At some point we need to solve this with technology in a similar way that E2E encryption is a step toward solving chat privacy. Maybe the selling of browser histories and then end of net neutrality will be the kick that finally gets us moving.
Net neutrality isn't about consumer surveillance (which is a problem too, just a different one). It's about access to markets and the ability to choose the services you use on the internet.
Squeezing is much less likely to incite riots from their customers. Cut off access to the latest season of "Orange is the new Black", and people will riot. Degrade the connection, and people will blame Netflix and move on.
When was the last time you heard someone gripe at Verizon for YouTube slowness, and not YouTube/Google?
Why is policy first flawed? An analogy:
Imagine if your county sold the rights to build and maintain (or not maintain) all the roads, highways, and public transportation in your county to Car Company X. Vehicles from competitors Y and Z were then forced to pay tolls.
If government policy isn't the solution this, what is? "The free market" is not the answer.
Bad car analogies aside, "lets just build our own internet, with WiFi meshes and encryption or something" isn't the answer to internet service either.
While this is a popular belief, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics works. Ignoring policy doesn't mean it won't happen; you're simply allowing other people to define policy without your input. In this case, congress should have acted to preserve neutrality and privacy by passing the necessary laws or regulations.
Unfortunately the people that should have been educating congress and pressuring them to act were more interested in complaining about congress's lack of education in technical areas and/or working on technical workarounds. Without any real competition, Comcast et al bought politicians easily and cheaply.
Yes, politicians will pass imperfect laws even when they have the best intentions. You fix that by participating in politics and applying an opposing force to corruption. Ignoring the problem isn't neutral; it's announcing that you aren't going to stand in the way of corruption.
Once mesh networks threaten the profits of telecom companies, How quickly do you think the laws to make mesh networks illegal (or onerous to set up) will be enacted? You can't solve political/legislative problems with technology, unless you are prepared to go to jail.
So, yes, we need to solve this with technology -- policy itself, technology for improving the creation of policy and the selection of those who turn it into legislation, technology for combating disinformation and educating the public on protecting their rights, technology for detecting and disseminating information on relationships between entrenched interests and policy makers. Networking technology of the kind you mention may be part of that, but on its own it can never be a panacea. Policy will always necessarily exist, and it will never be solved -- it's a dynamic system.