2005, AT&T proposed discriminatory services for the tech companies. Basically, Google, for example, signs up for the internet with ISP A, so Google is connected to the web; I have service with AT&T, so I am connected to the web. I want to use Google's services, so I make a request and Google's server sends data to me in packets through the two ISPs (A and AT&T). Say Google is paying A $100/month for 5Mbps uplink bandwidth and I am paying AT&T $60/month for 5Mbps downlink bandwidth, we should be communicating at 5Mbps maximum (not accounting for physical obstacles). Now AT&T is proposing that in order to reach me (efficiently), Google has to pay AT&T some money. Alternatively or additionally, they can charge us extra to let us communicate with Google.
ELI5: There used to be a common playground where everyone can talk to everyone as long as they're in the playground. Sam used to play with Mary and several other friends at the playground. In order to get there, each kid has to ask their parent for permission. Now what AT&T is proposing is that if Sam wants to play with Mary, he has to get his parent's permission AND Mary's parent's. This makes it a lot harder for Sam because each kid he wants to play with will require one permission more than what he had to work for before.
This of course makes no sense since each of those kid already has permission to go to the playground; they just don't have permission to play with Sam because Sam hasn't cleared with their parents.
This is why the innovation issue is brought up a lot in these NN talks. At least I think so. This is especially worrysome if you consider that the ISPs can shut traffic out for any reasons, or no reasons at all, should they be allowed to do as they please. Romeo will never get to be with Juliet because the Capulets can be persuaded with neither money nor love.