[StavrosK]

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".

[dingo_bat]

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.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

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?

[ghba66]

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.