FTA: ``Google could have fought. It had plenty of tools at its disposal. It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans.''
Does this sound at all like a well-thought-out, reasonable, or mature course of action to suggest that Google could have taken? I don't think so. What exactly does ``a fair plan'' mean? $0.50 less for unlimited texting? $10 less for wireless broadband?
FTA: ``That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet again won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you — as an American — have lost.''
Sounds to me like Wired is taking a shot at riding a wave of childish rage (and trying to get fat along the way).
T-Mobile does that; their unsubsidized (and contract-free!) plans are $20/month less. Of course neither Google nor T-Mobile ever bothered to tell anybody about that.
Does this sound at all like a well-thought-out, reasonable, or mature course of action to suggest that Google could have taken? I don't think so. What exactly does ``a fair plan'' mean? $0.50 less for unlimited texting? $10 less for wireless broadband?
FTA: ``That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet again won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you — as an American — have lost.''
Sounds to me like Wired is taking a shot at riding a wave of childish rage (and trying to get fat along the way).