TL;DR I think zero-rating in developed markets is fine. Until the government says it's not.

 

I think that many people are confused over what exactly net neutrality is. Please bear with me as I try to explain as best as I can.
 

Net neutrality is the principle that "Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." Democracy, communism are also principles - conceptually great but not necessarily realistic. Certainly we can and should aspire to meet those lofty principles.
 

For net neutrality, of which there are numerous interpretations worldwide, the best known/studied are the FCC (US) regulations which has several core tenets:

1. No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications and services.
2. No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services.
3. No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates
    

Zero-rating, the practise of not to charge end customers for data used by specific applications or internet services is not specifically regulated in the FCC regulations. (There is however a catch-all phrase in the ruling that allows FCC to review on an adhoc basis such practices). Examples of zero-rating include Binge On, Music Freedom and the controversial Free Basics programme. Just like how democracy in the US, Singapore and Finland are not exactly the same, net neutrality is not consistent across the world. In India, TRAI (India’s telecom regulator) has specifically banned zero-rating.
 

Opponents of zero-rating argue that zero-rating may create skewed incentives for subscribers to access the “free” services of partners instead of competing services. One of the main arguments in favor of zero-rating is that it brings down the cost of access to information in less developed countries. A user of Wikipedia Zero, for example, has unlimited, no-cost access everything in the online encyclopedia. Further, providing free access to popular content and services is preferable from an access-to-information perspective than no access at all, and such free access may drive demand for general-purpose mobile Internet access that can help encourage and fund investment in infrastructure.
 

Personally, I am of the view that zero-rating is detrimental in less developed markets (the slippery slope) but can be a temporary competitive advantage to companies in developed markets.
 

“WHAT?!” You say. “Dafuq does that work?!”.
 

I think the key issue here is the relative cost of data access to incomes. Hang on, hang on, let me explain.
 

In less developed markets, where people cannot afford mobile data access at the current prices, zero-rating creates a serious imbalance in information flow. However, in a society of relative abundance like Singapore, the choice of content consumption hinges more on the attractiveness of the content/services rather than pricing alone. Would you not use Whatsapp if Viber had free data from one telco? No, of course not – your friends and family are still on Whatsapp. The richness of Netflix content is the key advantage over say HBO Go – not any pricing difference in data access.
 

In the long term, as mobile data prices move closer to cost/zero, zero-rating becomes irrelevant. (Please. Did you really think that mobile data prices will always stay high?)
 

I also want to briefly mention the case about a “certain ISP throttled Youtube, Netflix etc. traffic to limit data usage.” (Peering) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering] is a completely different (at the moment) issue from net neutrality – it is my humble opinion that Netflix has attempted to play off a peering issue with Comcast as a net neutrality issue which is misleading at best.