Net neutrality can be broadly defined as the concept of an open internet, where no web sites or services have priority over any other, and nothing legal is blocked. Which means users have free access to any legal web site they can imagine, and that a transatlantic Skype chat with a buddy should not stop your e-mail from loading. While there are advantages to the concept of a free and open internet, there are always two sides to every argument. Otherwise, internet service providers could theoretically block access to content they do not want you to see, like a rival video streaming site or another site that competes with their very own interests, or content they deem as unsuitable.
Net neutrality lets all the many, diverse individuals in the world have a voice on-line, for much better or worse. An open internet ensures that bigger companies do not have yet another advantage over a tiny startup. It is level playing field on the web, where everything is delivered as soon as possible to the end user. Google cannot pay for faster access to their web sites, and a tiny video streaming service should theoretically be as speedy and glitch free as Netflix. Net neutrality squashes the potential for internet fast lanes, where internet service providers can upload content creators for enough bandwidth to provide their service properly.
It also prevents the possibility of providers charging end users an additional cost to access vital services, like internet banking or e-mail, or entertainment platforms like gaming networks. The rise of bandwidth heavy web services such as streaming and content downloads means internet service providers have less money to spend on upgrading their networks, they argue. If they could charge Google, Microsoft for carrying their resource intensive services, they could invest in upgrading their networks and extending them further. If an ISP could block these services at a network wide level, this would go quite a distance to solving this issue.