As a fellow Finn, I don't consider an ISP to be a person, but rather a service provider, and as such I'm fine with the concept of (some of them) being forced to have obligations rather than just the right to take our money.
ISP is the property in this case, not a person. You're really forcing ISP's owners to dispose of their property in a certain way. It may or may not be right to do so but those are real people, not abstract concepts or legal creations.
In social democracies there are always rules to doing business, and in this case the rule is about how extensive your service needs to be in comparison to your company size. And you need to keep in mind that this rule is only about the core network reach, companies are still allowed to be pretty autonomous about charging for the last 2 KM of the connection. And from what I've heard, companies like Elisa are still charging plenty for fibre digouts, even in higher density areas. And unless you want to make due with 3G, your only option is to get them to bring fibre since there's literally no real competition, most areas get divided into smaller lots between "competitors". Even if they use the same company to actually lay the fibre. And the house owners have no say in what happens to old copper lines.
> In social democracies there are always rules to doing business
It's all true but you're missing the point. Parents to my post seem to have been implying that no one's rights are being restricted because ISPs should not have any rights.
But that's not the whole picture. You're restricting rights of real, physical, natural born people to freely dispose of their property. It's not just property, it's real human autonomy.
It's no different from digging a trench through your backyard. We may agree (or not, libertarians often don't) that your neighbour's right to have running water trumps your right to undisturbed backyard but it's your rights that are being restricted, not your backyard's rights (it probably doesn't have any).
First, anti-monopoly regulation is not noncontroversial. Second, why do you think corporations are something other than a mode of cooperation of real people? When you are a customer - you cooperate with other people by exchange of money for the service. When you are a capitalist, you cooperate with others by paying them for the services upfront before the product is sold. When you are employee, you cooperate by renting your labor for money. And so on. Why do some people think they are entitled to intervene in the other persons' cooperation?
Anti-monopoly regulation is pretty noncontroversial. Libertarianism is, despite its popularity in places like HN, quite a fringe movement.
Do you think that the consequences of two entities cooperation is limited to those two entities?
Further, and I'm sure you'll vehemently disagree with me, I don't think people or corporations are islands. I don't resent owing society some cooperation, and I have no problem with corporations being in the same boat - more so, in fact, because as concentrators of power such regulation becomes more necessary.
I don't wish to start an argument, but most libertarians define their reality in their own head. Their arguments often don't translate into real world scenarios but trying to convince them of this is practically impossible.
My experience of arguing with libertarians is that they are often desperate to view a complex world in an impractically black and white manner. I wouldn't say there's no point arguing, but I can certainly understand why people would find it frustrating.
