Companies have souls. They have founding values. Principles. Things they can't help doing, because it's in their DNA. Sure, they need to make money, but that's not why most people start a business. They do it because they like to sell shoes, or make furniture, or open new frontiers.

Opening new frontiers was what Google was about, right from the start. And that's why we've liked them, mostly, over the twelve years they've been around. And they have been exceptionally good at it.

Three things have made Google especially appealing to geeks. First was that they understood the Internet, and what it was about. Second was that they got Linux, free software and open source. Third was that they were really good at breaking up logjams in stuffy business categories old and new. They did that with search, mapping, advertising, office applications, journalism, translation, publishing, email and many other things, including smartphones. They might not have done everything right, but at least we could assume that they would continue to earn their rep as the most geek-friendly multi-$billion company on Earth. (A sure sign of that was how easily Google could land trophy programmers and other leading figures in the geek world. And how well it has kept them.)

Last Monday that changed when Google published two joint documents with Verizon, the U.S. telecom giant, which also happens to be one of Google's partners in the smartphone business. One document was the Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal. The other was A joint policy for an open Internet. The former had no byline. The latter was by Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and no two f'ers in business could be less alike. While Google was right out of the IETF mold of "loose consensus and running code", Verizon was a Daughter Bell. It had the heart and soul of a phone company, with tech sensibilities compliant with the ITU: itellectual property and biz model leverage, regulatory compliance (or capture), six nines of reliability, licensing, tariffs. Plus, of course, customer and third party lock-in. True, Verizon was best-of-breed for rolling out fiber optic connections, offering enviable Internet service in the places where you can get it. (Such as mine here in Massachusetts. So envy me. I get a rock-solid 25Mb/sec both upstream and down with FiOS, and excellent customer support.) But we know where they come from, and it ain't Silicon Valley or anything like it.

There had been reports in recent weeks of meetings between corporate and regulatory heavies, including Google and Verizon, but all along it was safe to assume that Google was working the geek side of this thing — meaning that they would do their best to preserve and protect the Internet as an open thing in itself, and not allow it to be re-positioned as... well, what it is for most people: a "service" we get from phone and cable companies.

Well, when the two documents came out, the shit hit the fan, big time. Geeks and friends came unglued. Jeff Jarvis, whose book What Would Google Do? could be summarized as the answer "Nothing wrong," called the joint documents a "Munich Pact". In a post titled "Internet, Schminternet", he said,

Netizens are now citizens of the Sudentenland.

Just as Czechoslovakia was not invited to its cutting apart, so were we not invited to Google and Verizon’s parlays.

But the internet is ours, not yours, Verizon and Google. This is why we need our Bill of Rights in Cyberspace.

In Wired's Epicenter blog, Ryan Singel posted Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey, to a huge amen chorus of other outraged bloggers.

There were also some more restrained responses. The EFF said the docs contained "some really terrible ideas". In Gigaom, in her own blog and in the San Jose Mercury News. Susan Crawford said both companies were forsaking the public interest, and called on the FCC to get a spine. Andy Oram called the docs "too vague and limited" to have much effect. Jonathan Zittrain said the "real danger" comes

...when each ISP can, in effect, speak on behalf of its unwitting subscribers, serving as the troll under the bridge offering up different conditions for access to them, the economics of the Net will start to favor the consolidated, the well-connected, the well-heeled. Verizon and Google each have reason to take the trouble to negotiate with one another to begin with — they’re both big, and each can offer uniquely desirable benefits to the other. The generative power of the Internet is that it has offered a perch for anyone who wants to plant a flag in the ground. Set up www.mynewamazingwebsite.com, and people the world over can beat a path to it or not as they please. That represented a huge change from the proprietary consumer networks of the 1980s and 90s, where AOL or CompuServe got to say who could have a presence within their gated communities.

The big semantic problem from the start was "network neutrality" — a label first applied by Tim Wu to the indifference of the Internet's protocols to whose bits were inside its routed packets, or their intended purposes. Carriers hated it, because they believed neutrality would hamper their ability to manage their networks if rules enforcing it were burned into law or regulation. A lot of geeks (but far from all) and their friends wanted exactly that: law or regulation that insitutes neutrality as policy. Google has been pro-neutrality from the start, which put them at a disadvantage, because the carriers had the upper hand in Washington, plus most state capitals and public utility commissions.

Making things even more difficult was a lack of clarity about what was being argued about. Rather than run that down here, however, I'd rather dive into those two documents, and make in-line comments about them. I will try to be fair: to say what I think but also to admit what I don't understand.

So, first, the

Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet and the vibrant and innovative markets it supports, to protect consumers, and to promote continued investment in broadband access.

Note the distinction between "open Internet" and "broadband access." Let's be clear that these are not the same. The two have been conflated for way too long, and thstart doing a better job of de-conflating the two.

Note that "the open Internet" supports "vibrant and innovative markets." This is beyond true. The open Internet is a an ownerless form of infrastructure which, as David Weinberger and I put it in WorldOfEnds more than seven years ago, is NEA:

This is also true, by nature, of open source and free software as well. (Yes, lots of things are owned. But that can't be helped, and on the whole that's not the operative fact.)

The open Internet by nature is a rising tide that lifts all economic boats — or at least those that depend on electronic connections. It is not a grace only of telecom or cablecom carriage. In the long run those two things will be graces of IP, and most of us know that. This also needs to be taken into consideration in any framework proposal. It isn't in this one.

Let's also remember that "broadband" is an ancient telecom term. If we don't distinguish between broadband and the open Internet, we don't know whether "continued investment in broadband access" is the same as continued investment in infrastructure that supports the open Internet. One suspects it is not.

Talking broadband not only still comes naturally to telecom folks, but I'm worried that it is meant conscioiusly to phase "Internet" out of common usage. Last week I was at the Techonomy conference at Lake Tahoe, where Reinhard Scholl of the ITU devoted his speech to broadband and did not mention the word "Internet" one time. (At lest not that I heard.) It was as if the Net did not exist. I believe this is meaningful.

With these goals in mind, together we offer a proposed open Internet framework for the consideration of policymakers and the public.

We believe such a framework should include the following key elements:

Consumer Protections: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from--

(1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;
(2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and
(3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.

This is fine as far as it goes, which appears (to me) to be an incremental retreat from Chairman Powell's "four freedoms" of a decade ago, which were later softened by Chairman Martin.

Another semantic beef. One does not "consume" the Internet, and users are not just "consumers". The nature of the Internet and its suite of protocols is to support production as well as consumption. Calling users "consumers" diminishes their stature to that of TV viewers. We are already way down this slippery slope.

Non-Discrimination Requirement: In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.

Fine. The word "lawful" in there is pro forma, I know. But damn near everything is illegal in some context.

Transparency: Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required to disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for consumers and other users to make informed choices.

Transparency, good. Sure.

Network Management: Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization;

The ITU and the IETF are two examples of those, and have radically different approaches and value systems. Which are we talking about here?

to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network.

This is where neutrality comes in. I've always felt that neutrality was a generalized virtue more than a technical feature, and a hard thing to regulate, much less turn into law. Worse, I've also thought the world "neutrality" was better political ammo for its opponents than for its proponents, which on the whole has proven to be true. All of which means I'm not a go-to guy on the neutrality cause. Still, this is where Google gives it up.

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization.

This is what the "Joint Policy Proposal" calls "differentiated online services." I have problems with this (as do many others), which I'll bring up when I visit the other document below.

The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect ofthese additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.

Well, what is "meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services"? How about if the bandwidth provided for the open Internet is held by Verizon to under 50/20Mb for the next five years while a pile of these other "differentiated" services grab the rest of the company's 2.5/1.2GB/sec GPON to you and your neighbors? Is that okay? What does this tell other fiber providers, such as RCN, which still has a 2Mb/sec upstream cap on Internet bandwidth?

Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time.

There are many more wireless networks competing, true. But none of them are especially Net-friendly. They have punitive billing, often without warning, for going over bandwidth caps. (Apple/AT&T is the notable exception here.) They require long contracts and locked-down equipment. None have pre-pay options, and some are tied to phone contracts and billing systems, all of which are notable for their extreme complexity. Again, this is clearly Verizon talking -- and remember that Google is also a Verizon wireless partner.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

Makes me feel secure.

Case-By-Case Enforcement: The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions.

All the work but none of the authority? Who wants that work?

Parties would be encouraged to use non- governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiatives,

Such as?

and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups.

What is "appropriate"?

The FCC could grant injunctive relief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions.

To the Verizons of the world, $2 million an ATM withdrawal.

The proposed framework would not affect rights or obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not create any new private right of action.

Regulatory Authority: The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband Internet access service, but would not have any authority over Internet software applications, content or services.

For example? I'm really not sure.

Regulatory authorities would not be permitted to regulate broadband Internet access service.

Such as what? Agencies other than the FCC? Not clear what's meant here. At least to me.

Broadband Access for Americans: Broadband Internet access would be eligible for Federal universal service fund support to spur deployment in unserved areas and to support programs to encourage broadband adoption by low-income populations.

Is there any hope for WISPs in this? They're the sole surviving pioneer ISPs, but generally not fans of net neutrality, nor of Google or any of the operators. They're as politically connected as Pluto.

In addition, the FCC would be required to complete intercarrier compensation reform within 12 months.

What is that? I don't know this one either.

Broadband Internet access service and traffic or services using Internet protocol would be considered exclusively interstate in nature.

Okay, good.

In general, broadband Internet access service providers would ensure that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

Chum for school-fish Democrats.

Okay, next is,

A joint policy for an open Internet

The original architects of the Internet got the big things right.

And the small things wrong? That's the implication.

By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure.

That's leaving out the explosion of business successes caused by the open Internet. Trillions of dollars in new wealth. Entrepreneurial opportunity out the wazoo. Why does nobody talk about this? One reason is that none of the bigfoot companies are bothering. Another is that the politicians and policy wonks are mostly oblivious to it.

My theory is that neutrality advocates (including Google) are Democrats don't know how to talk business. The carriers do, which is why it was so easy and predictable for the single-cell mentality of Tea Partiers to get pulled into the carriers' amen corner. (And don't try to pin me politically. I'm a registered Independent.)

And really, has "explosive innovation" only happened in infrastructure? I assume they mean carrier infrastructure here, which has neither been especially explosive or innovative, FiOS withstanding. ()Who says GPON — FiOS' system — is the most innovative way to do fiber?)

It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband.

Note that these are two different things. Keep that in mind.

Verizon and Google are pleased to discuss the principled compromise our companies have developed over the last year concerning the thorny issue of “network neutrality.”

Good. Here we are.

In October, our two companies issued a shared statement of principles on network neutrality.

A few months later we submitted a joint filing to the FCC, and in an April joint op-ed our CEOs discussed their common interest in an open Internet.

Since that time, we have listened to all sides of the debate, engaged in good faith with policy makers in multiple venues, and challenged each other to craft a balanced policy framework. We have been guided by the two main goals:

1. Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.

"Users" is much better than "consumers." This sounds like Google talking rather than Verizon.

2. America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.

So is growth and improvement, in an NEA way, of the Internet's protocol suite, which requires very little investment yet yields enormous economic and social benefits.

Today our CEOs will announce a proposal that we hope will make a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Our joint proposal takes the form of a suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers, and is laid out here.

At this point I'll nod in the direction of Richard Bennett, who is the leading voice in support of the carriers and in opposition to what he calls the "hysteria" of those opposed to this new framework. In a comment to a Gigaom piece, he writes,

It’s a proposal for godsakes, not a rewrite of the Ten Commandments, and it’s intended to get Congress off the dime. That’s a good thing, and throwing around charges that the good guys have “sold out” just because they’re taken a sober, adult course isn’t helping anybody.

The proposed framework protects the open Internet of today, and tries to do so in a way that allows the Internet to improve in the future. It’s not desirable to freeze the Internet into the 1996 mold that the extremists want, and there’s a tendency in all regulation to prevent change.

We’re going to do things on the networks of the future that we don’t do today, unless law and regulation forbids network improvement as a matter of regulation or by killing the investment environment with creepy uncertainty. Congress need to get a law passed that puts clarity around broadband regulation, and any law will not make everybody happy. Politics is the art of compromise, not just an exercise in fire-breathing rhetoric.

He has more here.

Below we discuss the seven key elements:

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.

Would these be the four freedoms? Not sure.

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.

Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.

Got it. YouTube gets no favors in the open Internet.

By the way, isn't locating Google, Amazon or Akamai servers in (or close to) Verizon central offices or Comcast head-ends a form of de facto prioritization? Not complaining or playing gotcha here. Just asking.

Oh, and shouldn't that kind of stuff be subject to transparency as well?

Third, it’s important that the consumer be fully informed about their Internet experiences. Our proposal would create enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services.

How about if their "experiences" include being tracked like animals by advertisers, with or without Google's help? Is this kind of stuff not also a "service" of a kind? Again, just asking.

Broadband providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities. Broadband providers would also provide to application and content providers information about network management practices and any other information they need to ensure that they can reach consumers.

Okay. Same as in the other document, pretty much.

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.

Again, that looks like reduced authority and increased responsibility for case-by-case review...

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.

Again, that's not much.

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.

FiOS TV is "innovative"? Please. Let's face it: FiOS is cable TV with Internet gravy. If you want to see what a "differentiated online service" looks like, that's your model. It allows NO third party hardware or software. It's a valve for one-way channels of "content" through "channels"—a convention that hasn't changed one micron since the 1940s. And TV is still Verizon's main business with fiber. This "platform for innovation" jive looks like a huge carve-out for anything that lacks openness, freedom and neutrality. And where do you think Verizon's investment is going to go? Let's take the examples...

Health care monitoring. The bet here is for Verizon to do a deal with some health care cartel for monitoring that and works only with Verizon's own gear and those of their partners.

Smart grid. Talk to Aneesh Chopra (our nation's CIO) about that. We did at the Berkman Center a few months ago, and his clear implication was that "smart power" is FUBAR already. Every electric utility has its own closed system, none are compatible, all are difficult to use, and few are integrated with the Internet except in a few minimal ways. (For more, Gigaom has a rundown.)

Advanced educational services. A check-box for Democrats.

New entertainment and gaming options. Expect a deal with Sony or Nintendo for services that work only with Verizon set top boxes. Gag me with a remote.

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace,

It's not nascent, unless today's wireless broadband is the larval stage for telephony-on-IP instead of IP-on-telephony.

under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

What's sad here is that mobile is the future, and we need it to be open. We need a route to what Bob Frankston calls ambient connectivity. We all know we're going to get there, eventually. But leaving it up to today's mobile operators will not make it happen quickly. By the way, mobile broadband is far worse in Europe than here, given their many national boundaries, across which users suffer lost connections and "bill shock" for "roaming", even on their home carrier's network. Also bear in mind that wireless broadband carriers and national governments both regard fenced-in customers and tariffed connections as features, not bugs.

Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.

Again, how about help for the remaining pioneers out there?

We believe this policy framework properly empowers consumers and gives the FCC a role carefully tailored for the new world of broadband, while also allowing broadband providers the flexibility to manage their networks and provide new types of online services.

... which are not the Internet. It's schminternet again.

Ultimately, we think this proposal provides the certainty that allows both web startups to bring their novel ideas to users, and broadband providers to invest in their networks.

Responding to the torrent of rebuke (mostly around that fifth item above), Richard Whitt, Google's Washington Telecom and Media Counsel, posted Facts about our network neutrality proposal in the Google Policy Blog. Said Rick,

Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively.

We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction.

MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet.

But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic.

With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.

Context: The FCC lost the Comcast case, and that created a huge power vacuum.

MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself.

THAT'S CLEARER HERE THAN IN THOSE OTHER DOCUMENTS.

Here are some of the tangible benefits in our joint legislative proposal:

Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward – another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit.

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.

THAT IS, A LARGER CHOICES OF JAILERS.

Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively.

CORRECT AND FAIR.

Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.

SOME EXAMPLES MIGHT HELP. READERS: GOT ANY?

In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.

LET'S SEE SOME RAISED HANDS FROM THOSE WHO TRUST CONGRESS ONTHIS.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.

THAT'S NICE BUT REMEMBER THAT 4G IS AN ITU SPEC. FIND THE WORD "INTERNET" IN THIS LONG ITU PRESS RELESE ON 4G.

MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself.

LATER RICK AND VINT CERF VISITED THIS TOPIC IN A CBC RADIO INTERVIEW. IN IT

We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet:

So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet.

MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.

FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.

MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.

FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could – or should – decide the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years.

It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to your Senators and Representatives in Washington.

We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop.

In their CBC radio interview, Vint and Rick said the context for this is the hard line between FiOS TV and HSI (High Speed Internet), as Fred also explains below. I wonder how hard that line is. I also wonder about the other "broadband" providers. Where is their hard line? For all of them, including Verizon, the open Internet has always been the second or third act in a Triple Play.

It's also now clear that over-the-air (OTA) TV collapsed in the "digital transition" and cable is being eaten alive by a la carte alternatives. What used to be TV we now call the "content" business, and Google is already a major player in that. This requires doing deals with the likes of Verizon. It also eventually requires bandwidth in excess of what even FiOS routinely provides with its HSI. And, one would think, it requires the absence of "neutrality" obligations. When one kind of bits are your business, not all bits are created equal.

Video is the elephant in the snake of fiber, and of "broadband" history. Just bear that in mind. It has to be. Couch potatoes are migrating away from TV and cable. Will they go to the Internet, "differentiated online services," or both? More importantly, what does this development do to the open Internet?

Crafting a compromise proposal has not been an easy process, and we have certainly had our differences along the way. But what has kept us moving forward is our mutual interest in a healthy and growing Internet that can continue to be a laboratory for innovation. As policy makers continue to formulate the rules of the road, we hope that other stakeholders will join with us in providing constructive ideas for an open Internet policy that puts consumers in charge and enhances America’s leadership in the broadband world. We stand ready to work with the Congress, the FCC and all interested parties to do just that.

Okay, here is a constructive idea: Put common carriage and Title II reclassification back on the table. Lobby President Obama personally on that one.

Common carriage is a principle as old as the republic and about the only good and useful thing still left of the 1934 Telecoms Act. Chaiman Genachowski's "third way"...

<http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/press-releases/third-way-narrowly-tailored-broadband-framework>

... was a ballsy move that got no political backing from the White House. Or anybody, except maybe Google. (Not even sure about that one. Maybe one of you can clarify that.)

Richard Bennett is right that these two documents are not the Ten Commandments. They are the first visible compromise between two of the biggest players in overlapping market spaces, intended to guide a legislative process in the presence of a crippled regulatory one.

If a legislative process is the last hope of anybody, good luck. Here is what former Chairman Michael Powell told David Isenberg's Freedom To Connect conference back in early 2006 <http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8979>:

First...there is a very shallow current understanding of tech. If you go give a quiz about the seven layers of the Internet—good luck. So, be careful of inviting the legislative process when they have a very bad understanding of the technical underpinnings. Because the secondary consequences of their errors can be enormous.

Number two: be careful. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. I'm a big believer in subversion or jujitsu when it comes to this stuff. Which is: let the weight of inertia be on your side. Which [means] I would rather try constantly to position my industry where I succeed if government does nothing, versus positioning it in a way where I need them to do something or I'm dead. Because, if you're in a position where you desperately need to do something or you're dead, start ordering your coffin and digging the plot....

And the other thing is, do you believe in a snapshot of time, you can trust the government -- who, by the way, will have a vague definition because they don't get it well enough? If this community doesn't understand it, as I heard...I can tell you right now, very few people in Washington do. This means you're going to get a potentially very ambiguous, subject to massive variations in interpretation, pile of law.

Now, personalities change, political power changes, congressmen come and go, and presidents change. You're living with something that's a perpetual cycle of interpretation. And, by the way, it's always easier to get a law on the books than ever to get it off again. If it goes on, be prepared that it's there for 15 to 20 years. And the other thing is, government has a way of turning on people. Ask Bill Gates. It may be about networks today, but those same principles can be used against innovative business models and applications in other contexts. And, I submit to you they would be. It might have to do with the interoperability of your new product with somebody else's product. It might have to do with servers and caching. Someone will think it's a good idea to apply the same basic principles to the other side of the community.

Third, and lastly for the moment, I would say, be careful because you're playing their game. Regulatory battles are an art form, and these guys are the maestros. It's always a little like Br'er Rabbit. “Oh, woe is me. Throw me on the briar patch and don't regu—oh, regulate me.” Uch. The average one of these incumbents, whether a cable or a phone company, have 40 lawyers in Washington dedicated to this work. Resources. Ability. One hundred years of skill. I'm not criticizing, only stating a reality. And, then I meet entrepreneurs who have 12 guys and can't afford a legal cost center to do research. Then, let me add the judicial process. Every decision you get from the Congress and the FCC will spend the next three and a half to four years in court.

That (and much more) said, give us a good reason why we should give up on common carriage, other than the current political situation. Or, if that's the reason, just say it.