Re: Why "net neutrality?" Simples.
> "Corporations will always act against the public good when there is profit in doing so."
I'd say "usually," but you have a point. However, if a corporation is perceived to be acting against the public good, will that not affect their profits? You appear to be assuming they can act in perfect secrecy when we know that isn't the case.
So there is a legitimate alternative to top-down government control, at least in theory. In fact, isn't this sort of public shaming of corporations a primary tool of politics because it IS so effective? I put it to you that NN is being pushed for reasons other than the stated ones, and they are mostly political in nature, not of the "gouge the public" sort.
Further, I assert that NN and other proposals of the kind are made because some people find it much easier to envision fast and effective change via government fiat, rather than grassroots organizing and bottom-up efforts. Note that while there are some good arguments for NN, there is no real public call for it, just a lot of loud political activism, much of it engendered by the large tech companies that stand to profit from it handsomely.