Dutch Market Regulator Bans T-Mobile's 'Free' Streaming Music Service (reuters.com) 61
The Dutch Consumer and Markets regulator ordered T-Mobile to shut down its zero-rated music streaming service because it violates the country's net neutrality rules. T-Mobile launched the Music Freedom service in October, allowing customers to stream music on their mobile devices without it impacting their data plans. Reuters reports: The AFM said the practice, often called "zero rating" is a violation of Dutch net neutrality rules, because it puts rival services such as Spotify at a competitive disadvantage. Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Mobile Netherlands, which had introduced the product on Oct. 10, must stop offering it or face penalty of 50,000 euros ($52,000) per day, the AFM said. Zero rating is shaping up as one of the major battlegrounds for European telecommunications companies as they seek ways to attract customers. The Dutch net neutrality law unambiguously forbids the practice, but European Union rules are less clear.
There's only two things I hate in this world. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
God took a huge crap and created The Dutch.
Re: (Score:1)
While we're being intolerant let's not forget those miserable fat Belgian bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Their culture is to nibble on a herring hanging over their head.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take stroopwafels, olliebollen, Gouda cheese, Zoute Drops, and groentesoep met balletjes, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I like a nice hearty stomppot. Lots of dutch people in my American city.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
NN FTW (Score:1)
Net neutrality laws: Another win for the consumer!
Re: (Score:2)
As one of those dutch consumers - not so much. While i do totally understand and subscribe the need of net neutrality, this example already shows it is not always in the consumers best interest.
Another dutch provider (KPN, market leader) wanted to do this a few years ago, and ran into the same legal issue. Their final solution(s): 1. increase all data with all plans and 2. sell a discounted spotify subscription that came with 'free' additional data, the latter apparently being a legal solution.
This (net-neu
Re: (Score:1)
In the US we have 4 providers (Tmo, Verizon, Sprint, ATT), many resellers, and options for cheap cross bordera (through TMO at least).
Also, zero rated streaming is happening, but on a level playing field that any content provider can play on (though in a month or so I expect zero rating to become based around crushing other providers).
Re: (Score:3)
No it really is in your best interest. These discounts have one purpose and one purpose only, reduce competition and user lockin. Okay maybe two, but the end result is always the same monopolies and less choice and when the goal is finally realised, ... Guess who will start charging again when there is no competition.
Re:Sorry for being ignorant... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem here is not that the streaming service is free, but that using it does not count toward your data cap, while using a competing streaming service (like Spotify) does.
So yes, you do pay double for using other streaming services.
Spotify is zero-rated (at least in USA) (Score:1)
because it puts rival services such as Spotify at a competitive disadvantage
That article sucks. It makes it sound like Music Freedom is a music streaming service, but it's not. At least in the USA, there are many services which fall under the Music Freedom feature and are all zero-rated. Current list is 44 services. Spotify is one of them. I agree that letting T-Mobile decide that music is free but other data costs you isn't in the spirit of net neutrality. I'll be interested if they appeal.
It is not T-Mobiel deciding (Score:2)
I agree that letting T-Mobile decide
The key reason to me why this is acceptable is that T-Mobile is NOT deciding. Any company can sign up to be part of the plan from the provider side. So it is completely open - that is why they have so many services signed on already, basically anyone that can handle streaming anything over the internet at any kind of scale would be able to sign up to provide this with T-Mobile.
Re: (Score:2)
Any company can sign up
So only companies get to play, and it has to be a company that is aware of the local loophole.
Also why should customers who aren't interested in streaming music on their phones subsidise those who do?
Which incidentally means you're indirectly subsidising the music industry.
So sad you think that way (Score:2)
So only companies get to play
Nope read, the other responses to my post, it's not just companies.
What's sad is you think it matters when ANYONE can forma company for around $10 in most states...
Also how is this a "local loophole", that's not what this is at all. You have no idea what the hell is actually happening with this service.
weird (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It has to do with being an internet provider, internet is not a product you control, net neutrality means you can't bundle anything with internet (even dutch tv cable boxes are an option you pay extra for, but still all way cheaper than the US and at higher speeds)
Re: (Score:2)
You're still using 2G data at 40 Kbps? (Score:2)
> Wrong, the government can make sure the work gets done that the private sector has refused for decades to do.
Decades? Two decades ago we had 2G data. Are you still using 2G? Hundreds of billions of dollars of investment by the carriers brought us 3G and now 4G nationwide networks. I dislike Sprint as much as the next guy, but I'm not stupid and I'm not a liar, so when they spend billions making their data network 100 times faster I don't pretend that doesn't happen.
The government can make sure th
Ps: More government = more Trump (Score:2)
Ps, remember any time you suggest more government involvement, in the US you're suggesting you want more involvement from the Trump administration. You want the FCC to be more active and have more power? You want DONALD TRUMP'S FCC to have more power? You sure about that?
A drop in the bucket, an a annoying drop, but a dr (Score:2)
Have you ever had a faucet dripping slowly and the sound annoyed you when you were trying to sleep? That's the tax money spent on the wireless phone networks. It's really annoying, and it's a drop in the bucket. The (damn) phone companies spend something like $50 billion / year on network upgrades, it's pretty crazy. As I mentioned in my other post, when I left Sprint ten years ago they were charging $2.50 /MB for 128Kbit (really 64Kb) service and 15 cents per text message. It took a minute or so to lo
Re: (Score:2)
All it ends up meaning is that you can blow through your monthly quota 100 times faster. Now if that 4G network actually was cheap enough to use...
It sucks. Remember $2.50/MB, 115 cent text message (Score:2)
I absolutely understand your frustration. Watching HD video on a phone without wifi gets expensive pretty quick.
Also, I got tired of the big carriers and left Sprint for Boost Mobile ten years ago, because Sprint was charging $2.50 per MB, and 15 cents per text message. Ten years later, they sell 24GB for $100; four cents per GB. That's a price reduction of over 98%, so pretending nothing has changed is just stupid. For $35 with Boost, I use my phone all day without any extra charges - but I am limited i
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Canada, so no cheap mobile like in the US. Here it seems to be $30 a GB unless you signup for an expensive contract and then not much cheaper and mostly cheap minutes that I don't use. I pay 15 cents a text message as well. At that it seems every couple of months something goes up in price.
Pages have grown too, especially if you don't block scripts, ads and such, which is a lot harder to do on my phone compared to my desktop. With scripts enabled, even this tab that I'm replying to you in, 6 messages
the problem with zero rating (Score:4, Informative)
It's only zero rated until all the competition is pushed out of business, then the prices go back up.
T-mobile appealing, continuing practice (Score:3)
References (Dutch, you'll have to pass it through Google Translate): https://www.t-mobile.nl/datavr... [t-mobile.nl] http://newsroom.t-mobile.nl/t-... [t-mobile.nl]
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that services need to be "whitelisted" at all is a problem. Who controls the whitelist? Spotify is whitelisted? Fantastic. So you created an oligopoly locking out new players in the music streaming business.
Unless the whitelist is independently controlled and reviewed and free to use for any player then it's a violation of net neutrality by my view.
Re: (Score:2)
Until a music-streaming provider complains about being discriminated against, I don't think the review of the whitelist is the problem. The legal issue seems to be about the question whether discrimination by type of content (music, in this case), regardless of the company that provides the content, is allowed or not.
My feeling is that T-mobile is in a weak position here. Because if T-mobile is right, they would also be allowed to discriminate against other types of content; for example by making VoIP traff
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not true. "European Law" is not a law, it's a regulation specification a member state you implement into local law.
Netherlands already had a net neutrality law, which is more strict than the EU regulation. There is nothing in the EU regulation which does not allow these stricter rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU regulation would explicitly say something is allowed, then local law cannot prohibit it (and the other way around).
But as far as I know this is not the case with respect to zero-rating or "fast lanes".