In a nutshell it means that data flow on the internet cannot be discriminated.
The current problem is that companies that are ISP's like AT&T want to be able to shut off data flow to certain parties if its convenient for their business.
The best example now is Netflix vs. ISP . Netflix has a massive bandwith usage since they stream movies. Netflix pays their ISP for access to the net. That ISP in turn is connected to a big ISP which has the backbone access to the internet (a company like AT&T). ISP pays AT&T a connection fee for that link.
AT&T thinks that since the data is flowing through their lines, that they should have the right to lower the bandwith or shut it off altogether in order to benefit AT&T's direct customers. In short, they say that those that pay AT&T directly should have priority and everyone else gets what's left. They argue that netflix is profiting greatly from using AT&T's infrastructure while paying AT&T nothing.. regardless of the fact that ISP pays AT&T a fee for the connection. From what I understand that fee is sort of a 'bulk' rate which is standard between ISP's but netflix is not an ISP and is gaining a lot of money.
More fuel to the fire is AT&T wants to get into the movie streaming market too so it bites them to see netflix using their infrastructure to compete against AT&T's online movie services.
So AT&T wants to either charge netflix or the ISP a big fee to compensate for that or if possible, lobby so that congress allows them to degrade netflix's bandwith in order to benefit AT&T's own movie service.
Net neutrality is all about not allowing these big companies to monopolize who has access to the net as well as not allowing these big companies to decide who has the right to get full speed or degraded speed.
If congress gives them that right, the internet can literally collapse as companies will begin charging fees like crazy until no competitor remains on the net other than themselves.... which is precisely what the big telecom companies have done with cable tv and phone service.
Seems to me the best option would be to separate the two. Either you can be a ISP or a streaming site. But not both. Allowing both will only encourage monopolies which is usually bad for the consumer.
As an example, look at your local cable provider. I know where I am for a while we had the choice of Comcast..or Comcast. There was no alternative. Thats how it is at my mothers house in Fla now.
You either deal with their rates and minimal services for maximum pay, or you dont get cable. those are/were your choices unless you went Satt.
Thats how it was for us. Thats how it is for my mother. Enter Verizon into my area. Boy oh boy its amazing the things they are willing to let you have for the same price even as a basic package.
My mother is still stuck with comcast as her only alternative. And she hardly gets any channels as part of her package.
Comcast knows its the monopoly and they do what they do because they can. There is no real competition. You either accept their terms or get nothing at all. and my 74 year old mother doesnt want to deal with Satellite sooo shes pretty much stuck.
When ISPs are allowed to become streaming video sites. They have the ability to squash out the competition. to become the monopoly. Or to reduce the bandwith and/or charge the video streaming sites to such an extent that those sites are no longer viable at a consumer friendly price.
