The way some arguments are exposed is... weird. Argument 1 ("Free speech will suffer without net neutrality”) boils down to "People say X will happen without n

The way some arguments are exposed is... weird. Argument 1 ("Free speech will suffer without net neutrality”) boils down to "People say X will happen without net neutrality, X is happening, so we may as well let NN pass" [where X is "interruption of free speech"], while ignoring that free speech is not a binary and that circumventing net neutrality can be one way to deny free speech. Internet censorship is the most basic example of such a situation. Argument 2 relies on the concept that not only should users pay for their bandwidth and services for theirs, but large services ought to pay once more for their bandwidth w.r.t. "interconnection fees" - but then again, the sentence being discussed ("These ISPs are monopolies, and they need to be regulated”) isn't relevant to NN. Finally, when talking about Portugal he claims that "Portugal does have net neutrality", when the screenshot above is in direct violation of NN as defined in the link ("End-users should have the right to access and distribute information and content, and to use and provide applications and services without discrimination, via their internet access service.", Recital 6 of the "BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality"). At best, he is relying on a weird interpretation of this sentence, where "have the right to access" means "there is at least one plan which does that". Besides, the existence of a European regulation doesn't mean NN is enforced: the same regulation applies to Italy, but I can buy a plan boasting "free social&chat" and 10 GB towards select music services, through Telecom Italia no less (https://www.tim.it/ricarica-automatica https://www.tim.it/ricarica-automatica).