I'm surprised this is getting so many upvotes, there are a lot of problems with the statements and arguments in the article. It almost entirely rests on a boge

I'm surprised this is getting so many upvotes, there are a lot of problems with the statements and arguments in the article. It almost entirely rests on a bogeyman of high "costs of regulation", with no argument or evidence that these costs under NN are actually high. NN is trivial to comply with and we've had two years under it but no evidence presented that it is burdensome. Then, many of the arguments boil down to "Net neutrality is good, but regulation is too costly so let's hope the free market enforces net neutrality on its own without regulations." This is backed up by a claim that there have not been systematic violations of net neutrality, but this does not match the facts and has been addressed multiple times in this thread. Also, the author several times incorrectly claims that zero-rating does not violate net neutrality, but actually, it is one of the primary examples of a violation. Perhaps they are confused with the fact that cellular companies like T-Mobile are not classified as common carriers? But this refutes one of the main points: For companies like T-Mobile not subject to NN rules, we do see systematic violations of NN, for example, zero-rating.