You say you want to be convinced but when reasonable answers have been supplied in previous threads, by respected figures like jedberg, you seem to have ignored

You say you want to be convinced but when reasonable answers have been supplied in previous threads, by respected figures like jedberg, you seem to have ignored them. Similarly, this post also doesn't read as the beginning of a debate or a discussion; it reads as the end of one. All three of your demands taken together imply "Net Neutrality doesn't matter. If any regulation is not perfect then we should get rid of it", which is both a ludicrous position to hold on NN, and a facet of "I am against all regulation" which the intro supposedly distanced itself from. An appeal to reason is all well-and-good, but using it as a sandwich for an obvious Nirvana fallacy, makes your points impossible to swallow.