Google and Verizon have put forward a joint policy framework aimed at allaying fears the two companies could bring an end to the internet principle of net neutrality.

In a joint op-ed in the Washington Post today, the Google chief executive, Eric Schmidt, and his Verizon counterpart, Ivan Seidenberg, outlined their "commitment to an open internet", saying "blocking and degrading internet traffic is antithetical to the principles of openness and consumers' expectations".

Long-running talks between the US media and telecoms regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a host of big internet companies – including Google and US telecoms operator Verizon – broke down last week amid reports of the two companies trying to forge a deal in private, something they both denied.

But the two companies have been discussing the concept of net neutrality – an internet tenet stating that all content should be delivered at the same speed on a level playing field – for some time.

In a post on the Google Public Policy blog late yesterday, Alan Davidson, the search giant's director of public policy, and Tom Tauke, Verizon's executive vice president of public affairs, outline the future for net neutrality in the US.

Here's some initial reaction from around the web:

"One cynical way of reading this is to think of Google and Verizon as two syndicates carving out a piece of the action: Google gets a commitment to net neutrality over the standard, wired internet that people access via computers at home or at work, while Verizon gets far weaker regulation on wireless networks accessed via smartphones.

"Why does Google feel it needs to work with Verizon on this? Verizon in the US is in a uniquely powerful position of straddling both wired and wireless access, since it operates one of the two major wireless networks (AT&T running the other), while also being a major wired ISP competing with the likes of cable provider Comcast.

"[...] Needless to say, the lack of regulation applying to wireless access and the possibility of future 'designated services' doesn't please anyone outside the telecoms industry, or indeed at the FCC."

"But here's the rub: You should not trust Verizon or other carriers, or Google for that matter, to follow through in ways that are truly in the interest of the kind of open networks the nation needs. Throughout the conference call, we kept hearing references to the 'public internet' – an expression that leads inescapably to something else.

"If Schmidt was telling the truth when he said Google's overwhelming focus will remain on the public internet, such as his promise that YouTube will remain there, that's great. I have no reason to disbelieve him, and Google's track record to date is strong on this issue. But plans change, managements change, and corporate goals change."

"If open networks are good, why should wireless be different? They don't make the case in these documents for why the 'unique technical and operational characteristics' should change the fundamental underlying principle of the network. That's not to say there isn't a good argument, but it's certainly not in either the blog post or the policy document.

"More troubling is that the language of the wireline net neutrality is squirrely. The companies suggest that they would be maintaining 'net neutrality' on wireline services, but they'd allow 'additional or differentiated services' over their networks.

"[...] Again, this is just a policy paper, but this seems like a slippery definition of what is and is not internet traffic. Why not carry these 'additional services' over the internet, where they would be subject to the net neutrality rules that these companies claim to think is a good idea?"

"The good news is nothing about this compromise has any teeth without the FCC deciding to made it part of its official rules on network neutrality. However, given the FCC's precarious position as a broadband regulator and a lack of support from Congress on this issue the temptation to accept this compromise as good for everyone may force a version of network neutrality that leaves mobile, one of the fastest areas of innovation on the web, out of the new rules. It also enables an alternative version of the public internet that could lead to the creation of a first-class and a second-class system of packet delivery."

Siva Vaidhyanathan, law and media studies professor, quoted by NPR

"I'm concerned [that] if the FCC uses this as a template, we will create a backwater on the traditional internet and allow for a lot of top-down control in the very areas where use seems to be moving."

"Overall, there's a lot that's bad about this proposal, and it shouldn't form the basis of legislation in Congress or of rules by the FCC.

"The biggest problem with the framework is that, while purporting to support 'the open internet', it draws illogical distinctions on the basis of what technology you use to access the internet, and between 'the public internet' (Verizon's mantra on the press call) and 'additional online services'.

"If the Verizon/Google proposal is adopted, the window of openness that allowed companies like [Schmidt's] to thrive and grow will be closed. The internet could be frozen in 2010, with companies like his on top."

"The idea that Google and Verizon think nobody will notice they've proposed a network neutrality solution that excludes wireless while nuzzling their multi-billion-dollar Android partnership seems almost obnoxiously cocky. Arrogance is par for the course for Verizon, but assuming your audience is comprised of complete morons seems like new territory for Google.

"It seems like common sense that telecom regulators, not the sector's wealthiest players, should be dictating the beat of this particular policy drum. The fact that this isn't the case speaks to the FCC's murky leadership over the past year. The framework used to create any internet policy rules shouldn't be a game of policy make believe focused on protecting the revenues of the wealthiest constituents – it should be the brain trust of a broad collective, including consumers, smaller carriers, and truly independent experts."