This is a fascinating discussion, but one which has been addressed in much greater depth elsewhere: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=net+neutrality+wikipedia+zero
It would indeed be interesting to hear EFF's take on the matter, which does not appear to have been stated publicly yet.
Some related links: http://theumlaut.com/2014/04/30/how-net-neutrality-hurts-the-poor/ see especially the first comment, which claims that "You[r] concept of net neutrality is technically, and wildly incorrect. [...] Net neutrality has *nothing whatsoever* to do with access. Especially access for poor users. It has to do with service providers being treated equally and fairly on the *infrastructure* that allows users access to those services." (I don't know if I actually agree with this, but it's an interesting distinction.)
http://manypossibilities.net/2014/05/net-neutrality-in-africa/
And the discussion starting here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-April/000472.htm...
One distinction which has been made in discussions concerns who is paying for what, and who is profiting. Zero-rating a commercial service which pays the telecom for the privilege, might be regulated differently than zero-rating a non-profit service with no money changing hands. (Does WP Zero actually pay any telecom to be zero-rated?) --scott