I saw the consequences of internet providers attempting to change the bandwidth of the internet through throttling or agreements with other providers for myself about 6 months ago while watching Netflix. Hub and I love to stream movies and other shows and all of a sudden the internet would slow down and bump us off... for 45 minutes to an hour. It was frustrating and the Netflix service person couldn't figure out why it was happening. It sure wasn't on our end. Came to find out later that, because all internet traffic is routed, one of the ISPs on given routes would deliberately be either slowing traffic down or giving preference to some customers over others. Netflix made agreements with both Verizon and Comcast to do this. Is being required to pay somebody for the *road* a net neutrality issue? At the time, the FCC said, nope

It’s important to emphasize that paid-peering, or transit, agreements, which occur at interconnection points around the U.S., are not considered to be a “Net neutrality” issue by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Net neutrality is the idea that Internet users should have equal access to public websites over the “last mile” into their homes.

After the Comcast deal, Netflix CEO Reed Hastingscomplained about having to pay “an arbitrary tax” to the broadband giant in order to improve service for customers and urged federal regulators to include paid-peering agreements in the new Net-neutrality rules currently under development by the FCC.

Turns out most recently that AT&T was selling *unlimited data* plans but was really throttling back data. The FTC sued them.

The Federal Trade Commission is suing AT&T because the second-largest US carrier throttles speeds of its unlimited data customers, a policy that the FTC describes as "deceptive" and "unfair." In a press release, the FTC said AT&T has "misled millions of its smartphone customers" by slowing down their data speeds after they've used up a certain amount of data in a single month. AT&T has failed to make its throttling policies clear enough, according to the complaint. "The issue here is simple: ‘unlimited’ means unlimited," said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. The Commission's filing blasts AT&T for slowing customers down to the point where common tasks — watching video, streaming music, etc. — become "difficult or nearly impossible."

Now, note that that is the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) while the original issue about net neutrality goes to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). However the issue is the same. We're talking about the backbone of how data gets from one place to another, in the same way that roads let us drive from Glen Rose to Fort Worth. Example: Certainly people can decide if they would like to pay to take a toll road but the other roads shouldn't be, say, allowed to have obstructions in the way or big potholes just to force people into the toll roads. 

President Barack Obama weighed in on this yesterday. here's what he said, from Whitehouse.gov

An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.

“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.

When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:

• No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.