As an unappointed spokesman for Google and Verizon, I would like to clarify our joint proposal for what we like to call “open internet.”

To summarize the points we made on our blog:

We are for net neutrality except for wireless. Which will someday comprise 100% of the net.

We are for net neutrality except for wireless because wireless is “still-nascent.” Because wired internet is like really, really old.

We are for net neutrality except for wireless because wireless is “more competitive and changing rapidly.” We realize some of you might have thought of that as an argument in favor of neutrality, not against it; however, most of you do not think about anything at all except porn and gambling sites (what we call “entertainment and gaming options”), so we’re pretty sure we can say this with a straight face.

Now, let us get technical. What about the concrete terms of the proposal?

Because we recognize that HTML “is the programming language of the Internet, which was designed over forty years ago by engineers who wanted the freedom to communicate from any computer, anywhere in the world. It enables Macs to talk to PCs, Blackberry Storms to iPhones, the newest computers to the oldest hardware,” we are posting our proposal in Flash.

“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.” Discrimination is OK as long as it is not “undue” and causes no “meaningful” harm.

“Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.” You might ask what it takes to rebut that presumption. We don’t provide that level of detail. We’ve only been working on this for five months.

Broadband providers are permitted to “prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency.” If a type of traffic is generally latent, we can throttle all traffic of that class, latent and non-latent alike.

Broadband providers will be guided not by FCC rules but by “best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization.” If asked to chair and fund this organization, we will say Yes, out of patriotic duty.

Providers of broadband Internet access service can prioritize traffic that is “distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service.” We believe that statement stands for itself.

You might think that our proposal allows wireless broadband providers to do whatever the hell they like. On the contrary, they must “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.” Just as they have always done.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify our proposal. You now know what we mean when we said, “The minute that anyone, whether from government or the private sector, starts to control how people use the Internet, it is the beginning of the end of the Net as we know it.”