{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/25/2018 4:27:57 PM
37
Since there is competition in the market of fast food, they could go eat at Wendies or McDonalds.
English
-
And if there are no other fast food places in the area...what?
-
That doesn’t happen because of zoning. Fast food restaurants are bunched together, usually.
-
Or you can justify going somewhere that's just a touch more expensive like a fast-casual chain. Five-guys would beat their price and speed if they wanted to do this.
-
Which is great. IF you have the option to compete. Problem is, a LOT of areas of the US have one ISP, so if they're being scumbags, then...tough.
-
I have never lived in an area in the U.S. with only one network provider, and I have moved innumerable times. Can you give me an example of a decently populated area with only one network provider?
-
I love in a town of 1100 people and we have access to two
-
Do you count mobile providers?
-
Nope. So we have more than that if we count those
-
[quote]Wendies[/quote]
-
[quote]Tendies[/quote]
-
I should have known.
-
If it's not a problem then why are the customers upset?
-
Never has an advertisement employed paid actors. [spoiler]/s[/spoiler]
-
Probably because they like Burger King slightly more than other fast food services, or they are in the mood for Burger King at that specific moment.
-
Or maybe because they understand that their burgers are not being delayed by anything other than greed, which is the only reason there is for implementing fast lanes.
-
That is likely as well. But this is not a fair comparison for the Net Neutrality issue.
-
How so?
-
The way burgers are made and distributed is completely different from the way more WiFi is ‘made’ and distributed.
-
That is true. However, this does not mean that ISPs could not arbitrarily slow down internet connections in the same way that BK arbitrarily slowed down burgers.
-
True, but that is not what ISPs want to do. They want to have small internet packages for those who are poorer or don’t use up too much data, then medium sized packages for someone with an average amount of money or who uses the internet a lot, and then a large internet package for those who want to spend a bit more on internet, or use it a lot. A small package would be optimal for an individual. A medium package would be optimal for a family of average size. A large package would be optimal for a school or office. This allows people to pay only for what they want/ need. If you don’t like this policy, I am certain that there will be an internet provider that has more traditional policies.
-
How does the ISP benefit from this? Where is the demand for this?
-
The small package will attract more people who generally couldn’t afford WiFi. The large package will attract those who want better wifi pay more. The middle package will be similar, if not the same, to the package we have now. In theory at least.
-
Where is the demand?
-
Not everything can be broken down to supply and demand. However, improving upon existing services tends to make more people want to buy them.
-
And you do understand that the consumers in this case are not only people but also companies who do business over the internet?
