Google has dismissed reports that the company is in talks with US telecoms operator Verizon that could bring an end to net neutrality.

In an article published yesterday, the New York Times said the two companies "are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege".

Today the search giant has said it remains as committed as ever to an internet where content exists on a level playing field.

A Google spokeswoman told the Guardian: "The New York Times is quite simply wrong. 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 has also moved to dismiss the story."The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken," the company said. "It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. 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."

Many news outlets reported Google and Verizon as edging towards a deal that could see content creators paying for internet service providers to fast-track content to consumers.

Eric Schmidt, chairman and chief executive of Google, said earlier this week that the two internet giants had been talking for "a long time about trying to get an agreement on what the definition of net neutrality is".

Such a deal could have seen providers of high-bandwidth content or applications – Google's YouTube and BBC's iPlayer, for example – having to pay the internet service provider (ISP) for its content being delivered to consumers. Google has previously said it wouldn't pay for such a service.

Google and Verizon are just two of the parties involved in a long-running hearing held by the US Federal Communications Commission with the aim of coming to an agreement on the future delivery of online content and services.

Julius Genachowski, the FCC chair, is seeking to adopt guidelines that would ensure telecoms companies provide equal treatment of traffic travelling over the networks. The current hearing comes from a Federal Courts Appeal ruling in April this year which said that the FCC has no authority to apply net neutrality policies to ISPs in the country. ISPs are legally entitled manage the traffic on their network as they see fit.

The FCC has said that it does not wish to impose strict terms and conditions on internet rates – seeking to appease concerns the agency could become more of a regulatory body – but says a consistent metric for equal access must be reached. Advocates of net neutrality argue that any impositions on content delivery would stifle innovation and the business models of many new internet companies.

Gigi Sohn, president of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told the New York Times: "The point of a network neutrality rule is to prevent big companies from dividing the Internet between them. 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."

The reported deal that both companies were said to be nearing took many by surprise, not least because Google's submission to the FCC calls for "a nondiscrimination principle that bans prioritising internet traffic based on the ownership (the who), the source (the what) of the content or application".