ISPs networks are not (totally) private property though. They are in many cases publicly subsidized, and they operate with a state-backed grant of monopoly or oligopoly within each region.

IMHO, regardless of what you think of Objectivism or libertarianism, the standard libertarian critique of government interference does not apply to net neutrality. It would apply if telecom were actually a free market and if telcos did not receive large amounts of state support.

Conservatives and most libertarians usually fail the see the distinction between actual private businesses that operate in a free market (e.g. Google, Apple, etc.) and state-backed quasi-private enterprises like telcos. The latter are aptly called "Soviet bureaus."

I don't think they fail to see the distinction, but instead of further cementing government control they in fact argue that telcos should lose their government privileges and be left to compete in the market. Sure at first they will have significant advantages but as time goes on competition should be able to function.

Yeah, because if I have a problem with my ISP, I'll just head to the bank, borrow a few hundred billion and build my own backbone.

This is sort of funny, but despite receiving many more upvotes than its parent, it displays a startling lack of understanding of the capitalist system.

More likely than you borrowing a few "hundred billion," large, midsize, and even small corporations would invest a "few million" in a city or neighborhood somewhere and use the profits to continue investing in other profitable areas. They might even collaborate and start connecting entire cities together (oh look, a backbone). I find this a much more desirable outcome than a government-run or (the current) psuedo-government run scenario.

Well, ok Mr. Capitalist, why hasn't that happened yet? It's certainly not because the existing cable companies' sterling customer service leaves no room for improvement.

It hasn't happened because most communities grant a monopoly to their cable provider so their can only be one legal cable company in a given area.

That might be true but it's irrelevant. I'd have no objection if you left out the introductory clause.

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Actually I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that you probably don't need to read this (long-winded) article because it simply reiterates a well-known and well-worn position.

Sorry. I didn't notice your TLDR tag.

Ultracapitalist? You mean an entrepreneur?

Or were you just trying to slur someone for having a different viewpoint?

Quite. I looked up some other articles by this guy, and his viewpoint is very evident.

That's not an argument and it adds very little to the discussion. I don't know why you're being voted up.

If you disagree with his points, state your reasons.