A week after his company and Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) gave the Federal Communications Commission some pointers on how to regulate broadband in a joint statement, Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ) chairman and CEO Ivan Seidenberg met with Commissioner Robert McDowell.

"Mr. Seidenberg discussed aspects of the proposal and expressed concerns about the potential consequences of applying common carrier [telecommunications] rules to broadband services and the ramifications of that theory for broadband and Internet services," Verizon's lawyers stated in a letter filed with the FCC.

McDowell hardly needs persuading. The Republican commissioner's views on broadband regulation align with those of Verizon, AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) and the network operators.

It will be more of a challenge to sway Chairman Julius Genachowski. Net neutrality and related issues make broadband regulations a charged topic, especially with elections approaching. The FCC pushed its next meeting from Sept. 16 to Sept. 23, after Verizon and Google outlined their proposal for allotting broadband capacity. The delay has created anticipation about the FCC's agenda and whether it might vote on broadband regulations.

"I don't think they have time to do it in September and October," said Owen Kurtin, of the New York firm Owen D. Kurtin PLLC, "and I think they got a lot of pressure from lawmakers who need more time to study it." Kurtin considers Google's pact with Verizon to be an "about-face" by the Mountain View, Calif., search company.

The FCC has been in limbo since an April decision from a federal appellate court undercut its authority to set broadband rules. The commission is considering whether to regulate broadband as an information service, under the lightweight Title I of the Communications Act; reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, under the more rigorous Title II; or pursue Genachowski's "third way," treating broadband as a telecom service but applying only a handful of the rules.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. analyst Rebecca Arbogast noted in a report that the FCC has to circulate draft items three weeks before meetings. "September drafts can now circulate on Sept. 2 (instead of Aug. 26), which can also better accommodate August vacation/travel schedules," she wrote. Though the FCC officially terminated industry talks about a legislative compromise, Arbogast suggests that Genachowski would prefer a compromise to an FCC ruling on Title II.

Voting ahead of the elections would be bold.

"The question is whether or not the FCC looks for more time in order to arrange a compromise or have a compromise presented to it," said Andrew Lipman of Bingham McCutchen LLP.

"The FCC would give some time if a fairly wide consensus could be developed," Lipman said, "but what they also want to do is have some kind of stick over the industry's head in order to continue to propel the possibility of an industry settlement."

The Google-Verizon proposal has tactical value, whether it shapes policy or not. By expanding the debate, the proposal makes it harder for Genachowski to wield the stick of Title II reclassification before the elections.