[eriknstr]

Very recently I bought an iPhone and a subscription that includes 4G service. With this subscription I have 6 GB of traffic per month anywhere in EU, BUT any traffic to Spotify is unmetered, and I don't know quite how to feel about this. On one side it's great having unlimited access to all the music in Spotify at any time and any place within the whole of EU, but on the other side I worry that I am helping damage net neutrality.

Now Spotify, like Netflix and YouTube and a lot of other big streaming services, almost certainly has edge servers placed topologically near to the cell towers. I think this is probably ok. In order to provide streaming services to a lot of people you are going to need lots of servers and bandwidth no matter what, and when you do you might as well work with the ISPs to reduce the cost of bandwidth as much as possible by placing out servers at the edges. So IMO Spotify is in a different market entirely from anyone who hasn't got millions or billions of dollars to spend, and if you have that money it should be no more difficult for you to place edge servers at the ISPs than it was for them.

But the unmetered bandwith deal might be harmful to net neutrality, maybe?

[r3bl]

Of course it's harmful!

We have a similar thing in our region (Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia). Mobile operators give you access to a couple of services unmetered, and you spend your data for other. As long as you can't choose the services you want to be unmetered, I consider these packages anti-NN.

This works in your specific advantage since you've probably already been using Spotify previously. If you were an Apple Music / Google Play Music subscriber, and were forced to switch to Spotify, it wouldn't be ideal for you, would it?

I even took things a bit further. About two dozens of websites from the region (so, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia) either shut down, or displayed a static message about the harmfulness of such data packets today. It's kind of a small support towards Battle for the Net and their action, but our goal was more to spread awareness and start a story than to ask for a specific action (like sending comments to the FCC).

It's not as big as Battle for the Net, it's mostly me and the websites I already had a previous affiliation with (posted articles previously and things like that), but I had $0 budget, a steady job + other obligations, and was basically able to spend <2 hours per day convincing websites to shut down for a day.

All in all, I consider my own project a success.

No point in sharing the link in an English forum, but in case there's someone from the region interested in it, and in case you really feel helpless outside of the US, here's an example of what you can do. This is not a local fight, this is a global fight against the ISP fuckery: https://netneutralnost.com/

[dis-sys]

I don't see how providing unmetered Spotify is "forcing" any Apple Music / Google Play Music subscriber to switch. You can freely choose to ignore the unmetered services and continue to use whatever other services you choose.

[r3bl]

Okay, let me put it this way:

You have three competitors: A, B, and C. They all pretty much accomplish the same thing. Your ISP cooperates with A to give it a privileged position (unmetered connection).

If you're a subscriber to B and C, you can't use your service of choice under the same conditions as those who use the service A. Therefore, you can either switch to A, or pay more data to use your preferred service (B or C).

As long as you can't choose the service that's going to be unmetered, Spotify has a privileged position compared to its competitors for the users of that ISP.

[dis-sys]

No, I disagree.

For your mentioned services B and C for which you are subscriber, you have been paying for the data usage, you are free to use them in the future with the exact same conditions/charges. If A enters some agreements with the ISP/carrier you choose to give you unmetered access, you are not put into any disadvantaged position, because you are not paying extra, you only get an option to use A's free traffic or pay the current same amount for services from B and C.

It should also be pointed out that services A, B and C you described above are not "pretty much accomplish the same thing", A managed to reach this agreement to foot a part of your traffic bill, B and C refused to somehow pay your carrier to match the same level of service currently offered by A. There is a huge difference here.

[lucozade]

I agree with you. From my POV this isn't a net neutrality issue. This is a promotional offer.

It would be a net neutrality issue if the ISP blocked B and C as services so you were forced to only use A if you wanted music streaming. Or similarly, if music streaming services were penalised for bandwidth to the point of being unusable.

For me, net neutrality isn't about not making one service better. I have no particular issue with that. It's about not making services unusable.

[zepolen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog - that's you mate.

[philipodonnell]

You're kind of assuming that services B and C have the ability to choose to enter agreements to give you unmetered access and have chosen not to. There is no such restriction as far as I know.

Any ISP would be free to sign an "exclusive" agreement with a Spotify and B+C are now stuck having their customers charged more without any ability to control the price or do anything about it.. Or the exclusive agreement could be with a carrier-owned service and A, B and C are all stuck.

[dis-sys]

ISPs around the world are the same, they are commercial companies to make $, it signed an exclusive agreement with A because B/C refused to match the conditions put forward by A. Are you suggesting that ISPs are knocking back better $ offers from B/C in favour of A? I doubt that.

Unless the ISP is downgrading the service quality of B/C or charging you more for using the same services from B/C, I don't see any problem if they choose to make services from A unmetered. The entire argument is so flowed - using such logic, one can jump up and argue that unmetered Spotify traffic is bad because people are "forced" to listen more music and spend less time on sports/reading/<insert your favourite stuff here> related apps/services - what is the difference here, they all compete for your time/attention.

[pavanky]

It is not a problem to the consumer, but a problem to small or up coming companies. If users are being incentivized to use a particular service, then it makes it harder for any new comer to even compete at the same playing field.

[dis-sys]

the same can be said for anything related to promotion. new comers can not afford to play their ads on TV, they don't have money to show their name during super bowl.

[zepolen]

I wonder if you have the same opinion if the ISP limits your access from original unmetered access to A, B and C to limited access to B and C.

Because that's exactly what is happening.

Except tomorrow they will limit A as well.

[dis-sys]

what do you mean by limited access? if it is all about paying for the traffic required to use those services rather than getting unmetered access, I don't see any problem here. You pay for what you use/want.

Internet is never free.

[jhasse]

> because you are not paying extra

How can you be sure? It could that the costs of the unlimited data for A get apportioned on all paying customers.

[dis-sys]

show me evidence please.

[bandushrew]

Because, without NN, it doesn't have to be JUST unmetered. QoS can be used to throttle connections to Apple Music, hell, service to competing music services could even be denied totally.

[krisdol]

T-Mobile has that set up in the US. Luckily you can at least opt out, which I have. T-Mobile offers various unmetered streams if you use the apps, but they degrade the quality of the stream. I believe all youtube streams become 480p, for example. I don't trust that they don't or won't affect other sites in some negative way.

Frankly, I'm happy with the data plan I have and I have no need to bargain off portions of the internet so that my ISP can closely monitor and manipulate certain sources.

[acdha]

For me it comes down to whether it's a special deal or open. In the US T-Mobile has a program where any music service can apply to have their traffic exempted from caps and that seems unremarkable to me since it doesn't favor a specific service. What I would worry about the most would be that being negotiated, where a competitor could arbitrarily be excluded for strategic reasons, or with a fee which would make it hard for competitors to enter the market.

[krisdol]

It depends on what program you're talking about. The previous iteration, Binge ON, capped streaming videos at 480p, but you could opt out on your account settings page.

The current iteration, One, caps Netflix, YouTube, HBO and other services at 480p, and you have to pay $25/mo for an "HD Add On" to get rid of the cap.

Sprint caps different types of apps (even games) at different bandwidths as well, and there is no option to get more than 480p from them.

There is nothing good about this.

[acdha]

I was talking about music, as in https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-10969. Video is harder since it requires much higher bit-rates but the only thing which bothers me about Binge On is that they rolled out first as opt-out but even that's not a big deal since it's trivial to turn off if you want extra pixels more than a lower monthly bill.

[hoschicz]

I have a virtual mobile operator here in Czechia that has boasted about its offering of zero-rating (not counting towards data cap) traffic to Facebook and Messenger. They also have very competitive prices, which is why I have migrated to them once they launched.

Because I am a poor student, what I use now is a plan where I pay an equivalent of 3 euro per month for 80 MB. After I use these up, the internet gets slowed down to 32 kbps (really more like 128 kbps). That is enough to send chats, find buses and receive notifications and it prevents me from procrastinating too much.

I am an avid user of Twitter and browse only Twitter when I am on WiFi. However, on mobile data, I browse only Facebook (Facebook runs fast even when I have hit my cap). I also watch videos on Facebook on the bus very often since they are free. I usually use up about 1.5 GB of data per month.

Next month, because of a law (they say it's because our regulator told them to) , they will no longer be allowed to zero-rate only Facebook. What they are doing is overhauling their plans: the smallest one is 500 MB for general use plus 250 MB of data for social media for the equivalent of 4 euro. (https://www.mujkaktus.cz/kaktusite) Social networks include Twitter, FB, IG, Snapchat. Before the changes, I could get only 200 MB for the equivalent of 4 euro (with Facebook).

I love that. I can finally use Twitter on the go and I'll get more freedom and mobile data for the buck. This clearly benefits the free market. Their customers are complaining, however, because they use mostly Facebook given the choice and they switched to them because of it.

[mdpopescu]

> This clearly benefits the free market.

Free != regulated. In fact, they are pretty much opposite.