The F.C.C. proposal claims to protect competition by requiring that any deal between a broadband company and a content provider be “commercially reasonable.” But figuring out what is reasonable will be very difficult, and the commission will struggle to enforce that standard. The rules would also prohibit broadband companies from blocking content by, for example, making it impossible for users to access a service like Skype that competes with their own products.

If a majority of the five-member commission approves the proposal next month, it will be open to public comment before being finalized later this year. If adopted, this measure would be a huge victory for phone and cable companies that have consistently argued that services like Google, which owns YouTube, that transmit a lot of data should pay fees for the use of broadband networks.

But the viability of those networks are based on decades of public investments in the Internet, the companies’ use of public rights of way and, in the case of some companies, a long government-sanctioned monopoly over telephone service. Public interest groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Public Knowledge oppose the creation of two-tiered Internet service because it offers no public benefit, but would squelch innovation.

Officials at the F.C.C. said on Thursday that the proposed rule is the fastest way for the commission to respond to a January ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that struck down previous rules barring broadband companies from blocking content or engaging in “unjust and unreasonable discrimination.”

They argue that under the “commercially reasonable” standard, the agency will be able to review deals to make sure phone and cable companies do not abuse their market power (in most markets, there are only one or two service providers). But the proposal does not meaningfully prevent discrimination; it is largely a capitulation to the broadband industry.