Moreover, I've yet to understand most of the arguments against their policy proposal, beyond disappointment that they excluded wireless internet from regulation. (Which I think is a good thing for now).
Tabling the issue for wireless networks for now might be the wrong position. (I don't think it is, but I could be wrong). But it is hardly the same as implementing policies that would forever block neutral wireless networks-- most of the critics I've read over the past few days have characterized the Google/Verizon deal as a total loss of neutrality on wireless networks, forever. It specifically outlines an annual review of the current policy.
That's hardly language of a "surrender monkey" (as Wired so inarticulately put it).