"On balance," the statement on the official Google Blog said, "we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue." The statement was posted by Richard Whitt, Washington telecom and media counsel for the company.

Not 'Sold Out'

The first myth, the company said, is that it has "sold out" on Net neutrality. On the contrary, the company said, it has been "the leading corporate voice" on this issue over the past five years. It noted that there currently are "no enforceable protections" at the Federal Communications Commission or elsewhere against the "worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic."

In that climate, Google said, it decided to "partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could," one that is not perfect but that "locks in key enforceable protections for consumers."

The second myth cited is that the proposal is a "step backward" for an open Internet. Whitt said the proposal would give the FCC the ability to preserve an open Internet for the first time, although the agency would be prohibited from imposing regulations. Some observers have noted that the proposal appeared to confine the FCC to answering consumer complaints and filing observational reports.

Another myth, Google said, is that the proposal would eliminate network neutrality for wireless. Google said "in the spirit of compromise" it agreed to allow wireless to remain "free from regulation" for now. The company acknowledged that it had previously argued that "certain openness safeguards" be applied to wireless as well as wireline.

'Key Protections'

The reason behind the exception for wireless, Whitt wrote, is because it is a heavily competitive environment, often with two or more service providers available to every customer Relevant Products/Services, and there is limited capacity because there is limited over-the-air bandwidth.

One of the biggest red flags to consumer groups and various Net companies is that the proposal seeks to let providers offer specialized services to customers outside of the "regular Internet." These could be special gaming services, banking or medical telecommunications, although, as many observers have noted, the differences between these services and the Internet were not made clear.

Google countered that it included "key protections" in the proposal to shield the public Internet, including full compliance by providers with consumer protections and nondiscrimination standards before the specialized services could be offered. Also included, it said, is a distinction "in purpose and scope" of these services so that they do not replace the "best effort Internet," and the ability of the FCC to monitor the offers and intervene in some unspecified way, if needed.

Google dismissed the idea that it's working with Verizon because of its partnership with that company to promote Android-based devices. It also argued that the proposal is not two big companies "legislating the future of the Internet," but simply two companies offering a "legislative framework" to Congress for consideration, with the hope that others will weigh in.