Internet.org is currently offered on only one carrier (Reliance) and this is a clear net neutrality violation. Even if it were offered on all carriers, this is a violation. Also, this is hypocritical since FB supports NN in US!

What's worse is that some companies are using this as an example to push for legalisation of zero rating. This is worsened by our regulator's stancce which is pro telecom companies.

There is no such thing as a free lunch!

Sometimes preventing fragmentation of the network is more important. A mobile operator can't, for instance, use licensed spectrum to run a service that doesn't interoperate with others or with emergency services - even if it's free.

If Verizon were to sign up for this, it would fall foul of FCC's rules too (it is clearly paid prioritization when all websites that don't pay are blocked.) It's not for nothing that net neutrality laws in a bunch of countries (Chile, the Netherlands, Brazil and probably a few more) explicitly forbid zero-rating.

FB will love for "the next billion" to be in the walled garden internet of FB. More people to advertise to, no competition.

This seems a bit naive. The argument is definitely more nuanced than this. For example, Tim Berners Lee has slammed zero-rating as well: http://inform.tmforum.org/news/2015/02/net-neutrality-compro...