Net neutrality in the US is about more than just blocking and throttling, don't be fooled by attempts to limit the discussion to these concepts

There’s a slightly better article here that gives at least one concrete example of a behaviour that isn’t captured by “blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization”

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/real-net-neutrality-more-ban-blocking-throttling-and-paid-prioritization

Interconnection points—places where two different networks exchange information with each other—are another place where we know ISPs can get around simple bans on just blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. That is to say that while the bans prevent things occurring on a network, they do not stop providers from charging extra when content enters their network at the connection point, which is paying to get access to customers on the other network. That’s why California’s S.B. 822, written to replicate the whole protections of the 2015 Open Internet Order and not just these three bans, includes prohibitions on doing that. Discriminatory zero-rating—the practice of exempting certain types of traffic from counting against a data cap (often under an agreement between the ISP and web platform)—is another area that can fall outside these three bans. Not only has zero rating been shown to be harmful to low-income broadband users, but it raises the cost of data for all users.

The author, Tom Wheeler, had a long history of lobbying for the telecom industry prior to his appointment as FCC chairman in November 2013 under President Obama. 6 months later, the FCC passed the "fast lanes" rule. The backlash was immense and, under pressure from the White House, the FCC made their common carrier ruling in February 2015.

I read the article, I'm interested in what he's got to say about it. But I don't trust him.

This is interesting, but I don't really feel like it's saying that there's more to net neutrality than blocking and throttling, but rather is simply stating the original reasoning behind said neutrality. Which it states as:

As far back as England’s emergence from feudalism around 1500, there has been a common law concept that essential services have a “duty to deal.” The operator of the ferry across the river, for instance, could not favor one lord’s traffic over another’s; everyone had access, and everyone had to pay. When the telegraph was introduced in the United States 350 years later, the concept was applied to that new essential service. The Pacific Telegraph Act of 1860 provided, “messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception.” When the telephone came along, the same concept was applied to it as a common carrier.

The Communications Act of 1934, under which the FCC operates today, established in Title II’s statutory language, “It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor.”

I certainly agree, but again, I don't feel as though it really changes our reasoning behind wanting net neutrality.

A relatively lengthy article, but I admit, I'm still rather confused at the end of it. The author discusses lofty, broad-strokes concepts like the open internet, "just and reasonable" behaviour, and public oversight, but I still fail to understand how exactly that would play out. Other than blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content, what practical other ways would there even be for ISPs to interfere with the open internet? An example or two would go a long way here, imo.