He told the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C., that wireless carriers should be held to the "open Internet" rules by which home broadband providers are already abiding.

Genachowski proposed that the FCC adopt former Chairman Michael Powell's "Four Freedoms" as commission rules. Those are the freedoms to access legal content, to use legal applications, to attach personal devices, and to obtain meaningful service -plan information.

He also wants rules that would block Internet service providers from discriminating against Web content and force them to make network management transparent.

"Why has the Internet proved to be such a powerful engine for creativity, innovation and economic growth?" Genachowski asked, "A big part of the answer traces back to one key decision by the Internet's original architects: To make the Internet an open system ."

A Heated Debate

The FCC's Net-neutrality proposal would prevent AT&T , Verizon Wireless, Comcast and other broadband companies from hindering content or services over the Internet. But online content giants like Yahoo and hardware makers like Apple are immune from the proposal because the FCC does not regulate their domains.

Members of Congress and a number of think tanks may be in agreement on Net neutrality, but there are plenty who oppose it. Beyond AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and Comcast, the CTIA and others feel additional rules are unnecessary and even harmful.

"I hope the commission follows Chairman Genachowski's lead and adopts meaningful rules to ensure unfettered access to content and services on the Internet," said Rep. Edward Markey, who introduced the legislation endorsed by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. "This move is an important complement to the bill that Chairman Waxman, Congressman Eshoo, and I are pushing to codify these vital protections for consumers and innovation."

Anticompetitive Moves?

The Competitive Enterprise Institute criticized the FCC's anticipated rules. Wayne Crews, CEI vice president for policy, said FCC bureaucrats should abstain from choosing business models. As he sees it, agencies should not pick sides between content and infrastructure providers in disputes over pricing, access, service and other terms. When government dictates business models, he argued, it fuels artificial conflicts between content and infrastructure firms by driving a wedge between what are otherwise complementary, harmonious and often synergistic visions.

"Net neutrality is an anticompetitive, pro-bureaucratic construction. The so-called 'principle' of regulated nondiscrimination is an incoherent abhorrence. It advances the aims of regulators and transitory special interests, not consumers," Crews said.

"Worse, the expansion of neutrality rules endangers wireless networks that have yet to be created," he added. "Neutrality policies set the healthy functions of infrastructure and content innovation against one another, spurring harmful tensions and distorting what would otherwise be the complementary growth of both sectors. Sparring behemoths like Google, Apple and AT&T can take care of themselves. If anything, their skirmishes spur investment, making consumers better off."

Mike Kent also contributed to this story.