1. QZ (nor Tim Wu) never claimed that the screenshot in their article is from Portugal. That false premise alone takes a significant amount of introduction to t

1. QZ (nor Tim Wu) never claimed that the screenshot in their article is from Portugal. That false premise alone takes a significant amount of introduction to the article. In fact, QZ's article even explains the same thing that this article does (see my second point). 2. I completely agree with the author that the Portugal example is a bad one. That example shows zero rating, not "pay $5 to access certain websites", as most people assume once it circulates through the NN debate. Still problematic, but not as quite as those who share it make it seem. "Pay $5 to use social media" and "pay $5 to use your data plan for anything you want and have additional data specifically for social media" is not the same. 3. I disagree with the overall premise of the article (that Pai is right) and there was nothing in this article to prove me otherwise. It puts into a question the FCC decision from 2015. Okay, understood. But I fail to see what the author thinks is the appropriate action after the 2015 decision gets reverted. As such, my belief that the 2015 decision shouldn't get reverted is still going strong.