I have yet to see a convincing argument that prohibiting rate-limiting will increase competition among ISP providers.
Further, I think it's fairly obvious what I think of our government's likelihood to get any regulation regarding ISPs right. I prefer to limit the surface area of potential mistakes.
Finally, I haven't seen evidence of significant rate-limiting in areas with multiple ISPs. If this is the case, then increased competition on its own gets us both what we see as the ideal solution, whereas making rate-limiting illegal only gets you part of the way to what you want.
I am using personal pronouns conversationally, not in belief that you and I are the only people with either of these positions.
I don't understand why it is an either-or proposition. Seems to me the correct action is to do both.