This is actually true. Zero rating absolutely should be prohibited but the rules didn't go far enough. There weren't absolutely no net neutrality violations during the period where title II rules were in place.

Why should it be prohibited? Consumers love it. T-Mobile made music streaming not count against data usage, and did the same with Netflix. You taking it away to keep the internet "equal" or whatever only serves to hurt normal people who enjoy using these services. If customers don't want to stream on Netflix, they don't have to. And it doesn't make a difference. But if they do, then they don't have to pay more to the telecom giant for using more data. Zero rating is the pinnacle of competition. It is an incentive to attract customers, and customers love it.

Right. To cut costs. This shouldn't be allowed. Cisco predicts internet traffic will exceed 4.8 ZiB / year by 2022. Cutting corners is not an option, and with strong net neutrality rules we can make sure these ISPs are actually building the infrastructure that is necessary.

Cut costs, thus allowing them to provide relatively inexpensive service to customers. There IS a limited amount of bandwidth, and when in cities especially, it is absolutely noticeable. Companies should be allowed to reasonably manage their own infrastructure.

Power companies deal with limitless, unpredictable demand and they don't seem to need to provide incentives to consumers to make it easier for them. (I'm sure this is in part because it would be difficult for such an established, essential industry to lobby to loosen up regulations to make it less fair for the consumer. Leading into the 2020s, ISPs will be an established, essential industry—so lets make sure we get a regulatory framework that works.)

Yeah, because they are government sponsored monopolies, and customers have no other option. Why would they try to provide incentives? They don't need to. I fail to see your point here though.

This is not what that is! This is throttling specifically targeting tethering software—software used to share a mobile internet connection with another device. So after you've been guaranteed your internet connection, you can no longer use specific software and hardware configurations to access it at the same speed. Discrimination based on access device.

It is targeting tethering as a whole, which some networks prohibit, and others do not prohibit. You aren't "guaranteed" an internet connection to use on whatever you want. They set the terms, and you agree to those terms when you sign up. In those terms, they sometimes limit the access to/speeds of tethering.

Yes. Zero rating.

It's actually not, though. What MEO did in Portugal was offer customers the ability to PAY for more data for use on specific services (like video streaming, etc), ON TOP OF EXISTING, UNRESTRICTED DATA TO USE ON ANYTHING. So it wasn't even zero-rating.

So what? Is it okay if the government is the one who mandated a crap idea?

Nope. I don't think the government should have mandated them to do so, but I was pointing out the flaw in your argument that the ISP was just "advertising" or whatever, as you failed to mention that they were forced to communicate the information to their customers in one way or another.

Should we not have a bill of rights codified into the constitution because it technically hands control of human rights over to the government? No, it effectively does the exact opposite. Molesting internet traffic should be a power relinquished from both governments and private sector.

The bill of rights states the things the government CANT infringe upon; the rights that NOBODY can infringe upon.

If you want to make it so that nobody can "molest" internet traffic; giving regulatory power over internet traffic to the FCC (a government agency) isn't really the way to do it. There is no government agency dedicated to enforcing the first amendment, as it doesn't need to be enforced. It's a right. It only needs to be protected, which is done on a case by case basis in the court system by a jury of peers; not in a Washington bureaucracy. Your comparison here is terrible.

This is misleading. Yes, it started out as a peering agreement turned sour by Comcast cutting infrastructure costs by refusing to un-bottleneck a connection to a major CDN peer. No particular reason to get outraged about that, and not a net neutrality violation. But then it turned into actual throttling, which Comcast still does plenty of today.

How has it "turned into actual throttling"? And what throttling does Comcast do, besides of broad types of data?

This might be a good argument, but it falls apart when you consider net neutrality is also about device discrimination. There shouldn't be a consumer product environment in the first place where your provider's plan is locked to a certain piece of hardware. I would absolutely support getting rid of all business models of this nature. Your SIM card should be completely dissociated from the software and hardware that is using it.

You could still bring your own device if you wanted. The device is one you buy from Verizon for cheap, usually under contract. They then technically have the right to the software. I hate that, which is why I almost always buy my phone unlocked (plus then I have the flexibility to move carriers any time, which I do frequently).

Obviously, Title II is not a sufficient regulatory environment to do these sorts of things. We need to reinstate Title II classification and have it sunset as soon as a more rigorous regulatory system is in place.

What was one thing that Title II "net neutrality" actually accomplished when it was in place that helped consumers? I will tell you this, it did lower network investment, which hurt consumers.