I definitely think ISPs will downgrade access to home VPNs. They probably really enjoy watching what sites you visit, and are probably strongly pressured to do so.
Not currently.
As an example, net neutrality proponents widely predicted that ISPs would begin offering 'bundles' (for example pay separately for social media sites, pay for video sites etc) [1].
None of it happened. It was just a lie.
[1] https://blog.flashrouters.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Net...
Generally speaking, two parties build a peering pipe between each other, let's say it's 100Gbps. All is good. Now, fast forward a few years and this peering line is reaching capacity. Who should pay? Should it be Party A who uses 70% of the capacity or Party B who uses 30% of the capacity? Net neutrality forces Party B to pay, which is totally against the spirit of the internet and these agreements.
Net neutrality is nothing more than a corporate handout to freeloading cheapskates like Netflix who started this entire outrage because they refused to pay for peering upgrades (as their peering agreements mandate).
Net neutrality literally shifted the cost of upgrading the pipes that were saturated as a direct result of Netflix traffic onto the ISPs, and therefore onto consumers. So customers who NEVER used Netflix are paying more.
Strictly speaking, there's nothing stopping AT&T from hiking prices to $499/month in areas they have effective monopolies. They don't. Prices are reasonably competitive even there. You can't invent a doomsday scenario (the world is ending in 2012!) then when it doesn't come to pass you merely adjust the timeframe (the world is ending in 2030 for real this time!). That's what those arguments were, dishonest doomsday predictions which repeatedly failed to come to fruition.
What good would even come from repelling it?
You have one side saying terrible things can happen, and your argument for the other side is nothing more than "But it didn't happen... yet!"
What's the upside?
Net neutrality was a lie pushed by Netflix at a time they didn't want to honor their peering agreements, which mandated that the party using disproportionate amounts of bandwidth on the pipe paid for the upgrade.
All of the useful proponents of NN fell in line and lied about the doomsday should it be repealed, none of which remotely came to pass because it was a dishonest argument.
They'll extort some money from internet stakeholders and still keep the consumer prices high
The first image you linked to literally says "this COULD be the internet without net neutrality". And it's correct, it's exactly the kind of thing net neutrality enables.
That the change in regulation makes it possible when it was previous not possible. Your 2012 comparison doesn’t hold up.
IMO that’s the most sensible way to approach something like this, anything else is a value judgment on what you think someone is going to do based on very little. What is now possible that previously was not? That’s the core question. If no one is going to do it, why would they push to change the regulation?