Electricity prices are dominated by supply vs. demand. There are many sources of electricity available, some of them being very cheap (hydro) some of them expensive (currently gas).
When demand for electricity goes up, the cheap power sources are going to be running at capacity, and utilities will need to buy more expensive power. This increases the marginal cost of electricity for everyone.
So just because Bitcoin miners pay for electricity, doesn't mean we aren't subsidising them. We are subsidising them by paying more for imported power even though our needs could easily be covered by cheap, local power sources.
The way to fix this would be to charge progressive prices depending on usage, ie. every person gets to use 1000kWh at the cheap local hydro power price, then the price increases gradually, and any electricity usage beyond 10000kWh/person/year you need to pay the full market price of electricity.
Internet access is typically billed as "unlimited" so those who use it very little pay a high rate per bit transferred, while those who use it a lot pay a low rate. Some of this is due to the base cost of providing service (fixed last-mile connection costs incurred whether the line is used or not) but the rest is a subsidy from low users to high users. How much of each is debatable; the costs of home internet are largely concentrated in the last-mile connection costs rather than bandwidth and data centers, yet the bandwidth still isn't free.
It's really the same thing as in the flat rate case. It's a bit less unfair since the cost rises linearly, but it's not enough to leave small consumers unaffected. People who consume small amounts of a utility still pay more because of people who consume a lot.
No, they really don't. People consuming small amounts and large amounts both pay more due to higher aggregate demand. If it weren't for the many small users the aggregate demand would be lower and the large users would also be paying less—do you consider that a subsidy in the opposite direction? No, of course not—because a price being bid up by competing consumers is not what is meant by the term "subsidy".
Now, if you banned large users from the system, or imposed discriminatory pricing as you previously suggested for the purpose of keeping prices low for the small users, that would be a subsidy: interference in the market to benefit one group at the expense of another.
On mobile most plans are already "limited", but that hasn't given us net neutrality on mobile.
With internet, where the data comes from and goes to is the whole point.
It also costs more money to support higher bandwidth of network travel. But unlike with electricity, there is no cost (to network providers) to generate the data, since the data is usually paid for by the source. This means the average consumer doesn't get any of the benefit of the increased pricing -- it has not changed how the internet providers charge to consumers at all, only how they charge content makers. And customers who like the content get increased costs on top of that.
Therefore, I don't see any benefit by removing net neutrality -- it can only hurt consumers. If it only benefits network providers, why should I support it?