Comcast or Verizon would 100% have started plowing the fertile earth of "fast-lane fees" by now if they could've started doing so quietly.

I do think NN is better than nothing, but I'm not sure it's exactly the right model either. iirc, the main risk called out was different QoS for different traffic types, possibly with the ability to pay to get yours prioritized? the teenage libertarian version of me very much liked the idea of the internet being a "dumb pipe", but I don't see QoS as being intrinsically wrong now. there are some applications (video chat, mp games, etc) where it is very important that packets arrive mostly in order and with minimal latency. there are other applications (async data transfer) where it doesn't matter as much.

to me, the core issue is that I just don't trust companies like comcast, and I rarely have a viable alternative. NN seems like more of a bandaid than fixing the root cause.

A few reasons this might be true:

1. States like California passed their on laws enforcing net neutrality, making it much more difficult for national ISPs to implement the expected predatory practices

2. It takes time to implement new processes, and it was never clear that NN would stay dead, so ISPs wouldn't want to invest too heavily in fear of a day like today.

3. It might have happened to some users and you didn't see it. It of course was never expected that the moment NN was repealed, everyone's internet everywhere would turn to sludge.

EDIT: Upon reading another comment, and California's Net Neutrality law, it's also possible that ISPs didn't deem it worth it to see if California would sue companies that provide net-neutral service to Californians but non-net neutral service to out-of Californians.