So much of the tone of this article is vaguely alarmist, which is a little annoying... seeing as the issue described is already extremely alarming

It didn't need the theatrics and intentionally misleading garnishments (like quoting Comcast's own RFC that's describing their own recommended behavior for themselves, then pointing out you can phish people, and then awkwardly trying to glue those tangential points together)

The bad behavior is bad enough that it'd stand on it's own, and if it instead focused on things like accessibility up front, it'd be much stronger of an article (and people would be more likely to read it all the way through)

I'm curious about this as well. When I worked on content-based billing in Canada years ago, we zero-rated content that was served by us, so it wouldn't contribute towards data usage. That was a different time though and likely a different implementation.

Even if it does, that's way overnight on the article. A few 50KB here and there aren't your problem if you're blowing past a 250Gb or 1TB data cap.

I am also curious! I want to know how the author got to their conclusion.