Google and Verizon have announced their proposal for carving up the Internet. This is their policy proposal to Congress and FCC for regulating the Internet from here on out, a proposal that reads like a statement of what Google and Verizon will and will not allow the FCC to do.

The first thing it does is rule out any kind of open policy for wireless--it completely carves out the Internet you get on your smart phone or PDA or any future wireless device from the Internet you get on your computer, what they call the "public" Internet. This is critical, because the real innovation, the real growth in technology will be in wireless technologies, technologies that they want to be beyond the reach of regulation.

David Dayen participated in a conference all with the company's CEOs today, and reports:

The joint policy agreement makes a distinction between wireline and wireless broadband, basically the Internet you get on your computer, and what you can get on a smart phone, PDA, or some other not-yet-invented device. On wireline broadband, which the CEOs kept calling the public Internet, they displayed a full commitment to Internet openness and freedom: First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC. Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that 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. On wireless services, which as an example Verizon CEO Seidelberg used his company’s FIOS TV, the joint policy agreement only extends “transparency.” In other words, “providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities.” They would not be forced into non-discrimination requirements for content.... So basically, we have strict rules and enforcement of the existing broadband space, without extending those rules to mobile or wireless Internet devices, and just a nod to transparency, as well as a GAO report every year to assure that consumers are protected in that space. So you could have paid prioritization of content on these servies. It’s not so much a loophole as a giant black hole.

Then there's this, from their policy:

Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.

So Google and Verizon are now trying to determine the limits of the agency that is supposed to be regulating them, and on a case-by-case basis, no less.

Then there's the "new services" that they propose also be left out of the "open" or "public" Internet, and thus be exempt from net neturality.

Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, 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. 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. 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. 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.

In other words, two-tiered broadband where the telecoms can spend all their money innovating on content that will not be subject to net neutrality rules and they can cash in, leaving the "public" Internet behind. The big telecoms money will not be going into the developing the kinds of technologies that have allowed for massive entrepreunership online. The big boys will develop for themselves and will dominate market power online.

It's the FCC's job to regulate the industry, and they have complete authority to do so even without permission from Google, or Verizon, or Comcast, or even AT&T. They need to reassert that authority, and reject this proposal.