Elsever got a court to order a gross violation of net neutrality.
The ISP had no interest or desire to implement blocking of any sort. Once it's hand is forced via legal means, it needs to obtain that capability - and using it with discretion as a protest is a perfect demonstration as to why they should _not_ have that capability.
Yes - we all approve of the ISP's action, but this instance was in our favor. Will the next be against? Power begets corruption.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/07/comcast-xfinity-...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/133855251.shtml
Banhof's stance is that they do not even want the capability to block websites. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with. It certainly means some speech with which I strongly disagree is protected as well as speech with which I do agree. ISPs should _not_ have this kind of power. Banhof do not want it, but since they're being forced into acquiring and using that capability, using it to protest against it seems eminently reasonable.
Unfortunately the courts have made this impossible though. In order to get net neutrality back, they would have to reverse that court decision that forced websites to be blocked.
However, this is also a gross violation of net neutrality. The ISP's power over a website is evident from their ability to block a website they have differences with. This is both encouraging (that the ISP cares) & frightening (that the ISP has total control)