They succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired internet. Isn't that a strict improvement over the status quo?
Google just succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired internet in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet).
[citation needed] This is explicitly not true according to the text of the agreement. The agreement says that it is too early to determine whether net-neutrality provisions are necessary for wireless networks, because it's a newer market and there is much more competition.
The market fundamentally is under heavy regulation; wireless can't work without heavy-handed regulation of who can use what spectrum. We can't just stop at that kind of draconian regulation (which is necessary) and say that a little thing like non-discriminatory access to your absolute monopoly is too much.
Furthermore bandwidth is limited. The proposal is not what Google wants, it is what they were able to get Verizon to agree to. I read that clause as very much of an, "We agree to disagree, and agree that our areas of agreement are worth pursuing anyways."
Google is at least getting a discussion going.
Also, they know who you are, Mr. ergo98.
Just as Verizon tells them how they want to do things. As does Microsoft, and Apple, and every other big tech company.
You grossly overstate Google's significance.
The point here is that Google is just another huge, evil(1) company among others like it, and that all its recent talk about openness is just PR-bullshit.
(1) Whatever your definition may be.