Because the copyright cartel have bought laws from lawmakers which effectively give them the ability to decide who can use technology and how.
The DHS is now responsible for copyright enforcement, and the US foreign policy on copyright is now being directed by corporate interests.
All of these things have combined to mean that the accusations of corporations are being interpreted (by them, and by the idiot judge in this case) as meaning that they get to decide if a person should be removed from the internet due to being suspected of piracy.
Have you not been paying attention at all? Between the DMCA, the horrible extension of copyright, and the increasing extent to which protecting the profits of multinational corporations has driven US foreign policy ... it's not the media corporations who make such decisions.
Oh, and did we mention they do this with a reduced standard of evidence, no requirement of proof, and little or no recourse for lying? (They can just call it incompetence and suddenly there is no penalty.)
What the copyright people want is a full veto over how all technology is used, and the ability to deny people the ability to use the internet because they say so.
The person paying for the internet service? He has no rights. He has the right to use the internet as long as the media companies haven't accused him of piracy ... in which case, the media companies feel that accusation is sufficient to block further access.
You now live in a world in which probably 25% of all global treaty talks are specifically geared to entrenching into law that copyright owners have increasing powers.
The US has sold out to corporate interests, and then have subsequently championed them globally and foisted them on everyone else, and then used that to strengthen domestic controls.
Honestly, have you slept through all this?