In this video, I debunk the terrible viral video put out by Burger King called "Whopper Neutrality".
Recently a video made by Burger King went viral on YouTube. It was basically a pro net neutrality video using whoppers as an analogy. The premise is that people attempt to buy a whopper only to have to wait long periods of time or pay more.
The metaphor was terrible, but of course the media played it up as a genius move by the giant monopoly that sold people horse meat for several years.
In this video, we debunk the preconcieved notions this commercial ignorantly displays.
Net neutrality is supposed to stop big monopolies from over pricing their products and censoring that which they do not like. Meanwhile, the government regulation actually leads to MASSIVE monopolies ruling in the internet and television provider business with fixed prices that are so much higher than they would be if there was true free market competition. Conveniently, the big monopolies that so many think net neutrality saves them from are huge supporters of the regulations including Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Netflix and of course the big providers like Comcast and Verizon.
If there weren't so many government regulations, the market would act on the individual demand of those supporting it. Consumers would decide. Companies would have to provide the best product for the best price in order to compete against the countless other companies attempting to do the same. This means far more innovation, production, employment, better wages and repeat.
No company competing in this market would willingly refuse to provide what their customers want, drive their prices up against their competition, provide terrible quality products unless they wanted people to move to another alternative.
Let's look at this from the perspective of burger neutrality. Imagine the government came in and implemented this burger neutrality. Of course McDonalds and Burger King would support it. It goes through and every place that serves burgers has to provide it at the same price. McDonalds and Burger King survive these regulations and become the only options. They can then raise their prices as there would be no competition to worry about.
This is not rocket science.
Whatever governments do, free markets do far better. And without force!
See the FULL video report here:
Stay tuned and stay free everyone! Don't forget to Upvote & Follow!
If you like what I do, you can donate to my Bitcoin, Litecoin or EOS addresses below! Especially as I'm almost entirely demonetized by YouTube, we can't do it without you! Thank you!
Bitcoin:
Litecoin:
EOS:
Burger King not the best source for political hot takes? Who'd have thought hahah
No it's not. These were a couple of the best memes I could find previously for a post I had done.
Maybe it might help make a little more sense.
In addition, this week Charter announced that they were raising their base speed to 100 Mbps from the previous 60 Mbps in most areas and that they were going to keep the price the same. Well....the last time they did this, they did not change the service unless you asked for the change to be done and if you were paying for the higher priced product, they didn't let you know it was less and refused refunds. If you have Charter call them and ask them what your base speed is and have them fix it.
Until the local ISP monopolies are broken up (like Charter in Los Angeles), we need some sort of protection to prevent them from throttling content and censoring certain anti-establishment content.
Which is why Net Neutrality was introduced. To prevent the public from being taken advantage of. With it's repeal it will force us to pay more to prevent throttling and then allowing the ISPs to control what content we connect to. In addition, to the repeal this will allow the providers the ability to make deals with streaming services. So if you are in Charter's territory and they make a deal with Hulu. they can then throttle the speed to Netflix to make it unwatchable. This is just the start, they will be able to block any content they want to, or tell the 'service' they need to pay to allow access to their site. Twitch and YouTubers would be the hardest hit since they use a lot of bandwith. What will also happen with this and has been in the works for years is figuring out how to charge for services based on usage. Previously content and usage had not been monitored by cable companies, there was no need to. With the repeal...Now there is.
Also sadly....The cable industry is just as corrupt as any other corporation. The only large cable company as of now that is still stand alone is Cox. Comcast, Time Warner and Charter are essentially 1 company now broken into branches to which are setup so that they do not fall under the guise of a monopoly. The FCC has to approve all aquistions and institues stipulations to prevent a monopoly. These companies work together and trade out territories like a chess game.
The video yes is a bit of a stretch but how else you explain to people who don't pay attention to the world around them how something affects them. The repeal of Net Neutrality will not make things cheaper it will make it worse. It was repealed to make the corporations more money...not less. If lowering to competetive prices actually happened then cable and satellite services would already be cheaper than what they are. They charge what they do because they know people will pay what they ask because they want the service. One of the primary reasons for their rates is the contracts they have to carry the programming they do. (Yet another can of worms)
Worked in the cable industry for the better part of the past 12 year. Just like when transmissions were moving to digital...Most people, electronics stores and so forth were lead to believe it was a switch to HD. No it was closing down all analog signal ('to give to emergency services') and moving all service to a standard digital broadcast. (Which was a least 5 years late)
Government involvement in most things is a double edged sword. Should it be deregulated? I can't say. Does the FCC need to be revamped....most definitely. That in istelf is the problem ...HOW?
No. That's what governments tell people so they get their support. It is always "for their benefit". But it is not.
What needs to be done is deregulate everything. If I am disatisfied with my provider because they censor what I can browse online, I will leave. As there is no single businees in the Earth that likes to loose customers, then they will not censor the content I am wanting to consume.
Obviously government will not legislate against themselves.
Must be nice to be able to choose between different providers. Most of us don't have that choice. Your argument is bunk.
Oh but it is for the benefit. The fact that you and "World Alternative Media" have been so easily tricked by the flimsy free market logic used in Verizon's propaganda campaign is hilarious. Most people don't have a choice, specifically every rural community in the fucking country. The repeal of net neutrality is REALLY BAD.
"Obviously government will not legislate against themselves." Our government regulates against itself all the time. Your probably thinking of a cartoonish monarchy with an absolute top-down power structure. Here in the USA, we have an idea called the "three branches of government" which apparently you never learned about.
Of course: legislative, executive and the judicial power. Those powers are never isolated and will act taking into count personal interests from the other two powers.
In your country it seems to be common that President and the House of Representatives or Senate or whatever it is called, are ruled by different parties. When the President is from the Democrat party, then the Senate is ruled by Republicans and viceversa.
Have that make more difficult for presidents to achieve what they wanted? Like bombing countries or the Obamacare? I can see that it wasn't.
Internet access is not a public utility. If people want access to the network, they should pay for it. Providers pay some people to keep the cable operating. It is their cable. It is their choice to ask the money they wanted.
Austrian school of economics would agree with this analogy. I often hear people say how greatful they are that the government (or Al Gore? Yeah right) gave us the internet. I respond by saying that what they did there was to make sure that this network is centralised and still within their control. The free market was well on their way to create their own world wide web. The difference would have been that each company out there would have contributed each their own expertise in a much more decentralised network. Well that sounds complicated, some would say. To which I reply, complicated systems is exactly what comuters excel at, and the end user would have never noticed. You want to see videos? There a company on the network that takes care of that. You want to see x rated stuff, there an other that does a better job at that and most likely would not overlap with the other that provided the g rated stuff. How would the high bandwidth be provided? Well there this other company that takes care of that. Well how would we get the free stuff? Well nothing is free, you will pay for it one way or asnother. The free market would have taken care of all of the nuance in the background that the end user would never need to concern themselves with. Aol survived, but what happen to compuserve, mindspring and lots of the other networks that were popping up inthe mid 80s. I am sure they would have done a better job than Al Gore. BTW, just being sarcastic with this Al Gore credit, I know better as to who invented the internet and forced it down our throat. If you all agree or disagree let me know what you think.
Very well said. That is the main thing we want to keep it a 'free' market system. Taking away Net Neutrality will change that. (It took alot of research when this was first going on, since I had to explain it to my customers at the time.)
What type of customers do you have?
I worked at a cable (one of the tope 3) provider for 10 yrs, I had to step away a couple of years ago.
Oh, so for you to agree with what I said above says something. Me, I am a mechanical engineer.
Yes, I totally agree with what you said :)
good video, I really like it
thank you
Government is horrible they think they are helping but it does the opposite look at the price of healthcare, and now the people want FREE Healthcare okay yeah so then big pharma can be that much more protected. smh
I pretty much cut out the chain fast food. I eat a burger at a pub or have independent pizza joint pizza but these mega corporations make shit food.
Upvote and follow done
Hey fellow Canuck! I actually made a video about this myself. What is amazing though is how many people, especially millennials, seem to be falling for this. Here's my video. Keep up the great work! https://steemit.com/culture/@angrybeaver/yd108f8n
Haha this was so stupid, if any company did this people would say bye bye to ever buying their products, but how many people will actually fall for this that watch mainstream news and television? It's ridiculous, but probably helps the cause of the corrupt sadly.
Government is ghastly they think they are helping however it does the contrary take a gander at the cost of human services, and now the general population need FREE Healthcare affirm definitely so then enormous pharma can be significantly more protected.....
I know many are confused but, I'll take the state out of the equation everytime I can. Liberty will give us more...the state takes & leaves us with less.
I'm completely confused now and I thought I had a grasp on net neutrality. Tryskele's comment above is as I understand it, could you do another video please for us lay people.
I understand what you are saying and generally deregulation of everything would in theory be better for humanity. That being said is it even feasible in this case? Who exactly owns/controls the physical network / Is it not so that in some regions cable/internet providers just lease it's use ? What will stop whomever the physical lines belong to to just start giving access as they please? or does net neutrality just impact the individual portals but not the physical net itself ?
Exactly.
Burger Fail
"Let's look at this from the perspective of burger neutrality. Imagine the government came in and implemented this burger neutrality. Of course McDonalds and Burger King would support it. It goes through and every place that serves burgers has to provide it at the same price. McDonalds and Burger King survive these regulations and become the only options. They can then raise their prices as there would be no competition to worry about."
No, that's not what net neutrality is. It is not a pricing regulation. Actually, Burger King depicted it accurately, just vastly exaggerated. But then, the question is, why wouldn't they have something like a priority lane at Burger King, where you can get your burger a bit faster for paying something like a 10 % surplus? Priority boarding has been a staple at airports for years after all.
But then again, the Internet is not a burger joint...
"Conveniently, the big monopolies that so many think net neutrality saves them from are huge supporters of the regulations including Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Netflix and of course the big providers like Comcast and Verizon."
AHAHA you're a fucking retard! Verizon practically funded the repeal of net neutrality single handedly. THIS is fake news