As I said before, the leading language on the Google/Verizon net neutrality agreement looks good and pure and "Don't Be Evil"-y. What could possibly be wrong with two huge companies saying that huge companies should not be allowed to "discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content?" The language about transparency in the proposal, too, is excellent.

But when you dig into the agreement, you start to discover that they're really calling for a tiered internet experience after all, as Wired says:

But the bombshell is the carrot that would convince ISPs to accede to this basic tennet of net neutrality. The call by two giants of the internet in the midst of an already contentious debate would at first glance seem more likely to exacerbate the discussion than bring it to a swifter conclusion, by suggesting that an entirely new information highway be built to accomodate a “fast lane.”

“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,” it continues. “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.”

The first question, assuming this tale of two internets ever gets written: To what extent would an inherently more private network mingle with the public internet? Would it be like pay cable and satellite TV, which now provides some content that had previously been available on “free” TV, without killing broadcasting entirely? Or would it be like network television and syndication, which killed local station production and innovation?

PC World explains:

On the bright side, Verizon's devotion to transparency means you'd at least know what services are buying fast access, and how they are supposedly different from something you could get over the public Internet. Also, Google's Schmidt stressed that the company won't be offering anything over the private Internet, so no priority access for YouTube or Gmail.

It sounds kind of like "separate-but-equal" to me, and we know how well that trick works. Slog tipper Dan equates this to "AOL of the 1990s," and takes me to task for saying that the original proposal was "unclear" about mobile internet. Dan is right: the net neutrality agreement entirely doesn't cover mobile internet devices.

So, no: This isn't the end of the net neutrality battle, by a long shot, but it does change the discussion a little bit. This reminds me of some of the discussions about Apple's walled garden approach. And it's scary because part of the joy of the internet is that you can fall down a link-hole into some highly inappropriate content, or discover something that you never knew you wanted in the first place. But I'll bet that the majority of internet users would be willing to pay more for access to a glossy, cleaned-up, Flash-heavy e-mail-and-celebrity gossip internet that's weak on the interactivity front.