How would it have helped? Net neutrality doesn’t mean you can’t sell your customers different bandwidth guarantees.

Net neutrality is only about the connections between a provider and external networks, not about how a company handles bandwidth contention amongst its customers.

Net neutrality would fix a problem like “only Facebook is accessible inside crowded stadiums” not “AT&T customers who pay more get better connections in crowded stadiums”

Net neutrality as generally understood says nothing about being able to pay more for a higher service tier from your ISP.

It's entirely on the publisher side: net neutrality was an attempt to avoid ISPs getting paid extra---costs that would be passed onto you---in exchange for making your experience on site A be better than your experience with site B (or service, vs site).

Think: "Oh, yeah, Netflix 4k works great on your new Comcast plan! But if you want Hulu 4k, you're gonna need to pay us more, because Netflix pays us to make their shit work better than Hulu's if you don't!"

Net neutrality means that providers don't discriminate based on the kind of traffic, that you get internet access, not just access to particular services.

They can absolutely meter and limit your connection as long as one byte is one byte, no matter its origin. They can also discriminate based on the technology they provide (4G, 5G, fiber...). Net neutrality is not about preventing "pay to win", obviously, you can get a better connection if you pay more. It is about fair competition between online services.