The companies answer would be that, to ensure innovation and development in technology, we have to make money and we can make a whole lot of it on Broadband usage. That's a crock because most innovation and development happens before companies get involved and start investing money (which is usually used mainly for marketing). But few in the media and no one in the court is going to confront these giants with these fundamental untruths.
In reality, the companies say, their main issue is "high capacity" use of their systems: downloading movies or other large files that take up system bandwidth. Why shouldn't they get a return on the amount of use you make of their system? But, intent aside, that is not what they're arguing.
Rather they are saying that the fact that they put you and keep you on the Internet gives them the right to decide how you can use it, where you visit, how much email or web browsing you do. That they insist they won't restrict simple Internet use for most people shouldn't be an issue because we establish rights to protect us against what powerful companies can do and not against what they say they're planning to do.
So the question is: Do you trust huge corporations to protect your access to all the information you need and want? Do you trust them to protect your ability to give everyone else access to information you want to spread?
The answer, unless you routinely purchase Brooklyn Bridge shares, is "no". They can't be trusted with the power over your right to communicate. They shouldn't ever be trusted with that power. And the constitution of this country makes clear that they aren't trusted.