5 ms·

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 tr

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?

acdha 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    I was talking about music, as in https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-10969 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.
krisdol 9y ago
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.
r3bl 9y ago
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/ https://netneutralnost.com/
- dis-sys 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
hoschicz 9y ago
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 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 9y ago
  > This clearly benefits the free market. Free != regulated. In fact, they are pretty much opposite.

acdha 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  I was talking about music, as in https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-10969 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.

krisdol 9y ago

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.

r3bl 9y ago

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/ https://netneutralnost.com/

dis-sys 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.

hoschicz 9y ago

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 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 9y ago
> This clearly benefits the free market. Free != regulated. In fact, they are pretty much opposite.