I'm not opposed to zero-rating. It's a different end of the net neutrality debate I guess.

If we compare zero rating to traditional media, there's nothing stopping someone from giving out free books/magazines/dvds/whatever, and I don't think anyone here would be ideologically opposed to people giving out free print media.

It's a very ideological and academic debate, not really grounded in reality. In New Zealand, we had (possibly still do have) 0.facebook.com, which was free to access on mobile devices over mobile data. The sky did not fall, people didn't become indoctrinated zombies.

Now in New Zealand, you can also buy cheaper data plans, that only work for certain websites, it's about half price, and you can only use the data for Spotify, Snapchat, Facebook, and a couple of others. I don't really agree with this, and think that it's breaking NN, however, I don't know the specifics of how the deal works, does Spotify pay the mobile provider money for this? Or does the provider just do it as a form of load balancing?

And even if you don't agree with this on an ideological level when it comes to things such as free wikipedia access, I would argue that pragmatically, it is still a good thing. Good and evil are not black and white, increased knowledge is a good thing, decreased net neutrality (if you define free wikipedia as this, which I would understand) is a bad thing. It's a dimensional axis though, the good can outweigh the bad.