Andriod as an OS/Platform is much more open. This openness includes the option to make a crappy proprietary app with vendor lock-ins. He never said every single app on Android was super-duper open. He said that Android is by far the most open OS. It definitely trumps the iPhone in terms of openness, hands down/no questions asked. Windows Mobile is actually pretty open, but it's not open source, which is a pretty bug plus for Android.

Interestingly enough, your first link hit the nail on the head. That gate is not a security measure at all like the link makes it out to be. The gate is there to tell people that the airport is closed. To think that it was even slightly intended as a security measure is very naive.

Google's signup fee was not meant as "real deterrant[sic] and defense against human threats". It was meant to keep "wild animals" (aka. script kiddies) from posting stupid malicious apps in the marketplace to jack with people.

Also, where do you live where it's necessary to lock your door to keep wild animals out? You've got some smart critters in your area...

Of course this isn't fool proof. It's like locking the door to your house when you leave. Anyone who really wants to break into your house is just gonna smash a window - but you still lock you door behind you to keep some random kid from just walking in and trashing your house.

So, to summarize for anyone else reading this thread, this is what just happened:

Google: "Lets force all data carriers to treat all internet traffic equally. It will greatly benefit consumers and, therefore, out business model. If we could get Verizon to back our plan, it would greatly further our cause. What say you Verizon?"

Verizon: "Well, that's gonna completely hose our wireless networks, but we'll support you on the wired front and get some PR brownie points."

Google: "Alright, fine. We'll take what we can get"

Google-Haters: "OMG! Google wants to eliminate net-neutrality on wireless networks!"

Google: "Hey! What are you talking about? There wasn't any net-neutrality to begin with, so we're not eliminating it.... we just agreed to not address it in this proposal in the spirit of compromise"

Spun: "durrrr... I have no reading comprehension skills and I hate google. Hmmm... I don't properly understand what I'm reading, but it sounds like google is lying! Evil! Evil, I say! Google is the Evilest Corporation on the face of the planet, because more poor reading comprehension skills tell me that they attempting to skirt around the issue."

This is akin to the following:

Google-placeholder (GP): "I want to buy this orphanage and the abandoned lot next to it so I can build a park there."

Verizon-placeholder (VP): "Well, I can't sell you the vacant lot because it'll kill me in taxes if I do, but I'll give you the orphanage, no problem"

GP: "Alright, we can always revisit the abandoned lot at a later date"

GP-Haters: "OMG! Google hates orphans and is gonna bulldoze their park!"

GP: "Hey! What are you talking about? There was never a park there to begin with! We got the orphanage, and we'll build them a park as soon as we can. Would you rather we had neither?"

Spun: "durrrr... I have no reading comprehension skills and I hate google. Hmmm... I don't properly understand what I'm reading, but it sounds like google is lying! Evil! Evil, I say! Google is the Evilest Corporation on the face of the planet, because more poor reading comprehension skills tell me that they attempting to skirt around the issue."

To get an idea of what consumer bandwidth should cost, I look at Amazon's S3 offerings. They change $0.15/GB for bandwidth, and make money off of it. Like you said, this is completely ignoring the last mile, and I could see paying $1.50/GB as possibly reasonable... but $4.50? That's just ridiculous.