Google on Thursday denied that it has reached a deal with Verizon that would provide priority Internet service to those willing to pay for it, and said it remained committed to the idea of net neutrality.

Google on Thursday denied that it has reached a deal with Verizon that would provide priority Internet service to those willing to pay for it, and said it remained committed to the idea of net neutrality.

Reports emerged in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal Thursday night that Google and Verizon were close to reaching a deal that would let Verizon send certain online content more quickly to customers who pay more.

Google this morning denied the existence of such a deal.

"The New York Times is quite simply wrong," a Google spokeswoman said in an e-mail. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."

Verizon also denied it.

"The New York Times article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose," Verizon said in a statement. "As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."

Reports of the alleged Google-Verizon deal were stunning because, if it were to occur, it would be a blow to the , and a complete reversal for Google on the issue.

Net neutrality is the idea that everyone should have equal access to the Internet; a major retailer should not be able to pay for faster load time than a mom-and-pop shop, or an ISP should not block certain applications to improve their networks, for example.

Google and Verizon have teamed up in the past in order to reach a common ground on the issue, but there are still fundamental differences in how they approach net neutrality. In January, the two companies about the agency's net neutrality proceeding, but they also submitted separate comments that highlighted those differences.

"We believe the FCC's proposed rules on broadband network openness put users first, and represent a balanced, flexible, and minimally intrusive approach to safeguarding the Internet's openness," Google said in its own filing.

"Rather than trying to solve a non-existent problem or locking in place particular approaches to Internet services or network management, the Commission should focus on continuing the Internet's success," Verizon said.

In June, the FCC said it was with major tech companies like Verizon, AT&T, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Google, and Skype. The commission agreed to post on its Web site a list of the companies and organization with which it was meeting.

"The broad stakeholder discussions continue to actively include Google and Verizon," an FCC spokeswoman said in a Thursday e-mail.

Some of those meetings have included consumer groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge. They expressed their concern Thursday with any sort of priority access plan.

"The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google, or even the six companies and groups engaged in other discussions at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on similar topics," Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, said in a statement.

"Such a deal would effectively create two Internets where application and content innovators have to ask Verizon and Google for permission to reach mobile Internet customers. Such a deal would make it more difficult for independent and diverse speakers to reach a broad audience and diminish the value of the mobile Internet as a new marketplace for ideas," Free Press president and CEO Josh Silver said in a statement. "It would mean that mobile consumers would no longer be able to access the same websites, applications and software as anyone else on the Internet."

In October, the that would permit broadband ISPs to engage in reasonable network management. They would not, however, be able to prevent a user from: using a particular application, like BitTorrent; connecting to their network of choice; and accessing competing products. Providers could also not discriminate against lawful apps, and they would be required to disclose their network management practices.

The net neutrality rulemaking came after the FCC, under former chairman Kevin Martin, in 2008 that accused the cable provider of unreasonable network management. Comcast appealed, and earlier this year, the court found that the . That ruling , and puts its net neutrality proceeding and national broadband plan in jeopardy.

The FCC has since , which would narrowly reclassify the transmission of data as a telecommunications service that the agency could directly regulate, balanced by a hands-off approach to other aspects.

Editor's Note: This story was updated at 3pm Eastern time with comment from Verizon.