> • No throttling,
> • No paid prioritization,
That wasn't in 2010 one. The only requirement is that it is not "unreasonable discrimination" - which of course means in fact "whatever District/Supreme Court wants it to mean" but in the meantime can be interpreted as "whatever you can plausibly find a solid business reason to do" (which excludes anti-competitive ones by "no blocking clause"). 2015 one seems to go much further and exclude much more.
That doesn't differ much from the 2015 one, which basically boiled down to:
• No blocking,
• No throttling,
• No paid prioritization,
• Explicitly allows "reasonable network management".
The 2015 Order was for the most part essentially a reimplementation of the 2010 Order using Title II authority instead of Section 706 authority, because the problem the courts had with the 2010 Order was that they said it went beyond what Section 706 allowed.
Here is a copy of the 2015 Order [1]. The actual rules are on pages 283-290.
https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutralit...