I think it's best for the ISPs and not bad for the large content providers. I think smaller content providers and end users are the losers.
The ISPs get access to the content providers' revenue streams. They can charge Netflix for carrying their content while still charging the end user for the bandwidth that content consumes - pretty sweet.
The large content providers will have to pay some protection money to make sure the ISPs don't mess with their product, but Netflix et al. can afford it.
All of the big content providers will probably negotiate national agreements with the ISPs to ensure adequate priority for their content. The problem will be with the small or startup providers who can't afford to pay for prioritization.
Realistically I don't see things changing much for someone who uses the internet for shopping or to hang out on FR, but I think the whole entertainment/news aspect of the internet will become a game for the bigs.
I think it's worst for the end consumers. I'll admit that my view is jaundiced by decades of observing the cable companies' business practices but I fear the cable model is exactly where the ISPs want to take the internet.
What may save us is good wireless broadband technology that can break the de facto monopolies on broadband the ISPs have in many, many markets.
NN wouldn't be necessary and would have never gotten traction if there was real competition in provision of broadband to the home.
Note that after repeal the big ISPs were quick to come out and say that nothing would change, but also note that they spent hundreds of millions lobbying for the repeal of nn. Their shareholders expect a return on that investment and odds are good that they'll get it.