Google and Verizon on Monday introduced a proposal for how Internet service should be regulated -- and they were immediately criticized by groups that favor keeping the network as open as possible. According to the proposal, Internet service providers would not be able to block producers of online content or offer them a paid 'fast lane.' It says the Federal Communications Commission should have the authority to stop or fine any rule-breakers. The proposal, however, carves out exceptions for Internet access over cell-phone networks and for potential new services that broadband providers could offer. In a joint blog post, the companies said these could include things like health care monitoring, 'advanced educational services or new entertainment and gaming options.' The two companies are hoping to influence regulators and lawmakers in the debate over a principle known as net neutrality, which holds that Internet users should have equal access to all types of information online. This principle is crucial for consumers and for fostering innovation among Internet entrepreneurs, Eric E. Schmidt, Google's chief executive, said in a call with reporters. 'The next two people in a garage really do need an open Internet,' he said. But some proponents of net neutrality say that by excluding wireless and other online services, Google and Verizon are creating a loophole that could allow carriers to circumvent regulation meant to ensure openness. The plan 'creates an Internet for the haves and an Internet for the have-nots,' said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director at the Media Access Project, an advocacy group in Washington and a member, along with Google, of the Open Internet Coalition. 'It may make some services unaffordable for consumers and access to those services unavailable to new startups.' Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon, said the proposal excluded cell-phone networks because the companies were 'concerned about the imposition of too many rules' that could slow the growth of the wireless Web. The proposal also excludes services that broadband providers may create. These services, the companies said, would have to be 'distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules.' Seidenberg said that, for example, the Metropolitan Opera might decide to stream its performances in 3-D through such a service because it would otherwise require too much bandwidth. Schmidt said Google had no plans to develop these types of online services. But some expressed fears that this exception could let companies bypass open-access regulations. For example, an online video startup could create a competitor to YouTube that did not run on the public Internet and pay for faster connections to viewers. As those types of payments grew, the access companies might have less incentive to invest in Internet capacity, pushing more content providers to these special services and creating alternative networks that look similar to cable TV. Jason Hirschhorn, a former president of MySpace and a former executive at MTV Networks, said more questions about the proposal needed to be answered, since the exceptions for new services could be interpreted as 'just another way of going against net neutrality.' 'Imagine a world where ABC, Comedy Central, MTV, any of these brands, were on some other network, and then there was this open Internet,' he said. Google and Verizon stressed that their plan was not a business deal, but a policy proposal that both companies intend to follow and which they want the Federal Communications Commission to review. The FCC, which since June had been convening meetings of Internet companies, carriers and public interest groups to try to come to an agreement on access issues, called off the talks last week after reports that Google and Verizon had come to a private agreement. One FCC commissioner came out against the proposal. 'Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That's one of its many problems,' the commissioner, Michael J. Copps, said in a statement. 'It is time to move a decision forward -- a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.' Jen Howard, a spokeswoman for the FCC, said that it would not immediately comment on the proposal and that the views of commissioners did not reflect those of Julius Genachowski, the FCC chairman. Genachowski said last week that 'any deal that doesn't preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable.' In a speech at the Brookings Institution late last year, Genachowski addressed the wireless issue, saying that 'it is essential that the Internet itself remain open, however users reach it.' But he seemed to show some flexibility on other services. 'I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances,' he said, adding that such services 'can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access.' Rebecca Arbogast, a telecommunications analyst at Stifel Nicolaus, predicted that the FCC would probably demand that any net neutrality rules cover wireless and that the details of any exceptions for specialized online services be made clear. Silicon Valley companies seemed wary of the proposal. EBay said it would review the suggestions. Paul Misener, vice president for global public policy at Amazon.com, said that although the company agreed that network operators should be able to offer additional services, 'we are concerned that this proposal appears to condone services that could harm consumer Internet access.' Groups and companies opposed to open-access regulation also had guarded reactions. AT&T said that it would examine the proposal closely, and that 'the Verizon-Google agreement demonstrates that it is possible to bridge differences on this issue.' Gregory L. Rosston, a former deputy chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission and deputy director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, said keeping wireless networks free from regulation made sense, because of good competition among wireless providers. 'The more competition you have for broadband access, the less need you have for net-neutrality-type regulation,' he said. 