When two willing parties are prevented from doing business, this is a market failure. Certain rules are required to maintain a free market, and "you can't pay to exclude competitors" probably tops the list.
I am not sure what any of that has to do with net neutrality but it is also not entirely accurate.
In the short term, if supply is fixed, then you can always pay to exclude competitors by outbidding them.
For instance: the reason google makes so much money is that market incumbents bid above value (they lose money) on google ads to prevent new competitors from gaining market share and then they subsidize that money losing behavior with their profits from existing customers.
Should the government regulate what prices google and facebook charge for ads because that controls whether or not startups can get their products in front of customers just as much as the pipes.
There's a big difference between "relatively few people know about my product" and "outsiders conspired to make sure my product could not function". And I don't believe anyone is bidding so high that it's impossible to win even a fraction of pageviews.
In the short term, if supply is fixed, then you can always pay to exclude competitors by outbidding them.
For instance: the reason google makes so much money is that market incumbents bid above value (they lose money) on google ads to prevent new competitors from gaining market share and then they subsidize that money losing behavior with their profits from existing customers.
Should the government regulate what prices google and facebook charge for ads because that controls whether or not startups can get their products in front of customers just as much as the pipes.