Google and Verizon announced a joint proposal on Monday that would allow ISPs to offer premium content bundles over an unspecified global network — an unexpected gambit that would seem to call for separate and unequal internets.

The two companies say the guidelines would ensure that no internet traffic of any kind is prioritized over any other kind (with the exception of viruses, spam and the like).

“There should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices,” reads part of their proposal, posted on both Verizon’s and Google’s websites. “For the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.”

“Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules,” it continues. “The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of internet access services.”

On the flipside, the Google/Verizon blueprint would grant content companies looking to deliver services that require too much bandwidth for the “regular” internet to do so in return for payment, via a second set of pipes.

That bombshell is the carrot that would seek to convince ISPs to accede to the basic tenets of net neutrality on the internet we know. But the from-left-field proposal to anticipate an entirely new information highway for “fast lanes” comes in the midst of an already contentious net neutrality debate and would seem, at first glance, more likely to exacerbate the discussion the FCC is trying to shepherd than bring it to a swifter conclusion.

Reaction was swift and largely negative from net neutrality advocates — they are quoted at length at the end of the post. The FCC seemed none too pleased with the proposal itself nor the fact that it was drafted outside a delicate process with industry players that blew up last Friday after the New York Times reported that Google and Verizon were working on a parallel track.

“Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its many problems,” FCC commissioner Michael J. Copps said in a statement. “It is time to move a decision forward — a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”

And that would be the first question, assuming this tale of two internets ever gets written: To what extent would an inherently more private network mingle with the public internet? Would it be like pay cable and satellite TV, which now provides some content that had previously been available on “free” TV, without killing broadcasting entirely? Or would it be like network television and syndication, which killed local station production and innovation?

In the here and now the proposal does not include the paid prioritization of one company’s traffic over another — a victory for net neutrality proponents. But it does call for so-called “fast lanes” ISPs have been clamoring for in ways even the two companies could not foresee, according to both Google President Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.

“Our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the internet access and video services (such as Verizon’s Fios TV) offered today,” continues the proposal. “This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options.”

In other words, to avoid creating tiered access on the internet and dealing with associated governmental red tape, Google and Verizon have proposed creating a second, paid-access-only internet — and mobile networks are exempt from the proposal, so the concept of net neutrality wouldn’t necessarily apply there.

“The agreement between Verizon and Google about how to manage Internet traffic is nothing more than a private agreement between two corporate behemoths, and should not be a template or basis for either Congressional or FCC action,” said Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge. “It is unenforceable, and does almost nothing to preserve an open internet. Most critically, it sacrifices the future of the mobile wireless internet as this platform becomes more central to the lives of all Americans.”

The easiest way to create this second, paid internet would be to create physically- or logically-distinct pipes the way Verizon already divides up its Fios services over fiber optic cables today, said Free Press policy council Chris Riley.

“You could encode the data on different [fiber optic] wavelengths in order to send it over what is essentially a separately broken-up-pipe,” he told Wired.com. “That’s the way cable television channels are distinguished from cable internet services… but they could also do it with looser software-based techniques as well.”

Won’t ISPs such as Verizon have an incentive to develop the paid internet while leaving the “open” internet behind? Schmidt said that in addition to the FCC monitoring the situation under their proposal, Verizon will be incapable of ever prioritizing paid traffic over open internet traffic.

[Story continues]

“There seems to be a concern that somehow the investment, because of this, would move from the open internet to other things,” said Schmidt. “They way [the proposal] is written, that’s not possible. Furthermore, Verizon and others have a large financial incentive to make the open internet — the public internet — more useful, simply because it’s what their customers want.

“Frankly, if they were to choose to degrade it, other competitors would enter the market. But of course, they’ve promised not to do that anyway… there’s enough excess supply that they should be able to handle both. And according to this, they’re not allowed to prioritize against the open internet. And I told our friends at Verizon that we will continue to enforce these principles.”

Google, for one, will stay on the open internet, according Schmidt.

“We love the internet and we have no intention of using anything other than the internet,” said Schmidt, adding that YouTube and all other Google services would “always” travel over the open internet.

Under Google’s and Verizon’s proposal, the FCC would have authority it doesn’t currently have to police ISPs for transparency in all of their offerings and fair distribution of content on the “open internet,” fining transgressors up to $2 million per infraction.

None of these wireline broadband rules would apply to the wireless internet, with the exception of “transparency,” so the concept of net neutrality on the wirelessly-accessed public internet would be dead on arrival (updated).

What about the deal between Google and Verizon that would see Google paying Verizon to speed its content through Verizon’s internet pipes? You know, the one that was reported by the New York Times? No such deal exists, said Schmidt.

“There is no business arrangement [between Google and Verizon] and reports that there was a business arrangement are false, misleading, and not correct,” said Schmidt in response to the query of a Reuters reporter. “I hope that that is a very clear answer to your business arrangement question.”

Internet meme-sters have long referred to “the internets” as a sort of inside joke, because of course there’s just one internet (despite a certain George Bush-ism).

But if Google’s and Verizon’s proposal goes through, we really would have two internets — one free, where Google pledges to stay, another paid, where services such as 3D television, remote medical procedures, and bandwidth-intensive games appear — for a price.

Reactions to Google and Verizon’s proposal are flowing in. So far, net neutrality proponents offer nothing but stiff criticism for the proposal.

Senior vice president and policy director of Media Access Project Andrew Jay Schwartzman:

The plan that Google and Verizon announced today falls far short of protecting the needs of American Internet users. The proposal raises more questions than it answers. For example, would the prohibition on FCC regulations pertaining to network neutrality make it impossible to outlaw specific practices such as those used by Comcast in blocking peer-to-peer traffic? One question that the plan does definitively answer is that there would be no protection for wireless users. This alone makes the plan a non-starter. One other particularly unacceptable provision is the requirement that a complainant must prove actual consumer harm. In practice, this poses a nearly insurmountable burden, since it is often impossible for consumers to know what practices are being employed. The fact that there is supposedly a transparency requirement offers scant reassurance. As the Comcast case demonstrated, some carriers lie to their customers. And a cap on fines at $2 million dollar fine is a rounding error on the balance sheet for companies like Verizon. Another important shortcoming of the plan is that it would remove all authority for the Federal Trade Commission to exercise its traditional consumer protection role.

President and co-founder of Public Knowledge Gigi B. Sohn:

[Story continues]

The agreement between Verizon and Google about how to manage Internet traffic is nothing more than a private agreement between two corporate behemoths, and should not be a template or basis for either Congressional or FCC action. It is unenforceable, and does almost nothing to preserve an open Internet. Most critically, it sacrifices the future of the mobile wireless Internet as this platform becomes more central to the lives of all Americans. Under the Google-Verizon definition of network neutrality, wireless companies would only have to be transparent about their network practices – meaning that they could block any application, content or service so long as they told consumers they were doing so. And while there would be no pay for priority on the best efforts Internet, there are almost no limits on so-called “managed services,” other than that they would need to be “distinguishable in purpose and scope,” from the Internet. Thus, it is conceivable under the agreement that a network provider could devote 90% of its broadband capacity to these priority services and 10% to the best efforts Internet. If managed services are allowed to cannibalize the best efforts Internet, whatever protections are agreed to for the latter become, for all intents and purposes, meaningless. The public outrage to the initial reports of this agreement should be a sign to the FCC and Congress — the public wants the FCC to protect an open Internet and ensure that the next Google, the next Facebook, the next Twitter and the next Wikipedia can succeed. With the recent demise of the FCC’s network neutrality negotiations, the time for delay and inaction has ended. The FCC should expeditiously complete its open, public and comprehensive process to decide the fundamental issue of FCC authority over broadband, an issue that not only applies to network neutrality but also is crucial to whether all Americans will have affordable access to broadband service.”

Free Press Political Adviser Joel Kelsey:

Google and Verizon can try all they want to disguise this deal as a reasonable path forward, but the simple fact is this framework, if embraced by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, would transform the free and open Internet into a closed platform like cable television. This is much worse than a business arrangement between two companies. It’s a signed-sealed-and-delivered policy framework with giant loopholes that blesses the carving up of the Internet for a few deep-pocketed Internet companies and carriers … Still worse, this deal proposes to keep the FCC from making rules at all. Instead of an even playing field for everyone, it proposes taking up complaints on a case-by-case basis, or even leaving it up to third-party industry groups to decide what the rules should be. The only good news is that neither of these companies is actually in charge of writing the rules that govern the future of the Internet. That is supposed to be the job of our leaders in Washington. Congress and the FCC should reject Verizon and Google’s plans to carve up the Internet for the private benefit of deep-pocketed special interests, and move forward with policies that preserve the open Internet for all. This begins with the FCC reasserting its authority over broadband to ensure it can protect the open Internet and promote universal access to affordable, world-class quality broadband.

The Internet is one of our nation’s most important resources, and policymakers everywhere should recognize that the future of our innovation economy is far too important to be decided by a backroom deal between industry giants.

The SavetheInternet.com coalition (MoveOn.Org Civic Action, Credo Action, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, ColorofChange.org and Free Press):

The Google-Verizon pact isn’t just as bad as we feared — it’s much worse. They are attacking the internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won’t be fooled. They are promising Net Neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they’ll likely stop investing in. But they are also paving the way for a new ‘internet’ via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks. It would open the door to outright blocking of applications, just as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It would divide the information superhighway, creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the little guy stranded on a winding dirt road. Worse still, this pact would turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing complaints and unable to make rules of its own. This is not real Net Neutrality. And this pact would harm the millions of Americans who have pleaded with our leaders in Washington to defend the free and open internet. President Obama, Congress and the FCC should reject this deal, restore the authority of the agency that’s supposed to protect internet users, and safeguard Net Neutrality once and for all.”

Here’s the full text of Google and Verizon’s proposal:

Follow us for disruptive tech news: Eliot Van Buskirk and Epicenter on Twitter.

See Also: