So now we know what the internet is, what net neutrality is, and what net neutrality requires, but what might be wrong with going against net neutrality? Why shouldn't a company be able to control what data is going through its lines?

The companies that own the lines, well, own the lines. They are the property of the companies, much like FedEx delivery trucks are the property of FedEx. At first glance it seems perfectly reasonable for a company to say that to have one's data transferred, one must pay a certain price. Upon a deeper look, however, it seems like a phone company saying it must approve what you say before it transfers that sound to the person on the other line, or a delivery company saying only certain things can be delivered in the good trucks.

This all leads the way to a few possible outcomes. The first is the bias against companies that cannot afford to pay an extra price to have their data delivered to your computer. If the only online store that can afford the premium price is one like Walmart, how can any other companies be able to compete with it?

Then more problems come up; what happens when an ISP decides to block a website solely based on the content of the website? It opens up the big ol' can of censorship. Google not ranking your ISP high enough in the results? Why not just block Google? Better yet, just block out the websites of any competitor. Eventually, it can get to a point where we have a small whitelist of approved websites that our ISP will deliver the data of.

Of course, this is all worst case scenario stuff, but, as the goal of a business is to make money, why wouldn't one want to block out competitors? If a company won't pay for premium delivery, why would an ISP, given the choice, ever give it to them? More on some recent worst case scenarios coming up.