[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.

[peterhadlaw]

This is correct. And let's say a new service wanted to differentiate itself somehow by prioritizing some sort of exclusive deal with an ISP that provides an improved consumer experience, well now they can't

[pavanky]

That is not the same as promotion. You aren't paying to watch the TV ads.

[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.

[zepolen]

This is precisely the way SMS started to cost something ludicrous like $300,000/GB - carriers started out with "5000 FREE SMS!!!" to their own network, some small amount to other carriers. People got on board with this "promotion" - then the carriers started raising prices and lowering the "free" quota.

When people finally realized how much they were getting ripped off - they figured communicating via the internet via platforms like WhatsApp and Messenger is much cheaper.

The carriers took a massive hit to their bottom line - and are now trying to get it back via implementing the same practices onto internet services.

[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.

[jhasse]

I don't have any, that's why I said "could".

[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.