Not really. The US had numerous schemes like this under "net neutrality" (it wasn't).

Same for Europe, which was often touted as a net neutrality success story. This kind of scheme is extremely popular all across Europe.

This confused the heck out of me when zero-rating was being made out to be the greatest evil, and that the US should be more like the EU.

But, at the same time, half of the mobile phone ads I saw had zero-rating a specific service (facebook, usually) as the main selling point. e.g. "Top-up €20/month, get unlimited facebook access."

AT&T has a partnership with HBO. I get HBO for “free” as part of my phone bill. So by nature of that relationship they need to have a fat trunk to HBO’s content.

Not so much a partnership as AT&T bought Warner Media which includes HBO.

Att owns HBO

Could you be more specific in what you mean by “net neutrality”? It’s a principle that could be put into practice a number of different ways.

Net neutrality means all network packages are treated equally while they are delivered. Its not about how that is implemented.

> Net neutrality means all network packages are treated equally while they are delivered.

I was wondering what they meant by "...if net neutrality had passed", which seemed to indicate a particular legal implementation of the principle you described above.

Net neutrality is supposed to mean that all data are equal.