I agree that data should be data and having companies pay (or otherwise sign up to be exempted) should be considered anti-competitive in such a regulated industry. But that belief won't stop me from using the exemption until the minute the FCC requires otherwise.
My carrier (T-Mobile) exempts streaming music services. It doesn't charge for the exemption and any music service can sign up for it, but it's still against net neutrality principles. It's better than AT&T's method, but only by a little. However, when they started this, I was able to cut from an unlimited plan to just 1GB/mo, and never suffer overages.
Do I disagree with it? On principle, yes. But I'm going to keep disagreeing with it while simultaneously using it as a way to lower my bill while getting around silly and even more innovation-stifling (IMO) data caps and high price mobile broadband.
I don't have a problem with different types of content being treated differently. It's still a fair playing field for all providers of streaming music. I've always thought that carriers should be allowed to prioritize content based on it's type in order to keep their networks running optimally. The problem for me is when specific companies can be prioritized over others.
T-Mobile doesn't treat all music apps the same though. They only apply free streaming to their list of 27 app [1]. Depending on how fair they are to adding small companies to the list. this system is essentially prioritizing larger companies over smaller ones.
It's prioritizing companies that apply to be included with their program over the ones that did not apply. It's free and open to any legal provider. Out of those 27, I've only ever heard of 11, which goes to show that they're not prioritizing big companies over smaller companies.
I disagree with their policy in principle. In practice, I use the hell out of it. I frequently drive long distances (over an hour each way) streaming music from Spotify the entire way.
I would rather have no data cap the same way my home Internet connection has no data cap. I would rather they not make exemptions for music specifically, since that shows they don't need the caps in the first place. But as long as they offer it (and I used T-Mobile long before they announced it), I will use it to my advantage.
I'm whining about your phrasing. I wish people only used "principle" to describe very strongly held beliefs.
You are weighing your belief that 'data is data' against, basically, a trivial convenience (you have many options, among them: no music, downloaded music, cheap streaming violating the principle, expensive streaming respecting the principle). That action says something about how strongly you believe in 'data is data'.
If you want to talk about the phrasing, I think you're missing a subtle distinction.
He disagrees IN principle, not ON principle.
As in, he disagrees in principle, but not in practice. As I understand it, "on principle" is the construction describing taking a stand on a decision because of your deeply held convictions. "In principle" is for a decision you've derived logically from a set of abstract premises.
The first comment in the thread uses "on principle". The next one uses "in principle", but I think it is used there to describe a belief.
I could very well misunderstand, I don't know (or the usage above could be loose).
I guess part of my problem is that I have trouble with a construction like "In principle, I believe in the sanctity of human life. In practice, sometimes you have to execute bad people."
(I think) That's better expressed as a preference that people not be killed. It's a silly extreme example, but I'm having trouble seeing how else it would be used, in a mechanistic sense.
It's more of "my principles tell me that this policy is wrong. However, I don't have the ability to make it right or avoid using it. So until it's set right by someone who DOES have that power, I don't have a choice."
So to use your analogy, I believe in the sanctity of human life. But my government doesn't. I don't kill anyone, but I live in a country that does. The fact that my government kills people won't stop me from driving on the government-built roads.
However you want to word it, I disagree with T-Mobile and AT&T's net neutrality policies. But I'm not in a position of power to make them change that, so what can I do?
My carrier (T-Mobile) exempts streaming music services. It doesn't charge for the exemption and any music service can sign up for it, but it's still against net neutrality principles. It's better than AT&T's method, but only by a little. However, when they started this, I was able to cut from an unlimited plan to just 1GB/mo, and never suffer overages.
Do I disagree with it? On principle, yes. But I'm going to keep disagreeing with it while simultaneously using it as a way to lower my bill while getting around silly and even more innovation-stifling (IMO) data caps and high price mobile broadband.