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?
