As for the latter, my point was exactly that in “normal country” it's hard to imagine, but giant corporate clashes managed to turn this into some big argument about “freedom”.
Categorically false. There’s no “net neutrality” legislation enacted or proposed that doesn’t have giant and vague QoS and general network operations carve-outs.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/huge-win-open-internet...
In 2018 Markey and others proposed simply overturning Pai/Trump's overtuning of Title II.
I don't know precisely what you're referring to ... the closest I could find was the EFF's objections to the FCC proposals from 2011 which had things like "vague QoS and general network operation carve outs":
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/pt-ii-eff-evaluates-fc...
The EFF seemed much happier with the FCC proposals 4 years later.
What am I missing?
Which is utter nonsense for any large service provider that requires traffic engineering to handle elephant flows.
This is the problem with blanket slogans, they constrain the network in ways that impact user experience dramatically, and is why a LOT of internet pioneers oppose net neutrality.
Encouraging open access networks seems more striking at the heart of the matter.
https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_customers/
https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/22/bufferbloat-may-be-solved-...
Complete nonsense. "Net neutrality" means that there is no preferential treatment of packets based on origin or destination.
> However, it is hard to imagine that some ISP would try to make the big source of traffic pay for what has already been paid by customers.
I think you need to work on your imagination. ISPs in the USA have already tried this (not sure if it is still happening).