Well, what I meant was zero-rating of services, which is what this discussion is about (rather than based on actual operational costs). And actually, arguably,

Well, what I meant was zero-rating of services, which is what this discussion is about (rather than based on actual operational costs). And actually, arguably, that is not necessarily against net neutrality. Net neutrality ultimately is about whether anyone can send traffic to the ISP's customers under the same, non-monopolistic, conditions. As such, making a geographic distinction isn't really that much of a problem, if it is not used to also implement other distinctions. The question is: Could anyone who would have wanted to send traffic to those customers bought transit on the open market at market rates in order to deliver traffic to within the reach of the zero rating? It's a problem if you can buy special interconnects from the ISP in order to have your traffic zero-rated. It's not really a problem if the ISP says "any traffic delivered to this exchange (that is well-connected to many competing transit providers) is zero-rated".