This is sick (the lack of net neutrality is more likely to reduce freedoms than to promote them). If you remotely support net neutrality, please never use that term again. This is self defeating.
Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. That is undeniable. There many cases where we restrict freedoms for the greater good, but I don't like to pretend we are not doing so in those cases.
I'd also add that freedom is not the right to demand other people give you something you want. I wouldn't say that I've lost my freedoms if there are no good ISPs left after the regulatory change. Everyone involved can still either choose an existing provider or set up their own. We have monopoly/anti-trust laws when that ceases to be the case. Of course, this may not be the efficient path to a world that a huge majority of people want - which is why I slightly side with net neutrality.
Then go ahead and call it "corporate freedom". The network isn't getting any more free without neutrality.
In practice, they are. There are exception, but they remain exceptions.
As in, for real, in practice? I seriously doubt it, the hurdles are huge, and most deals favours gigantic corporations (bulk often being cheaper than detail).
Try to get a peering agreement with some big provider. Most wouldn't even talk to you if you're not big enough.