It is an interesting question whether more competition between network operators would have resulted in the same result. 

Blocking the use of skype or whatsapp is not a matter of fundamental right of free access to information. What is at stake is net neutrality: the fact that the internet is designed as a pipe that transports IP packets, not unlike the way the electric grid carries electrons.  Because of this design, it is technically cheaper and simpler if the only bytes a router ever gets to see are in the headers of IP packets, comparable to the “envelope” of a letter. This is good news, both if you feel that gentlemen don’t read each others letters and by extension, that its not none of the telcos business what you send over the net,  or if you want the net to not collapse which is currently a real problem. Apart from these technical issues, it is one of the key reasons why the internet supports so much innovation: a “dumb” open standards based internet allows the billions of computers controled by independent users and companies at the end of an internet connection to communicate with each other, blissfully ignorant of how information flows from A to B. On the other hand , a “smart” network controled by a handful of network operators that use their proprietary infrastructure tends to create a archipelago of walled gardens, where all business is directed at the operators.  As an important side result, not caring about the content of IP packets, means that censorship on content is impossible, and that that competition between network operators is greatly increased and operator lock-in is greatly reduced because packets from other networks are not treated any diffently from packets generated in the own network.  An operator that is not providing net neutral net access is therefore providing crippled internet to the detriment of their customers and if allowed at all, should be forced to state that very cleary in its offering.

The other thing at stake is the protection of the consumer and making sure consumers get the best deal. Ideally competition on the free market drives prices down in such a way that consumers only pay for what costs money. In reality things are not so clear. There is every bit of reason to believe that the telecom sector has a business model based on ripping off its customers and using the windfall as a way to expand marketshare.  Why are telecom pricing schemes so opaque, why is there a coupling in the sale between phones and subscriptions (forbidden in most markets), why is sms more costly per byte than data from the Hubble Space telescope, and why does using mobile internet cost 6 euro per megabyte in Europe an d 4 times as much in a a densely networked country like Korea? Because the operators get away with it. The only reason they get away with it is because competion is limited to a very few players (3 in the netherlands) and anti-trust bodies have been reluctant to step in where competion is failing (in this respect it is interesting that Neelie Smit Kroes intends to force a common European market for telecom, and forcing essentially equal prices for telecom anywhere in Europe). Why, on the other hand is unlimited YouTube on your mobile relatively cheap? Because it is needed to increase marketshare in the expensive smartphone and expensive subscription market.  Note that , unlimited YouTube _is_ a real burden on the infrastructure and does necessitate real investments.

So is Verhagens move the right one? Probably. What KPN and Vodafone are asking for is protection of a business model where phone calls and sms subsidize data and implicitly, their battle for marketshare. It of course also means that people who donot want internet pay too much for phone and sms. I donot see why we should encourage that.  Moreover, I certainly believe that society and the economy as whole is better off if the market provides netneutral internet. While I don’t think the net will collapse if a very few applications (or protocols) will get special treatment, it will set a very bad precedent and the ensuing “arms race” between application providers and the network operators will soon lead to a net that is not neutral at all. So lets just insist on net neutrality and ensure that there is enough competition that this service can be obtained for the lowest possible price. Deregulation of the telecom market has been an undeniable success, but only because there is at least some competition and anti trust organisations like the OPTA or its European counterparts in BEREC at least sometimes gave a push to stop the most blatant consumer abuse.  If KPN and Vodafone feel that they loose money on data, by providing their own competition, then I can see their point. However there is an easy solution: let them make heavy use of data more expensive and attract market share by way of offering cheaper phone calls and (sms) messaging.  If   operators like t-mobile who bet on unlimited mobile internet will get more marketshare, then either t-mobile will start loosing money (if KPN and Vodafone are right) or KPN and Vodafone are not competitative and deserve to get punished by the market.

Now if Verhagen wants to get more competition and more realistic telecom pricing, for starters he could start by forbidding the coupled sale of telephones with subscriptions. Worked wonders in Finland, and is a major step in getting more transparant pricing.