Under that approach, the commission maintained that it had “ancillary authority” to oversee certain aspects of broadband service even though it did not fall under the strict rules that give the commission the power to regulate telephone service.

Image Great Works Internet in Biddeford, Me. The F.C.C. will subject the Internet to some of the same oversight as phone services. Credit... Pat Wellenbach/Associated Press

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in April that the F.C.C.’s classification of broadband service as an “information service” rather than as a “telecommunications service” did not allow it to sanction Comcast for slowing or blocking access by its customers to an application known as BitTorrent, which is used to share large data files including video and audio.

The new approach, which the F.C.C. called a “third way,” would rely on a legal theory that recognizes the computing function and the broadband transmission component of retail Internet access service as separate things subject to different regulation.

The approach is similar to one that the commission has used to regulate aspects of wireless communications service, Mr. Genachowski said. And it relies in part on a 2005 United States Supreme Court decision, National Cable and Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services. In that case, the court said that Congress gave the F.C.C. the authority to decide how it would regulate Internet service.

But the F.C.C.’s new approach also relies in part on a dissenting opinion in that case, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, which said that the “computing functionality” and the broadband transmission component of Internet access service were different things, each subject to differing levels of regulation.

Austin C. Schlick, general counsel for the F.C.C., said in a statement that “the upshot is that the commission is able to tailor the requirements” of its regulatory authority “so that they conform precisely to the policy consensus for broadband transmission services.”

Telecommunications companies said they believed the F.C.C. had overstepped. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association, with whom the F.C.C. sided in the Brand X case, called the decision “fraught with legal uncertainty and practical consequences which pose real risks to our ability to provide the high-quality and innovative services that our customers expect.”