It truly is a terrible thing when people want "less regulation" without pausing to think whether the particular bit of regulation benefits them or not. "Regulation" has become a bogeyman you can invoke to reliably get people rallying against it.

As a customer, NN does not benefit me. The opposite. I will lose access to zero-rated services if it's implemented. I don't want that to happen because then I will have to pay more money for the same service.

I don't understand this. Can someone explain to me the argument of "ISPs in the US are monopolies, so more regulation is worse for the customer"?

If your ISP is a monopoly, they can do whatever they want if left unregulated. They can literally charge you whatever they want.

Zero-rated services are zero-rated because you pay for them indirectly. I guess losing access to them would be a downside, and would prevent Facebook from becoming even more entrenched, which they certainly don't want. It doesn't do anything for internet freedom, though. You might as well say "well the internet to me is Facebook, so I don't care if the internet is free, I just want it to run Facebook".

As you rightly pointed out, ISPs are monopolies in the US. That's the issue. Break them up, force them to compete, remove the monopolies. Trying to fix the monopoly problem, that arose due to government interference, with more government regulation is not right.

PS: an advice: If you cannot think of a single argument against your own position you're not ready to have a dialog.

Breaking them up does not do anything. If there is one cable to your house, breaking up the company that owns it does not change that there is one cable to your house. Last-mile networks are natural monopolies. You wouldn't expect breaking up your local utilities would lead to a choice in sewer pipes, would you?

I live in the first world so I have many many choices to get a wired or 4G connection. The government forces ISPs to share their infrastructure. I understand that kind of stuff does not apply to countries like the US, but I'm talking about my own case here.

You do understand that ISPs do implement zero-rated service because it makes them money, right? Who do you think this money comes from if it's not from you? Who is the nice person who decided they wanted to subsidize your internet connection?

If you think that zero-rated services save you money, all that is happening is that you don't understand how you pay for it. So, maybe it is time to find out how you do pay for it?

>Who do you think this money comes from if it's not from you?

The zero-rated services themselves.

Well, sure, but that doesn't really answer the question. Where does the zero-rated service take the money from if it's not from you?

> Yup, how horrible that people actually want less regulation.

You want less government regulation, in favor of more corporate 'regulation'. That does indeed sound horrible to me.

It seems that some people just hear REGULATION and freak out, without realizing that they rely heavily on regulation every day to get safely to work and not have their house confiscated.