened]... regulation stopping them from doing it. They only don't do it because there's no market for it.
    An analogy to net neutrality that is based on the privatized control of Speakers’ Corner would be more apt, but the selection of analogies is always done in support of the argument being made. Being convinced by an analogy should be a signal that one’s thinking may be faulty.
  6. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    26 Jan '18 16:31
    Originally posted by @js357
    An analogy to net neutrality that is based on the privatized control of Speakers’ Corner would be more apt, but the selection of analogies is always done in support of the argument being made. Being convinced by an analogy should be a signal that one’s thinking may be faulty.
    I couldn't have delivered a better rebuke of the premise of the OP and the argument delivered therein myself.
  7. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    26 Jan '18 17:235 edits
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Don't many industries already work like that? You pay more for USPS to deliver faster. You pay for for Amazon Prime. You pay your ISP or cell phone company more for more bandwidth and faster upload and download speeds. You pay more for fastpass at many amusement parks.

    That example (fast food) just happens to be in an industry wherein there's no market for ...[text shortened]... regulation stopping them from doing it. They only don't do it because there's no market for it.
    lol. Seriously? Seems like the point was to provide a very simple depiction of the very basic issue of net neutrality that could be easily understood by pretty much anyone. Why did you expect anything more than that?

    In fact the text that accompanies the video pretty much says just that:
    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 effort aims to help people understand how the repeal of Net Neutrality will impact their lives.

    The BURGER KING® brand believes the Internet should be like the WHOPPER® sandwich: the same for everyone.

    Lest it got by you again - the operative word there is SHOULD.

    Just because many industries work like that doesn't mean that everything SHOULD work like that. SHOULD emergency rooms triage based on the highest bidder or the degree of urgency of wounds and illnesses? Me, I'd opt for the latter. No doubt there are some who believe it should work like the former. Like extremely self-centered and/or wealthy people. Or money-centered people. Perhaps like you?

    Once again, the operative word here is SHOULD.
  8. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    26 Jan '18 17:28
    Originally posted by @sh76
    I couldn't have delivered a better rebuke of the premise of the OP and the argument delivered therein myself.
    Maybe you should reread the OP. Then let me know if you think you understood it this time.
  9. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    26 Jan '18 17:41
    Since there seems to be some confusion as to what net neutrality entails:
    Net neutrality is a set of rules designed to make Internet service providers treat all web traffic the same, no matter the source. Its defenders say these regulations are at the heart of the idea that the Internet should be an open space where information travels freely without interference by broadband providers.

    Under net neutrality, Internet service providers have been more like passive conduits of data than content managers. When a customer pays Comcast or Verizon for Internet service, they’ve come to expect to connect with equal access to every legal website, whether big or small.

    If a broadband provider interferes — either by slowing or blocking access to certain websites, discriminating against content or charging companies fees to deliver data at faster rates — net neutrality has authorized the FCC to issue fines.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/13/what-you-need-know-about-net-neutrality/
  10. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    26 Jan '18 17:46
    Originally posted by @thinkofone
    lol. Seriously? Seems like the point was to provide a very simple depiction of the very basic issue of net neutrality that could be easily understood by pretty much anyone. Why did you expect anything more than that?

    In fact the text that accompanies the video pretty much says just that:
    [quote]The repeal of Net Neutrality is a hot topic in America, ...[text shortened]... e. Or money-centered people. Perhaps like you?

    Once again, the operative word here is SHOULD.
    Yes, it's a difficult concept to understand, but that doesn't mean the answer is to explain it badly or in a blatantly misleading manner.

    If your position is that nobody should ever be able to pay for faster service, you're entitled to that position, but it's absurd, in my view. If that's not your position, then you need to clarify. You used one example: emergency rooms. Now explain how far you're willing to take your position. Is your position, for example, that delivery companies like the USPS, UPS and FedEx should not be allowed to charge more for faster delivery?
  11. Subscriberjoe shmo
    Strange Egg
    podunk, PA
    Joined
    10 Dec '06
    Moves
    7733
    26 Jan '18 17:598 edits
    Originally posted by @thinkofone
    lol. Seriously? Seems like the point was to provide a very simple depiction of the very basic issue of net neutrality that could be easily understood by pretty much anyone. Why did you expect anything more than that?

    In fact the text that accompanies the video pretty much says just that:
    [quote]The repeal of Net Neutrality is a hot topic in America, ...[text shortened]... e. Or money-centered people. Perhaps like you?

    Once again, the operative word here is SHOULD.
    But it leaves out some very important details to the argument!

    A massive amount of rural America has limited access to internet with low download speeds or none at all because of net neutrality. There is no economic reason for the free market to compete if they are not going to be able to up charge for the service. Massive infrastructure cost would be incurred to the ISP companies at a loss, due to the net neutrality bill.

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/

    So how did Obama expect to run internet service like a public utility, when a vast portion of the public does not have access to the utility? Was there taxpayer subsidization in the bill that was going to bring the internet to all of America? I bet you'll find there was none, he just wanted to provide the internet where it was politically convenient to do so, the urban areas.

    The non neutral BK whopper video should have shown the register with 125 million people around it, and 50 million people stuck on the outside trying to get a freaking burger, but can't because the 125 million that are being served nearest the register are always hungry. There is no reason for BK to fight through the crowds to deliver the burgers to those perpetually outside.
  12. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    26 Jan '18 18:05
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Yes, it's a difficult concept to understand, but that doesn't mean the answer is to explain it badly or in a blatantly misleading manner.

    If your position is that nobody should ever be able to pay for faster service, you're entitled to that position, but it's absurd, in my view. If that's not your position, then you need to clarify. You used one example: em ...[text shortened]... companies like the USPS, UPS and FedEx should not be allowed to charge more for faster delivery?
    Yes, it's a difficult concept to understand, but that doesn't mean the answer is to explain it badly or in a blatantly misleading manner.

    Seriously? Face it, you simply misunderstood the intent of the OP and the intent of the video. Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

    If your position is that nobody should ever be able to pay for faster service, you're entitled to that position, but it's absurd, in my view. If that's not your position, then you need to clarify.

    C'mon.

    Read what I wrote:
    Just because many industries work like that doesn't mean that everything SHOULD work like that.


    Didn't the phrase "doesn't mean that everything" connote anything to you?

    Since you seem to need everything spelled out for you, the operative words there are "not...everything".
  13. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81331
    26 Jan '18 18:15
    Originally posted by @joe-shmo
    But it leaves out some very important details to the argument!

    A massive amount of rural America has limited access to internet with low download speeds or none at all because of net neutrality. There is no economic reason for the free market to compete if they are not going to be able to charge for the service. Massive infrastructure cost would be in ...[text shortened]... e was none, he just wanted to provide the internet where it was politically convenient to do so.
    "A massive amount of rural America has limited access to internet with low download speeds or none at all because of net neutrality."...

    that is just not true.
  14. Subscriberjoe shmo
    Strange Egg
    podunk, PA
    Joined
    10 Dec '06
    Moves
    7733
    26 Jan '18 18:191 edit
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    "A massive amount of rural America has limited access to internet with low download speeds or none at all because of net neutrality."...

    [b]that is just not true.
    [/b]
    I'm afraid I'm not following? Can you be a bit more specific.
  15. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    26 Jan '18 18:24
    Originally posted by @joe-shmo
    But it leaves out some very important details to the argument!

    A massive amount of rural America has limited access to internet with low download speeds or none at all because of net neutrality. There is no economic reason for the free market to compete if they are not going to be able to charge for the service. Massive infrastructure cost would be in ...[text shortened]... but can't because the 125 million that are being served nearest the register are always hungry.
    Read the article you cited.

    Not sure, but you seem to have conflated a couple of largely tangential issues.
Back to Top