Those heavy data users likely are paying more for their Internet usage - either their desire for higher speeds or their problems of running into monthly bandwidth caps have likely driven them to higher levels of service (Deluxe, Preferred, Ultimate, SuperGreen, whatever), where your ISP charges them more for faster network access and more bandwidth for the month.
Your cheap Internet didn't go away because of people using YouTube and Netflix, your prices didn't go up because of Net Neutrality, they went up because networking technology is changing, because customer's desires are changing, and because the bigger networking companies are merging into ever bigger companies, reducing competition and making it harder for the little guys to compete. Those big networking companies are also lobbying hard at the local, state, and federal level to cut down on competition and put roadblocks in the way of any potential new competitors.
You're blaming Net Neutrality for changes in the network landscape that it is not responsible for.
Net Neutrality doesn't say the companies have to provide unlimited bandwidth access to anything. It doesn't spec any particular levels at all. It only says, they can't decide to block or throttle your access to any part of the Internet. It's about what you can get to. The control over how fast / how much is part of your monthly contract between you and your ISP. You pay for a specified amount of bandwidth at a given speed, and you should be able to "spend" that data transmission allotment wherever, whenever, and however you want on the Internet.
If you pay for a 50mbit/sec connection with a 100 gigabyte/month limit, then you should be able to access whatever you want at 50mbit/sec, up until you hit your 100 GB limit. The ISP decides what levels of service it will offer. If the ISP is advertising a particular level of service, and accepting payment for that, then they're on the hook to provide that level of service. Now, of course, they can study the situation and determine that it's unlikely that all their customers will ever use that maximum amount of bandwidth at the same time, and then only build out their system to handle a lesser amount of traffic, and/or only pay for smaller pipes to the other networking companies. And maybe that works. Or maybe that works for a while and then their customer's usage patterns change. That could spell trouble (the company failing to meet their advertised level of service, customers getting angry, etc.). Now, that is entirely on the ISP - it's not Netflix's fault (they're just making data available), it's not the customer's fault (they're pulling data from Netflix at a speed determined by their contract with the ISP). If the ISP couldn't provide all their customers with that level of service simultaneously, and the customers are trying to use it, that's the ISP's fault for skimping on their back-end infrastructure - they should not have advertised and sold their customers service that they cannot provide. Remember, they decided what speeds and bandwidth allotments to offer, and for what prices.
Before Net Neutrality became a thing, we had ISPs saying, "gee, all this streaming traffic that our customers are pulling from Netflix is really swamping our pipes from the Internet - so... Netflix should pay us for this, if they want it to keep running full-speed". That's absolutely nuts. The ISP's customers are already fully paying the ISP to send/receive data across their network to the Internet, and Netflix is already fully paying for network access and data bandwidth and such at their end. The ISP wants to be paid twice for the same data transmission, both by their customers and by Netflix.
Net Neutrality doesn't demand any specific levels of bandwidth. It only says that the ISP can't prevent you from accessing content from any particular site - either by them deciding to block customer access to something they don't agree with (yes, this kind of thing has actually happened, numerous times), or by them deciding to artificially slow access to some site (because their customers are using it a lot, or because they consider it in their financial interest to do so - e.g. an ISP that has its own movie streaming service they want you to buy so they artificially slow down customer access to Netflix).
The situations we were starting to run into before Net Neutrality became a thing looked an awful lot like protection rackets, except instead of a shady mob character saying, "you've got a nice store here, it'd be a shame if it burned down", it was ISPs saying to sites like Netflix, "that's a lovely movie site you have, it'd be a shame if your videos streamed slowly to our customers". That's a shakedown. Is that what you want to go back to?
