Google, Verizon Announce a Cake-Having, Eating “Policy.” But It’s Not a “Business Arrangement.”

The Google and Verizon plan that the New York Times reported on last week is out. And, as Google and Verizon have said, it’s not what the New York Times had reported: A pay-to-play arrangement where Google gets the ability to speed its stuff across the Web by paying a premium.

Instead, it’s a three-tiered policy proposal–and absolutely not a “business arrangement,” the two sides insist–that will both mollify “network neutrality” advocates and worry them.

You can read the full thing here, and see Google and Verizon’s explanation of the policy/plan below. The fast version:

• The Web stays open, everyone gets treated equally–everyone with “legal content,” that is–and Google won’t be paying to move its stuff faster than the competition. It’s what everyone who says they care about network neutrality demands.
• But! Verizon and/or others telcos/cable guys/ISPs want the right to build and/or use “new services.” And those could have different rules.
• And! The open Web policies described above are for “wireline” services–i.e., pipes and cables into your home or office. But wireless broadband is a different animal. And it would have different rules, too.

The second and third points, of course, are where things will get sticky. The Google/Verizon statement is intentionally vague about what these new services would be and who would build them and what would be on them. But in the conference call to explain the statement, reporters immediately began referring to the “new services” as a “private Internet,” and I bet that name will stick.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt, for his part, insists that his company wants no part of the “private Internet” or whatever it is that may or not be built. Google “likes the public Internet,” he said, and later upgraded his affection to “love.” And asked repeatedly whether Google would use any of the new services, he repeatedly said no.

Which makes it appear as if Google has made the following trade: Give us unfettered access to whatever we want on the public Web, and we won’t squawk about secondary services you build on your “private Internet.” Which we’re not calling the “private Internet” and we’re not going to use anyway. And when it comes to mobile, well, that’s a different discussion.

There was very little discussion in the press Q&A about wireless, which is odd, given the amount of time my colleagues (and our readers) spend obsessing about the iPhone and Android and the BlackBerry, etc., etc. But surely we’ll hear more soon enough.

Meantime, what about the thing-that-doesn’t-exist-and-is-not-a-private-Internet? What are you supposed to do with it anyway? Especially, since, according to Schmidt, you won’t be using it for Google search or to watch YouTube clips?

The policy statement offers some suggestions: “Health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options.” Okay, but aren’t all of those things best used on the Web–the “open Web,” that is–anyway?

And here Seidenberg is quite vague. On two separate occasions, he suggested that the “private Internet” might be a good place to stream 3-D video. But surely he’s thinking about uses beyond “Pirhana 3D.”

But for better or worse, all of this is going to get thoroughly vetted in Washington, so I’m sure we’ll hear more about in the future. For now, enjoy your open Internet!