You're correct in recognizing that Music Freedom is not a fast lane. What many people fail to recognize, however, is that Music Freedom is still potentially dangerous because it violates the principles of net neutrality in that certain data is treated differently from other data.

In this case, this violation of net neutrality appears to work out in our favor. Who doesn't like free stuff? It's certainly nice to not have to pay for data. This benefit, however, is a short-term benefit with long-term repercussions.

Spotify, Pandora, Milk, and Rdio are larger, established heavy hitters in the world of music steaming. All four of these companies have another advantage: they are all included in T-Mobile's Music Freedom program. Consequently, consumers are more disposed to use services such as these, where they can steam music with no burden on their data plan, as opposed to other services like YouTube that do not qualify for Music Freedom.

Let's imagine for a moment that a group of entrepreneurs decide to launch a music steaming startup to complete with the likes of Spotify and Pandora and Milk and Rdio. Let's call this startup CoolMusic. CoolMusic is already at a disadvantage as its competitors are already a part of the Music Freedom program while it is not. Therefore, T-Mobile subscribers already using Spotify or Pandora or Radio or Milk have no incentive to switch to this new music steaming service, even though it might be better. Even worse, T-Mobile could theoretically deny CoolMusic entry into the Music Freedom program. What then? CoolMusic can't possibly compete with the other established music companies. Competition is inhibited, and by extension, innovation and change are also inhibited.

I'm a T-Mobile subscriber myself, and I love Music Freedom. But it's kind of a bittersweet relationship: while I benefit from Music Freedom, I know that, in the grand scheme of things, the short-term benefits are not worth the long-term repercussions.