First Google attempts seems to have been half-hearted to say the least. Google is not a start up: they have a lot of power, a lot of money, and a lot of connections. If they wanted to put real pressure they could.
Second it was Google that put itself on the pedestal. They did not use half measures in the past: net neutrality was really really important. And they have tried to portrayed themselves as the customer's white knight.
Just as two examples (with reference to Apple, but I am sure there are many more) remember how Google spoke of Apple and Apple's future with the iPhone: draconian, big-brother, etc... That was another case where they tried to speak the language of morality, not of business. Same thing here (the arstechnica article is very eloquent in that).
Another example of how companies can push when they want take Apple who (allegedly) went to Verizon first but since Verizon didn't want to give up its privileges (their power over the phone) Apple went to AT&T. That probably meant less money for Apple and less market share. But Steve Jobs is so obsessive about these things that Apple can be quite blind in these cases (though that's something its fans like).
And mind you: I am not saying Apple is any better than Google. These are just two examples of how Google tends to speak in moral terms, and how other companies have used their power.
Basically Google is being accused of having been one huge hypocrite.
You are not entitled for Google to fight your battles for you.
Half-hearted? people seem to forget about their bid for spectrum 3 years ago, also you don't know what happens behind closed doors, the telecos lobbing budget is many times that of Google.
But I am entitled to feel betrayed by someone who first pretends to be so much more ethical than the rest and then isn't. All people are asking (and I agree) is that Google should have been more honest.
3-years ago was a whole different situation. THAT's the whole point people are talking about. When people argue of an old Google and a new Google, taking an example from 3 years ago to as a point in favour of the new Google is a bit deceptive.
I agree btw, that the bid for spectrum was a good move. But then if you believe that and therefore you believe in net neutrality for wireless, how can you justify Google's current behaviour if not as giving in?
> But then if you believe that and therefore you believe in net neutrality for wireless
The spectrum bid was about openness, not net neutrality. The four openness conditions of this were: open applications, open devices, open services, and open networks.
