The world is going to eventually become far more reliant on wireless internet services - Google reneged on their promise to fight for net-neutrality, because they left wireless/mobile internet services unprotected.
Yes, that is a significant compromise. But it is one that the carriers will fight very hard, so Google considered it worthwhile to get agreement on the rest. That's why it was called compromise, rather than being called what Google really wants.
Note that the FTC ruling that they have been lauded for made the exact same compromise, for very similar reasons. What I'm really curious about is the disparity between how they are treated for their respective actions.
Furthermore Google didn't entirely leave wireless unprotected. They lost their 2008 bid for a bunch of wireless spectrum, but got a use restriction applied to Verizon that forces Verizon to respect net neutrality for that bandwidth. So there will be mobile internet services that follow net neutrality.
Google's motivation was to encourage exactly what the FTC did by coming up with a compromise position that was politically realistic. Making it something that a major carrier could sign up to was part of their goal.
In short they were attempting to make it easier for the FTC to do exactly what it did.
I don't understand how a corporation can be altruistic and self-motivated at exactly the same time; Google will always have an incentive to create conditions that are favourable to its business aims.
I'd don't think it's possible to view Google purely in terms of 'don't be evil'. 'Don't be evil' is a part of a marketing campaign.
When the FTC issues a ruling that looks almost exactly the same, everyone lauds them for their forward thinking stance.
Can you explain what, exactly, you thought was so horrible about what Google and Verizon did?