Portland, Ore.

MY three young sons never hit each other. They may poke, push, graze, bump or even slap, but they never hit, because Mom says hitting isn’t allowed. This same semantic technique fits the mind-set of technology companies like Google. The geekier these companies are, the more tactical is their use of language.

And so in last week’s controversy over whether Google and Verizon are hatching a deal to undermine net neutrality, it pays to look closely at their words. Both companies maintain that there is no deal and that no money will be paid for faster transmission of data. This is probably true in a literal sense, though something is clearly happening between the companies. I think Google has just found a way to fool Mom.

Net neutrality is the concept that all data packets are created equal and Internet service providers should not give priority to one kind of data (say, video conferencing) over another (say, e-mail). Internet partisans love net neutrality while telephone companies tend not to. Why not allow e-mail to run a little slower, they argue, if that lets services that need higher performance run faster? The difference is payment: users and the Federal Communications Commission worry that once a differentiation is made, the service providers will start charging for faster service and poorer users will suffer as a result. It’s a slippery slope.

Google has always been firmly on the side of net neutrality. So the news of a deal between Google and Verizon  one of the country’s largest broadband service providers  has caused consternation throughout geekdom. Has Google turned on its principles? The company says no, but then Eric Schmidt, its chief executive, has been making murky statements differentiating between wireless and wired data, suggesting to some a repudiation of neutrality. The truth is probably that Google has found a way to get special treatment from Verizon but without actually compromising net neutrality.