The analogy works because the customers were portrayed to be 'trapped' in the slow lane, with no option but to pay the extra fee or wait. This is a compelling real life example that anyone can relate to. Of course, repeat customers would avoid such a burger joint - but it's a real debate if they would be able to avoid data selective ISPs given the low competition in most markets.
From an advocacy and PR point of view, it's a very good piece that conveys the extreme case in which they are not able to switch ISP.
> This is a compelling real life example that anyone can relate to.
But that's not what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality is about netflix not being able to take more bandwidth than other streaming services. Net neutrality is fundamentally about producers and consumers sharing a path between them, with that path being neutral towards producers.
The burger king analogy pushes the costs of having a faster path to the consumer. In the case of net neutrality, the producers would be able to pay more to take more of the bandwidth. This wouldn't negatively affect consumers financially, but would affect the quality of service of other consumers.
It's important to get the distinction right because the consumers wouldn't be affected like the video portrays. They would simply get burgers at burger king faster, but much slower at mcdonalds. They wouldn't understand why mcdonalds isn't able to produce burgers faster, and they wouldn't be able to pay to get faster mcdonalds burgers. They would simply go to burger king.
Burger King could pay for a larger store, with wider queues, but they're disincentivised from doing so without pushing the extra overhead onto the customer.
Same with Netflix, they could pay all of the tolls with all the of the ISPs, but do you really think they wont push that cost onto the user?
From an advocacy and PR point of view, it's a very good piece that conveys the extreme case in which they are not able to switch ISP.