That argument made so little sense even at the time – considering your recent victory in the wireless-broadband-protocol wars and rush to build out 4G LTE services after forcing other carriers to accept LTE rather than WiMax as a 4G technology – that I at least figured it had to be a smoke screen.
Net Neutrality Doublespeak
Second: You've aired quite a few contradictory statements about the way you view net neutrality in the months since your deal with Google.
Reading them consolidated it seems the consistent thread is that Verizon believes the Net should be neutral except the parts for which Verizon is responsible, which Verizon should face no limits that would force it to treat consumers or competitors fairly or restrict anything Verizon would like to do to improve mobile wireless service revenue.
Advocating net neutrality, then essentially dictating to the FCC the lax rules that would fail to limit your freedom to do as you liked seemed a little weaselly.
Turning around and suing the FCC (twice) to try to take away its power to enact regulations that are overly lax because they came almost directly from the text of your own suggestions seems a little gratuitous.
That kind of clear and obvious hypocrisy doesn't come off as good customer service or an effort to preserve the service or experience of the customer.
It comes off as selfish, disdainful, smug arrogance.
That's OK, though. It's what Verizon is known for. It's why you and Bank of America consistently top lists of organizations consumers rate as Companies We Hate But Are Forced to Deal With Anyway.