What's more, from a technical standpoint, it's different for a fiber provider than for a cable company. Coax cable capacity is asymmetric. It can carry only a given amount of data and they can carve it up to give you more down and less up, equal amounts, or more up and less down. Obviously most users want fast downloads and aren't as concerned about uploads.
By contrast, fiber is symmetric, offering full capacities up and down at once. So while cable has a technical justification for "service levels" to offer a server, fiber providers do not. Google Fiber is 1000/1000 Mbit/s symmetrical. Forcing the consumer to not use the idle uplink is against consumer generated content and consumer ownership of their own content, for the sake of a "differentiated business plan". It's against the democratization of consumer created content that consumers can control themselves.
(Google has dogs in that hunt too, you "should" host your content on G+ or YouTube, and host your email on Gmail, rather than drop in a Mac Mini Server or "host any type of server" at home.)
FWIW, my $50/mo residential plan doesn't ban servers, even though the company offers business plans from $200/mo up. I can host a mail server and a web server, with dynamic DNS and open ports 25 and 80. Ports >1024 are open for all classes of service, even their lowest.
Finally, I think the point here is that other consumer broadband providers weren't lobbying for network neutrality. Telcos weren't, cable wasn't. Google was.
It feels a bit icky when "don't be evil" turns out to mean "for now ... until we have an offering in that area that enough people adopt and this practice we used to actively call evil turns out could make us more money and is actually good ... for us".
Mind you, being magnanimous until they own enough customers is an excellent strategy. They just need a different slogan and to quit with the flip flopping.