On the contrary, their goal is to make money for their shareholders. At this time, we are worried that they will do so by disadvantaging internet properties they don't own. But the answer to that doesn't by neccessity mean that some reasonable compromise is a bad thing.
I have consistently argued that, although I find these compromises entirely fair, that others are perfectly reasonable to challenge them on their merits.
In general, most of the criticisms that I have read start with the assumption that any compromise is a bad thing, rather than addressing the specifics of this proposal. Such thinking is an entirely unfair, and in many instances begs the question. (Google's compromises are evil because only evil companies compromise on this issue, because compromise is evil).
Far better critics (see the EFF's rational and reasonable critique of the policy proposal) are being drowned out by the extremists, and, as a result, I suspect they are going to marginalize themselves and (tragically) their more reasonable peers.
Still, you can not answer a question with a question. Why should there be any compromise? Verizon's goal and that of the public contradict each other fundamentally. The public votes in the politicians and votes them out, thus is immensely more powerful than Vrizon, thus why compromise at all?
