That only works in places where a free market exists. In the case of ISPs there are generally very limited options and no room for new competitors. That being the case, we don't have much of a free market or opportunity for proper capitalism to govern the entities involved. In situations such as that, unfortunately, we need a governing entity to set some ground rules to protect the consumers.
There's always room for new competitors, if that were the goal. About 20 years ago, almost no place had 'broadband' - only dial-up. Since then, most places have gained 2 or more wired broadband options, and 2 or more wireless options, that are all many multiples faster than dial-up.
The wireless technology keeps improving. New wired infrastructure can be run – as with Google Fiber or other initiatives. The sensors and robots for such installs also keep improving. And for sticky 'last mile' wire bottlenecks, sharing of that conduit could be required, or a 'minimal universal neutral' service option be required where there are no other options.
Instead, the FCC seeks to limit how all broadband services, everywhere, must work, to respond to an abuse threat that remains almost entirely theoretical. That itself is an anti-competition, anti-differentiation move. It also adds another lever of power by which the FCC's other regulatory tendencies – such as censoring indecency or enabling wiretapping – could be applied to the internet. (In the UK, Australia, and South Korea it is agencies like the FCC which maintain compulsory national internet black-lists.)
