I’m confused how your argument, which centers around a concern that there won’t be enough bandwidth to go around, defends the incumbent ISPs who, for years, have protected their regional monopolies while refusing to invest in improved infrastructure. Your concerns center around the networks that may be insufficient because the ISPs have failed to funnel their profits into improving them, but you’re defending their right to adding additional, arbitrary bandwidth restrictions on top of the limitations of their existing, dated hardware.
The telemedicine example is particular interesting and almost makes my case for me. What incentive do the ISPs have to prioritize telemedicine traffic? Their long history of putting altruism before the bottom line? If anything, the life-and-death nature of the service would mean they could charge a premium to hospitals for reliable bandwidth, and we get to pay for the extra cost through increased insurance rates. Now the ISPs have an additional income stream and absolutely no incentive to invest in improving their networks, leaving your concerns about available bandwidth exactly where they are now while we all pay more.