I suppose we’re talking past each other at this point, but once again, you are claiming net neutrality should be solving a problem nobody claims it should solve. And most of the points you presented in that post are supported by no evidence (actually, some of them are just wrong).
At this point, I’m not sure what your point is. Is it that we should be devoting all our resources into the different problem of fostering competition in internet service? If so, that’s unrealistic and incredibly vague. And, as I noted earlier, there’s no reason net neutrality can’t work in tandem with such efforts.
Does it matter? Incompetence is no excuse. Not that it’s a good excuse. Neutrality in access is one of the simplest things to do - you don’t do anything. You actually do have to put in an effort to shape internet traffic.
Besides, it’s already been measured in a number of cases. And ISPs have sheepishly admitted testing it in the cases it’s been measured.
Not all end users are network engineers, but there’s enough people monitoring their own connections that few things actually slip by.
Again, people have already measured stuff like this.
Again, end users often monitor their own connections.
Nope. The phone lines still belonged to the individual Baby Bells. Long distance service between the regional monopolies was handled separately.
The internet works in a fundamentally different way. Using this as a model would mean separate bills for “local” internet service within your ISPs network and “long distance” internet service to everybody else, which is the sort of problem we were trying to avoid in the first place.
At some point, it would help to become more familiar with the basic architecture of the internet and how the various protocols running on top of it work. Bland generalities are ok for soundbites, but they fail when you get into the nitty gritty.