That's not entirely the case.
While it is possible that without net neutrality, we could end up paying for certain services, it's not a goal of those against net neutrality.
I'm all for everyone having a fair play at the internet, but when you actually look into net neutrality laws over ISPs, the terms are ridiculously intensive.
For example, with net neutrality, ISPs are dictated like monopolies. Even mom-and-pop ISPs. It makes it super hard for new companies to come in if they don't already have a load of money to pay for proving that they aren't interfering with connections.
Another example is that under the Title II, the FCC can add new regulations and internet "laws" without consent from the ISP, and without us as users, rendering the ISP business model a terrible business to even get into.
Really it's more about how net neutrality is implemented than it is about not messing with how you view content. Even before net neutrality, there was nothing wrong with the internet, these ISPs didn't make it a goal to force you to pay more money for services.