The first amendment isn't about forcing a guy with a printing press to do what you say, it's about preventing the government from stopping you and the guy who owns the printing press from doing what you like on whatever terms you arrange between the two of you.
Same thing goes with the guy who owns the DSL line you're using, or the WiFi hotspot and the network it's wired up to.
There are two extremes (I will use over the air as an example):
1) No regulation. Everyone is free to set up their own transmitters/receivers. This is the true free market way and is perfectly fair.
2) Total regulation. The government itself controls all aspects of transmission with "equal access" and so forth. In theory perfectly fair.
The difference is in what happens to the rights of the people. With 1) all rights are retained. With 2) some rights should be retained (e.g. free speech).
We currently have a compromise. A select few have control. So unless you are among the few, your rights have been curtailed, e.g. you can not set up your own transmitter. Thus we are regulated, but with some free market ideas. To me the issue centers around the rights of the people. If we are going to curtail freedom for the privilege of a few, then these freedoms should be curtailed as little as possible. Under this system you would treat communication pathways as just that, "pathways". The select few can benefit from providing them (at the expense of individual rights), but not from controlling their use (limiting the loss of freedom). Then we have an ordered system (not the wild west scenario of (1)), but without the total governmental control of (2).
And now for a car (actually road) analogy. If I build a private road network, then I can charge a toll. But I cannot restrict your origin or destination on that network. I have been given privilege (the right of passage), and freedoms have been curtailed (citizens' right of passage), but the curtailing of freedom has been mitigated (I can't tell you where to come and go).