Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Advertising Communications Media Network The Internet

Burger King Makes the Case For Net Neutrality (variety.com) 246

An anonymous reader writes: By now you've probably seen Burger King's spoof ad on the decision by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to repeal net neutrality. In the ad, Burger King customers are informed that there are now three "lanes" for ordering Whoppers -- each with substantially different prices and waiting times. The ad has already generated over a million views on Youtube and is lighting up Twitter. One thing I missed the first time is that while the Burger King "counter service" is clearly in on the act, the customers are apparently real; they learn of the cockamamie scheme at the counter in the style of the old TV show Candid Camera. Variety notes that the video "ends with an apparent dig at FCC Chairman Ajit Pai [...] 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Burger King Makes the Case For Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • Because it's (probably) not the consumer that pays (directly) for the preferred treatment. But in the end that's who will foot the bill, so...

  • If you're absolutely sure you don't want a Coke, just wait in line a bit longer.
    (insert coke lines jokes below)

    • If you're absolutely sure you don't want a Coke, just wait in line a bit longer.

      That may actually be more brilliant than what they actually did. You can have your burger right now if you order a full value meal and supersize it. If you don't supersize it, you have to wait, and if you just get the sandwich, GFL. (The rest of the setup, including no special fees for chicken sandwiches, is still spot on.)

  • ... to be able to choose more to get faster service at a restaurant. (Or conversely, get big savings if you are willing to wait.) Sounds good to me.
    • That was supposed to be "choose to pay more".
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You mean like paying UPS ground for a 12-pack of socks instead of next day air?

      Can you imagine UPS or Fedex doing the same commercial and everyone saying, "yeah, that makes sense."

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Except there is a real reason why ground delivery is slower and cheaper. There is no reason that Netflix should cost more then streaming someones catcam at 4k.
        Your UPS example is more like being able to buy a higher bitrate or higher cap from your ISP, fine under net neutrality.

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        More like all socks are carried the same way but if you pay double, they won't hold them at a warehouse a mile from your home for 5 days before they put them on the delivery truck.

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday January 26, 2018 @09:14AM (#56006789) Homepage Journal

      ... to be able to choose more to get faster service at a restaurant.

      Would it be awesome to have to pay more to get functional service at a restaurant? Because that's the actual scenario.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      But that's not what the commercial showed. It showed you could either have the regular old speed for double the normal price or you could wait the full regular time plus an artificial delay to have it at the regular price. Sound good?

  • If BK actually had such a policy, their customers would shop elsewhere starting tomorrow -- obviously. The commercial unintentionally makes the free marketer's point for them.

    To make matters worse, the old "neutrality" wasn't really neutral. The actual policy was more like BK could only sell burgers that the government let them sell.

    • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Friday January 26, 2018 @08:53AM (#56006671)
      Totally agree with you. They need a 15 second after shot where it pans out to people trying to shop elsewhere and the assistant on thier phone tells them that this is the only place they are legally allowed to buy fast food from. If they don't like it they are free to sell thier house and move.
    • Except that this is about internet service providers, so there is no "shopping elsewhere" for most people.

      And even if there was a choice and you are thinking of throwing the words "free market" in a reply, think again. Look at current prices and speeds. There's already collusion between the ISPs to have as little differences in prices and speeds as possible.

      • by Entrope ( 68843 )

        So your complaints are not really about net neutrality, but instead about monopolies or near monopolies? And you're not going to even try to identify why those (near) monopolies exist, or the myriad other ways a monopoly can screw their customers?

        • The reason those monopolies exist has already been identified - they're a natural monopoly (or at least a natural oligopoly) like electricity or natural gas. There's a massive amount of infrastructure involved, and the cost of that only works out if you can recover that investment with a certain percentage of subscribers.

          • But to finish my point, regulation is not for every industry, but it's sometimes necessary for monopolies or near-monopolies because the consumer has a weak bargaining position.

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              And even highly competitive industries such as fast food restaurants need regulating so they don't race to a bottom of saving money by not keeping the food preparation areas clean.

      • You say for most people, but that's not true. Most people have several ISP choices in the US.

      • Do not most people live in urban areas? Are there not multiple ISPs in urban areas?

    • To make matters worse, the old "neutrality" wasn't really neutral. The actual policy was more like BK could only sell burgers that the government let them sell.

      Ever heard the aphorism "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"?

      Maybe you should consider it, because in no way, shape, or form does Title II regulation allow the government to dictate what ISPs are allowed to deliver to their customers. If you want to claim otherwise, you had better be ready to prove it.

      Frankly, the main reason I'm challenging you to prove it so that when you realize that you can't, you might actually learn something. I'm getting pretty sick

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday January 26, 2018 @09:19AM (#56006829) Homepage Journal

      If BK actually had such a policy, their customers would shop elsewhere starting tomorrow -- obviously.

      There is no 'elsewhere' for 1 in 3 households in America. There are plenty of small towns with only one or two restaurants in them. The situation becomes worse if you actually expand the metaphor to multiple restaurants, because municipalities create protectionist artificial scarcity there, too. You can only purchase food from a business with a license to sell you food. Municipalities control the distribution of these licenses on specious bases. For example, lots of places don't permit food trucks, or they make it prohibitively expensive to operate one — you have to apply for permits over and over again for each county you want to operate in. This isn't so bad in states with few counties, but California has something like 56 of them and just operating in half of the state means that you've got dozens to deal with. And California is where the people live.

      At both ends of the loop road I live on, people can get cable or DSL. But in the middle where I live, all I can get is access from a WISP which charges me $99/mo for 250GB at 6Mbps. What year is it? We paid the telcos to build out the last mile, and they pocketed over $450M and in fact paid the money out to executives in the form of bonuses. What if Taco Bell wins the fast food wars, and all restaurants are Taco Bell?

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Too bad there's no such option for internet service in many areas.

      In real life (as opposed to the elementary school level understanding of competition), you'd need to have a few dozen ISPs to choose from in order to keep the competitors honest.

      • Hardly. Take Apple and Android. According to your lights, we have no competition among smartphone makers. That's daft.

  • reduce regulatory red tape on infrastructure at state and local levels that allow for local monopolies and the issue will resolve its self. If municipalities, small or mid sized ISP companies, and perhaps even non profits like the Farm Bureau in rural areas, are allowed to sell services against Comcast and ATT, things will improve dramatically. There is no need to put bureaucrats in charge of what can and cant be seen online and make no mistake, the NN regs as they were written absolutely laid the framewor

  • by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Friday January 26, 2018 @08:51AM (#56006659)
    Admittedly, I enjoyed the commercial and it did do a good job watering down the issue for the absolute layman. However, the issue is not that simple. It's not only about the lack of net neutrality creating paid high speed lanes, it's also harming consumers who might not want to watch Comcast Xfinity content but are more interested in Netflix. Furthermore, without some kind of neutrality, what is to prevent the ISPs from charging a base price simply for web browsing at say 39.95 and charging extra to have social media, streaming, or other kinds of service unlocked.
    • It's not only about the lack of net neutrality creating paid high speed lanes, it's also harming consumers who might not want to watch Comcast Xfinity content but are more interested in Netflix.

      They actually covered that: it was only whoppers (Netflix) that were tiered, if you wanted a chicken sandwich (Comcast Xfinity) then you didn't have to wait or pay extra. The even mentioned it was because they wanted to sell more chicken sandwiches.

  • Poster on the wall says "Wi-Fi only for 6.33"

    Was that part of the fake ad, or is this real?!

    Here in Canada we get free wi-fi from McDonald's or Tim Horton as soon as we buy something. A lot of them don't even lock or change the password so as soon as you're a customer once, you have access.

  • The slow lanes for ordering a burger are actually at Whataburger.

  • They are, unfortunately, perpetuating a myth about network neutrality which is completely wrong. Burger King has now hurt the network neutrality case. Every ISP, always has, and always will, offer varying speeds. That's not a violation of neutrality.

    • Nope, the speed has always been a function of the hardware in your area. The bandwidth has been something that was available in differently priced tiers. This is readily apparent if you look at the burger as a packet. It wasn't the case that the employee couldn't push the burger across the counter slowly but that they weren't allowed to hand it over until some arbitrary time had passed.

      I can pay my ISP more money to get more bandwidth, but for some things latency is more important. And no amount of bandwidt

    • The speed throttling only applies to specific products. If you want a chicken sandwich, you are not throttled. They covered this.

  • by OneHundredAndTen ( 1523865 ) on Friday January 26, 2018 @09:53AM (#56007091)
    Freaking airplanes are a better example, if it is only because it is real. The lack of rules equivalent to net neutrality in airplanes has turned what never was a very pleasant experience into something borderline Kafkaesque. Huge middle finger to airlines world over.
  • by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Friday January 26, 2018 @10:03AM (#56007175) Journal
    Here is the thing. The Ad is awesome, but that's NOT how they would present it to customers. They would do something like say "for an extra $20 cents you can be in our priority queue to get your burger faster". In fact, I'm surprised some fast food restaurant has not already tried it.
  • Best analogy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by realmolo ( 574068 ) on Friday January 26, 2018 @10:29AM (#56007317)

    Imagine if you couldn't call Pizza Hut without paying an additional $15 to Verizon, because Pizza Hut refused to pay Verizon for "access" to their customers. But if you call Papa John's, you get a 20% discount on your order because Papa John's *did* pay Verizon for access to the customers.

    Now extend that to every phone call you make. Imagine if the only calls you could make for "free" (as part of your plan) were to individuals and businesses that are paying for the privilege of having Verizon customers call them without additional charges.

    THAT is why not having net neutrality is bad. The entire internet will rapidly become pay-per-view, and only the BIGGEST companies will be able to afford to pay-off the bandwidth providers/ISPs to make their content "free".

  • Drivethrough use case has very different latency requirements than dining in, I don't mind BK deploing traffic shaping to account for that. For Netflix-style bulk consumption of the same item, it would make sense to just have a pile of burgers on the counter and have everyone grab one and swipe their credit card. Sure they get preferential service, but they also don't route their orders all the way to the kitchen and are in and out fast.

    • For Netflix-style bulk consumption of the same item, it would make sense to just have a pile of burgers on the counter and have everyone grab one and swipe their credit card.

      That's actually how it works. At peak times, the vast majority of fast food restaurants prepare food preemptively, and queue it for delivery to customers. The epitome of this practice AFAIK (I have never been into some well-known chains like White Castle simply due to lack of proximity, so I can't speak to every fast food shit-slinger) is McDonalds, which will queue up several of each of their most popular sandwiches before the lunch rush. Some restaurants prep complete sandwiches, which is why they are so

  • Not a big fan of this commercial, but only because I don't see an issue with paying for a bigger pipe. I think it's fair that I pay more for higher raw throughput for multiple streaming devices than my neighbour that only streams through one TV.

    But add a "Fast Lane, sponsored by Coca-Cola" to the mix, where Burger King can push you to buy Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi, because Coca-Cola bid higher than Pepsi for prioritization privileges, and the real problem with repealing NN becomes apparent.

    • by jittles ( 1613415 ) on Friday January 26, 2018 @02:42PM (#56009815)

      Not a big fan of this commercial, but only because I don't see an issue with paying for a bigger pipe. I think it's fair that I pay more for higher raw throughput for multiple streaming devices than my neighbour that only streams through one TV.

      But add a "Fast Lane, sponsored by Coca-Cola" to the mix, where Burger King can push you to buy Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi, because Coca-Cola bid higher than Pepsi for prioritization privileges, and the real problem with repealing NN becomes apparent.

      Did you miss the part about the chicken? If you bought a chicken sandwich, it was instant. If you paid for extra speed on the whopper, it was instant. If you did not, they had your sandwich, weren't doing anything else (your pipe was empty), but they just didn't fill the capacity of their pipe.

  • It's a really bad analogy because when you're buying fast food, you're paying not just for food, but also for the speed at which it'll be prepared. In that regard, opting to pay extra to get your burger faster is pretty much the whole point for the fast food industry existing. People seeing net neutrality portrayed in this manner might conclude it's not such a bad thing.

    The problem that net neutrality tries to address is that the customer has already paid for a certain level of service. You've paid fo
  • by Phasedshift ( 415064 ) on Friday January 26, 2018 @01:17PM (#56009063)

    Net Neutrality as it was written is pointless and is anything but what it should be. I really wish people would realize that - it doesn't fix the problem and makes it seem like the issue is private companies running amok, instead of the real issue being seen: there is extremely little competition in the last mile, especially in rural areas. This has to do with what others mentioned - access to poles, monopolies from both cities and large multi-tenant units, etc. This isn't about traffic prioritization, it's about lack of competition due to regulations/laws/case law.

    Further, the law itself did absolutely nothing in making sure that companies can't effectively "prioritize" traffic anyway, see #1 below.

    1. Only artificially limiting bandwidth via rate shaping, etc is covered by the old law. Technical "limitations" are not. You can't require an ISP to setup more peering points, increase transit, etc. ISP's use transit (generic traffic) and peering (sending traffic to a specific company.) Most major companies like to peer since it is generally far, far cheaper than paying for transit. If Comcast is peering with Netflix and only has a 100 mbps connection to them, but the actual bandwidth required from Netflix should be more like 1000 mbps without causing slowdowns, they can simply not facilitate increasing that. It costs money (to Comcast and Netflix) to increase that bandwidth between each other, so who pays for it, especially if that utilization is heavily one-sided? Same scenario will happen, but, a different "cause".

    2. Having something labeled "Net neutrality" does not make it so. The only reason people haven't left the incumbent carriers in droves is because they have no other choice in many areas. You remove the barriers to competition and it will fix this situation without having the federal government needing to pass pointless laws.

    3. Net Neutrality was passed in 2015, how many years prior did the internet exist and the world did end...

  • by curmudgeon99 ( 1040054 ) on Friday January 26, 2018 @03:46PM (#56010511)
    The moment Burger King announced they were executing a Tax Inversion with the Canadian company Tim Horton's, they went from my favorite fast food to the subject of a lifetime boycott of their business by myself. By doing the inversion, they externalized their costs on the American tax payers. I have not set foot in one of their restaurants since then. Never again will I do so. They have the right to run their business how they see fit and I have the right to vote with my feet.

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...