The linked article lays out precisely what "the fuss" is about.

And it uses Google's own prior statements about Net Neutrality as a concise critique of the most objectionable parts of the Verizon agreement.

The linked article does not distinguish between what Google wants and what Google was able to get Verizon to commit to.

The issue people are upset about isn't what Verizon was willing to commit to -- obviously any concessions from them that move toward an open and neutral internet are a positive step.

The problem lies in the commitments Google appears to be willing to make. The compromises that Google have laid out are clearly not a worst case scenario, but I personally hope for a better policy than "it could be worse" to emerge from this discussion.

If we're at all optimistic that Google cares for more Neutrality than they "achieved" here, why would we think those goals are different from what they were arguing in favor of for three years?

The entire article is nothing but distinguishing what Google wants from what it settled for.

Well. The results are all that we have to go by. Also Google is promoting this as the legislative arrangement that should be pushed without any mention about what they hoped to achieve and couldn't.

Is it just me or is that viewer way nicer than scribd as an ad-hoc PDF viewer? And it doesn't even disable the download button, like scribd.com/slurp does.