"The recent proposal by Google and Verizon of an industry-centered Net-neutrality policy framework reinforces the need for resolution of the current open proceedings at the commission to ensure the maintenance of an open Internet," they wrote in an open letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Widening the Digital Divide

The FCC is moving to establish new rules in the wake of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals that cast doubt on whether broadband falls within the scope of the FCC's existing regulations. The FCC wants to reclassify broadband as a Title II telecommunication service, which would give it regulatory authority to implement open-access provisions.

By contrast, the Google-Verizon proposal would limit the FCC's openness policies to a complaint-driven process with actions on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the industry giants believe the guiding principles they have proposed for governing wireline networks should not apply to wireless, except for a transparency requirement.

Inslee, Markey, Eshoo and Doyle are concerned that the exclusion of wireless services from open Internet requirements could result in a widening of the digital divide.

"Underserved regions and demographic groups" that either need or prefer to access the Internet on a mobile device "could end up with a substandard, less open experience," they wrote. "Moreover, such inconsistent principles could confuse consumers, who would have different and uneven experiences depending solely on the connection that their mobile devices might use."

Paid Prioritization

The letter's authors also criticized an "over-broad definition" of the managed-services category in the Google-Verizon proposal, which they said would be detrimental to the competitiveness that has enabled Internet growth.

"By undermining competition and the value of the open Internet, managed services could have significantly negative consequences for consumers and commercial enterprises," they wrote. "For example, managed services might be rebranded or repackaged as services and applications -- only with priority treatment not available to competitors."

Inslee, Markey, Eshoo and Doyle also oppose giving network operators permission to prioritize any traffic for which the user has paid a fee. "Such arrangements would favor certain content providers to the detriment of other content creators, degrading the traffic of providers unable or unwilling to pay," they wrote. "These types of arrangements, whether they are called paid prioritization or fast lanes, harm the Internet."

Instead, the representatives are calling for the establishment of a "common-sense nondiscrimination requirement" for businesses and consumers. "We strongly encourage you to reject any policy proposals that would permit paid prioritization of delivery of Internet content," they told Genachowski.