• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, December 1, 2010

In an apparent retreat from earlier calls for strong net neutrality rules, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski this morning proposed that the agency vote on a compromise that mirrors a proposal floated earlier this year by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

The blueprint set out by Genachowski would prohibit wireline Internet service providers from blocking traffic or from unreasonable discrimination, while also requiring them to inform consumers about traffic management practices.

But the proposal wouldn't apply the same mandates to mobile broadband. Instead, wireless broadband providers would be banned from blocking traffic and would be required to provide transparency to consumers.

In other words, mobile broadband companies would be free to discriminate by forging prioritization deals that would allow them to create "fast lanes" for certain types of services.

Also absent from the proposal: reclassifying broadband access as a Title II "telecommunications" service. But without that reclassification, the FCC appears to lack authority to impose any neutrality rules. Consider, an appellate court already shot down the FCC's prior attempt to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer traffic, ruling that the agency can't enforce neutrality principles as long as it classifies broadband as a Title I information service.

Reaction on Wednesday was mixed. Advocacy group Free Press warned that without Title II authority, "Genachowski could be unnecessarily placing Net Neutrality, and indeed his entire broadband agenda, at serious risk."

But Center for Democracy & Technology president Leslie Harris was more enthusiastic, calling Genachowski's proposal "a first step but a critical one."

Genachowski himself said the proposal has garnered support from "leading Internet and technology companies, founders and investors; consumer and public interest groups, unions, civil rights organizations, and broadband providers."

Indeed, Comcast for one endorsed the proposal. "We believe Chairman Genachowski's proposal, as described this morning, strikes a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace and the certainty that carefully-crafted and limited rules can provide to ensure that Internet freedom and openness are preserved."

Still, that's hardly a guarantee that other broadband providers will agree to the idea. And if even one disgruntled provider challenges the FCC in court -- after, for example, an FCC enforcement action -- it seems likely that the court would again tell the FCC it had gone too far.

Which means that even if the FCC moves forward with Genachowski's plan, the result will be a toothless statement of principles, and not enforceable regulations.