> But I don't see this as an attack on Net Neutrality, you're just charged differently for what you use. Nobody will stop you using Facebook when you have a Mus

> But I don't see this as an attack on Net Neutrality, you're just charged differently for what you use. Nobody will stop you using Facebook when you have a Music subscription, nothing is throttled. Doesn't the OP show that you need to have the social media subscription to use facebook, implying it'd be blocked otherwise? EDIT: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-internet-packages-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-plan https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-in... > But based on Meo’s website, this doesn’t look like buying cable channels for the internet. It’s an add-on to general-purpose mobile subscriptions, which let you access any service — including the ones above. The idea is apparently that if you’re into apps like Snapchat and Facebook (or... LinkedIn, I guess), you pay around $8 a month to specifically get more “Social” data, so you can use your regular allotment for everything else. It looks a lot like the “Vodafone Pass” service in the UK, where subscribers can pay for unlimited access to a similar stable of services. This still seems awkward. I still don't understand why the endpoint being connected to matters at all. It's all data going over your lines. Essentially you're paying to "0-rate" a service, which just seems silly. EDIT2: Also, one of the main issues with not-net-neutrality is exactly this. If I make a slightly better social network, but it's not "0-rated" it's likely that people won't use it because it'll count against their quota. That's a problem.