There are reasonable arguments to be made for allowing infrastructure providers to limit the ability of bad actors to consume extreme amounts of resources before they tragedy-of-the-commons the whole shebang for everyone else. But any such system has to acknowledge that qualifying as
infrastructure means that society relies on it to function, which means that demand for the infrastructure is, at the low end, inelastic, which means that a typical market structure would make no sense.
The conscientious way to do it is to determine what qualifies as a "reasonable" amount of consumption, then provide that level of consumption at a subsidized rate to all participants, then let market forces kick in if someone consumes more than that. Then the rub is to define "reasonable", which obviously the infrastructure providers shouldn't be allowed to do.
There's no denying that the internet is essential communications infrastructure. And in this era of videoconferencing and work-from-home, the network should be built out such that everyone can stream good-enough-quality video at peak hours without congestion; that seems reasonable to me. The government should also guarantee the availability of this minimum level of service to all citizens. If the network can't handle that, then the infrastructure providers need to build it out. Of course, they will drag their feet and complain, but that's because companies are self-serving sociopathic AIs.