b) I don't want to sidetrack too much from your own sidetrack, but there's a great deal of literature on the theory of public goods, why they don't actually exist, and why government isn't needed to create or manage them. Even if you want to argue that this isn't the case, I'm not sure how the internet would definitely be one.
c) You're free to make an argument that you like things like the roads and water system. But do you really love them? Yeah, the freeway system kind of works, sure. The water system kind of works, sure. But it's not really flourishing, there's no market pricing on these things that truly eliminates waste (how many roads actually need to be built? Is overproduction of roads crowding more efficient means of travel like rail out of the market?), and innovation in these fields moves at a snails pace.
https://mises.org/search/site/%22public%20goods%22/library/m...
There are also many papers on the site, but many of them are pretty dense and don't make for a good introduction.
b) I misspoke in one way, the government does kind of innovate in providing water. Take their decision to mass dose basically the entire country with fluoride. At best, fluoride's main benefits are for young kids about 4-10 years old in preventing child cavities. The point isn't to argue the health benefits of the substance, but to point out that they're medicating everybody without tailoring the dose to what's necessary for the individual. What's crazier than compulsory mass medication of an industrial byproduct that doesn't take into account individual dosage?
c) You presumably ingest food, created by non-government sources everyday. They look to cut costs all of the time. How often do they really screw up? And when they do, they immediately have to work to fix the issue and they're punished severely on top of that.
But I believe that this common interpretation is completely backwards. In my view, most of the technology industry is unfortunately wrong about net neutrality and think it's something that totally benefits the little guy. It's not. Like most regulations, it's ostensibly built to help the little guy, but what it really does is screw them over and prevents them from competing.
The biggest players like Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc either already have their own nationwide fiber networks or strongarmed ISPs into giving them free access or even hosting and get priority access for fastest service to end users.
It's the startups and littlest guys that don't have this that need the ability to purchase/rent the equivalent to compete. What these regulations actually do in many cases is prevent these little guys from having even the opportunity to compete. Companies that already have lobbyists don't want this because they're already set.
To be fair, I don't think the FCC can really improve the entire internet on their own because of local problems where various rules and regulations put in place have historically shut down ISP competition and you have limited providers in most areas. Until this is addressed, there's a distortion in the market that I don't think can completely be solved at the federal level.