I find it far more likely that a Libertarian would argue that the best remedy for rogue ISPs blocking their favorite traffic is market competition.For places that are free to choose between different ISPs (like cable vs. DSL) there is a strong incentive for ISPs to offer services that people actually like.For places where only 1 (evil) ISP exists, there is usually a strong incentive for another ISP to realize markets where people are unhappy and offer a better alternative.Furthermore, people in cities with only 1 cable or 1 telephone company that controls those respective intra-city lines, if they are angered enough by their ISPs, can initiate local measures to revoke the ISPs charter with the city and offer these contracts to other ISPs willing to offer services that the voters want.These are not always the best solutions. The question is whether having the federal government regulate the internet is a better solution than the free market one. Many of the founders of the the various technologies that power the internet to not favor Net Neutrality because they think it will stifle internet innovation. The sorts of regulations Net Neutrality wants to mandate would make new algorithms like "fair queuing" illegal for ISPs to implement. The government is just not tech savvy enough to regulate the specifics of internet protocols effectively. They will have a nearly impossible job legally differentiating between "fair" traffic shaping (like giving latency priority to voip traffic over data transfers) and unfair traffic shaping (like limiting the speed of bit torrent traffic).