I think we have misunderstood one another. As I stated in the second-to-last paragraph of my original post on Mises.org I do not support Net Neutrality. As I tried to express, inelegantly, in my most recent reply to you I see three options:
1.) Do nothing. No changes to any existing regulations.
2.) Net neutrality by means of government intervention.
3.) Scale back government regulation wherever possible and endorse at a federal level a uniform system for applying for right-of-ways necessary to roll out new broadband.

Of the three I favor #3 first. I believe supporting #1 is a losing proposition from a policy standpoint but that it is far preferable to #2, which is what we've gotten in the FCC's new rules.

With respect to the use of the term 'unacceptable' I beg your sufferance of the use of the term in its original context. Understand that I made my original post in response to the podcast on Mises.org and my comments were directed to that audience. I was not expecting this post to be shared in this subreddit. I recognize that in this forum you strive to use more precise terms but feel that the use of the word was appropriate in that context. I would further state that my statement 'THERE IS NO LOCAL MARKET' is not true in a strictly literal case and that there are always 'markets' but would defend its use in that context as a rhetorical device to emphasize the lack of freedom within the market I was discussing.

You are absolutely correct that when I say that this is 'unacceptable' I am meaning that it is unacceptable to me and to many people of like mind to me and not unacceptable in any strictly moral or legal sense.