The simplest argument against this is the rules against landlocking. If I own a piece of property and yours surrounds mine, you are required
to grant me enough of an easement to be able to get off of my property and onto public land. One property owner cannot force another to be left in a state to where their property is landlocked.
Another reason is the common carrier rule: anyone who operates a public conveyance must take all comers who can pay within the service area (and are not a threat to your business); if you are allowed to operate a taxicab company you can't refuse to accept passengers who are white or indian, black or Jewish. You can't also refuse to pick up an employee or the owner of a competitor.
Now, it might be arguable these are private companies who are operating private networks, the only problem being that a non-customer or even competitor has no power to make a private company give access to their facilities if the provider decides not to do so; consider what it took to allow Microsoft to permit competitive web browsers as part of the system (but you still at least have the option to install a different browser if you want). If an ISP decides you can't run certain traffic - P2P networks or competitive video feeds for example - you probably can't. Maybe if there is enough outrage the ISP will back down, but maybe they won't. Plus in some cases there is either no choice or the only choice is a cable company or phone company, and if one provides really bad service and the other restricts your choice (traffic throttling) or refuses you ability outright, you may be completely denied access.
It's one thing for a company deciding not to carry something on its network for its own account, and it's another for them to decide whether you can obtain access to someone else's network and leaving you landlocked and either unable to reach it or restricted in the ability to access it.
It's all about money, here. People are using more bandwidth to do more things, and they can't raise prices on a linear basis like they used to be able to do, e.g. if you take a 40-tier of TV channels it used to be that it cost twice as much as the 20-tier. Well, they can't do the same thing with Internet access, a 100 mb connection isn't going to be able to be priced at anything near 10x a 10mb connection. Which it shouldn't, the increase in cost does justify a somewhat higher price until cost recoupment of the more expensive equipment to increase capacity has occurred, but it doesn't justify a straight-line increase. But that is the way data and voice services were sold back in the 20th Century.
It used to be that a T1, (1.5 megabits/sec.) which I think was the equivalent of 24 voice-grade circuits (56 kilobits/sec each), and cost 24 times as much as a voice-grade circuit. Now, basically, for 24x a voice-grade circuit (call a voice circuit about $25, so that's about $600 a month), you can get not 24 times as much, but 10,000 times as much, or 1/2 gigabit/second. (Hurricane Electric, for example, will sell you an interconnect at their colocation facility for a grand a month for 1 gigabit internet).
The Internet providers are compaining they don't want '1930s regulatory controls' placed over the Internet, however they do want to be able to charge that way, by the bit, practically. They want to be able to restrict how you can use the Internet unless someone pays more for 'expedited service' or 'using our pipes to reach our customers' or 'using more of our bandwidth than we think they should unless they pay more' (even though it's within the customer's service limits) It's hypocracy, pure and simple.