Google on Thursday defended its recent net neutrality proposal with Verizon, denying that it "sold out" or that it teamed up with Verizon to boost its Android platform.

Google on Thursday defended its recent with Verizon, denying that it "sold out" or that it teamed up with Verizon to boost its Android platform.

The search engine giant also shot down assertions that the proposal is a step backward for the open Internet or that it would entirely eliminate net neutrality for wireless.

"On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively," Richard Whitt, Washington telecom and media counsel for Google, wrote in a blog post.

Earlier this week, for how they believe the net neutrality issue should be handled. It would maintain openness on the Web, but would not extend those rules to the wireless space.

It would also allow broadband providers to experiment with additional services that would not be subject to net neutrality.

The proposal made a lot of headlines, but it's important to remember that it is just that  a proposal. Google and Verizon cannot put these guidelines into place themselves. A member of Congress must adopt it and introduce it as a bill, or the Federal Communications Commission must incorporate it into a formal rulemaking.

The FCC's , however, , and it's unclear whether the commission is willing to abandon that provision. The FCC has not yet released a public statement about the Google-Verizon proposal.

Nonetheless, a pairing between two companies as large and powerful as Google and Verizon on a topic as controversial as net neutrality warrants some attention. Google said Thursday, however, that its intentions have been misconstrued. How so?

First up, Google has not "sold out" on net neutrality, Whitt wrote.

"No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet," he said, but "political realities"  including the recent ruling that the to hand down a network management enforcement action against Comcast  mean there are no enforceable Internet protections, he said.

"With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together," according to Whitt.

Critics are concerned, however, about the exemption for wireless. With mobile Internet use exploding, can Google and Verizon really argue that the industry is evolving and needs to remain unregulated to truly flourish? Is that a cover for Google's true interest  its stake in the Android mobile operating system? Whitt shot down both ideas.

He argued that wireless is more competitive than wireline, and said that given the , wireless carriers "need to manage their networks more actively." The Google-Verizon plan would still require wireless carriers to be transparent about their activity, but "Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers' interests," he said.

As for Android, "this is a policy proposal  not a business deal," Whitt wrote. "Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android."

Critics are not so sure. In a Tuesday blog post, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) praised the plan's limited jurisdiction for the FCC, but said the additional online services provision was troubling and that the wireless exclusion section deserved a failing grade.

Whitt said Thursday that the additional services section would let broadband providers branch off into something not Internet-related. "So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability  so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet," he wrote.

This is "very disturbing," EFF said, because much of the services we'll see in the future will likely not be traditional broadband Internet access services. "The approach in the proposal creates no real limits on what could be allowed as an 'additional online service,'" wrote EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "It would be much better if space for these services was addressed through waivers or other processes that put the burden on the company suggesting such services to prove that they are needed."

The wireless exemption, meanwhile, is a "dreadful idea," Cohn wrote. "Users are increasingly demanding the ability to do many, if not all, of the same things in a wireless environment as they do in a wired one."

Facebook, meanwhile, weighed in on the controversy this week, reiterating its commitmet to net neutrality.

"Facebook continues to support principles of net neutrality for both landline and wireless networks," the company said in a statement. "Preserving an open Internet that is accessible to innovators  regardless of their size or wealth  will promote a vibrant and competitive marketplace where consumers have ultimate control over the content and services delivered through their Internet connections."

Also on Thursday, several consumer groups announced plans to hold a "Don't Be Evil" rally outside Google's Mountain View, Calif. headquarters on Friday, Aug. 13. The event - sponsored by MoveOn.org Civic Action, ColorofChange.org, Credo Action, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Free Press - will start at noon Pacific time at the corner of Amphitheatre Parkway and Charleston Road, according to Free Press.