"Isn't this NN fight really the age old one about capitalism vs socialism"
One of the main foundations of true capitalism is competition. Antitrust laws and rules aimed at letting old and new companies compete are not "socialism", they are fully capitalists. Incumbents barriers are not. Is freedom of choice among products and services "socialism"?
Actually socialism aims for giant state monopolies, a few entities controlling everything, a restricted choice of products and services - just like illiberal capitalism, it's much easier to gain a lot when you stop competition, and fix prices as you like. Both lead to a huge concentration of wealth.
Pai would look very well as an apparatchik in Soviet Union...
That said, I understand some of the telco issues - the legislation is hopelessly outdated, and sure, big monopolistic entities like Google are exploiting it as well. But it's not favoring one or the other that will solve the larger problem.
And if you believe the industry can self-regulate, look at what happened when telco were left free to choose a mobile standard - each tried to force its one, and US lagged for years behind Europe who adopted a single standard from the beginning - so the competition field was level, and companies had to compete on products and services, not rely on lock-in.
On the other hand the high prices many monopolistic European companies could ask in the 1990s slowed down Internet diffusion - and still here the State now has to invest in ensuring fiber connectivity is widespread, because greedy telcos don't invest in any area that doesn't return immediate high revenues - even in areas that are very wealthy, but made of many small towns instead of a few huge cities, making deployment costs higher. Is this "socialism" - or just ensuring people freedoms are respected? And once the network is completed, why should the telco be allowed to charge customer more just because they can?