The short definition of NET NEUTRALITY is that the internet providers must give equal broadband access to all comers. That you should be able to get this website as fast as you get FOX NEWS. It is mostly about SPEED. For of it took you a minute to load this and a second to load FOX NEWS where would you go? Their argument is that is freedom, which it isn’t.
What the providers want – and seem to have now won with this court case – is to charge content providers different rates for different speeds. So, like most everything in the free market, we will get our products, service and information from fewer and fewer sources. All owned by fewer and fewer billionaires who push for more of the same. Until… ROLLERBALL.
This gets complicated. From what I understand the cell phone network already works from the premise that who pays more gets more of their stuff in your face. Some are trying to keep that from happening to the internet itself. Which seems to be a losing battle.
A spin off of this is the issue of bundling cable TV. If as some want, perhaps even you, cable providers were to allow everyone to choose only the individual channels they want, most channels would go under while rest would be bought up by Viacom, Warner, and Murdoch which would give you ever less choices and higher prices. Oops, almost all the channels are already owned by Viacom, Warner and Murdoch…
Here is some more from Tim Wu that may help you understand…