Net neutrality proponents managing their networks?

Even some strong proponents of net neutrality now apparently recognize:

• Bandwidth is not unlimited or free;
• The real need for reasonable network management; and that
• Internet networks can have legitimate economic reasons to -- limit bandwidth, block access, or offer slow/fast lanes -- that are not necessarily in violation of net neutrality or anticompetitive. 

An excellent New York Times article provides real world examples of the above points.

• One Internet Village, Divided: In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit.

The article, which I recommend reading, explains that many Internet companies are coming to the realization that many users cost more to provide access to than an Internet advertising model can economically support.

• “It’s a problem every Internet company has,” said Michelangelo Volpi, chief executive of Joost..."
• "Last year, Veoh, a video-sharing site operated from San Diego, decided to block its service from users in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, citing the dim prospects of making money and the high cost of delivering video there." 
• "Tom Pickett, director of online sales and operations at YouTube, says... that YouTube has slowed the creation of new international hubs and shifted its focus to making money. He says that does not rule out restricting bandwidth in certain countries as a way to control costs — essentially making YouTube a slower, lower-quality viewing experience in the developing world. “We may choose to set a limit to how much we are willing to pay in bandwidth cost..."

Interesting.