Anti-throttling is great. It's better rhetorically (who wants their data throttled?) and arguably clearer too, since that's what it comes down to in the end -- the ability for ISPs to throttle some content more than others.

No, the first thing that comes to mind when I hear that is a general bandwidth rate limit, which I think almost nobody has any problems with.

It doesn't correctly communicate that it's different rates for different target sites.

I can't think of a hot name, but net neutrality is fundamentally about preserving a free market of information.

You have to be careful about that, because there's nothing in net neutrality that prevents restricted data silos, censorship, takedowns; it's really only about forbidding a specific network management practice that allows ISPs to impose a time cost on sites and services they disapprove of.

While accurate, it's a little misleading to phrase it like this.

Imposing a significant time cost makes certain types of applications unusable.

Notice that "free market" is a contronym: concurrent market and unregulated market are opposite things here.

these are all better names than net neutrality.