In some ways, the Federal Communications Commission can claim some victory in the net neutrality war. Their threat to impose net neutrality rules on the broadband access industry via reclassification has moved the parties to an agreement.

It puts FCC chairman Julius Genachowski in a pickle, however. Does he back off of his reclassification efforts and accept this compromise? Or does he ask for more more concessions, including net neutrality on wire line and wireless networks and open network treatment for all traffic whether running over the public Internet or private networks?

The chairman, who may claim to run an independent agency, does not have the luxury of separating the potential impact of the mid-term elections from a decision on reclassification. A smart play, in my opinion, would be to respect the initiatives of the private sector to address net neutrality on its own.

The Hill.com’s technology blog yesterday reported that two more Democrats have come out in opposition to the Federal Communications Commission’s plant to relassify broadband.  The dissenting congressmen have recommended that the FCC work with Congress.

The FCC should accept this olive branch from the Congress. I still can’t get my head around why Mr. Genachowski would want to do an end around the Congress. To steal a football analogy, maybe he doesn’t have any faith in his ground game and believes he has to resort to a Hail Mary pass downfield.

A ground game would require that Genachowski grind it out by drafting legislation and getting a bill past Congress. Given August recess, mid-term elections, and the chances of a Republican Party takeover of the House, the prospects of putting net neutrality rules into legislation and into the end zone grows dimmer.

Long passes lofted up in desperation run the risk of an interception. With Congress and the courts playing corner and safety, that risk is high.

The E-Commerce Times’ Sidney Hill does not expect much action from the FCC on net neutrality.  The title and theme of his article may have been a bit premature.

Today, the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines, 3-2, to issue a notice of inquiry regarding alternatives for implementing a legal framework for regulating broadband access. I do believe that the action that this vote sparks may be a bit too hot for this FCC to handle.

First, the overall political environment for government intervention is not favorable.   Americans are increasingly wary of government intervention under the guise of protecting citizens from big, bad industry. Expectations are that this fall the electorate will vent its frustration on everything from Congress’ passage of the health care bill to the bailout of the auto industry to supporting the bonuses given to bankers in spite of a lack of lending on the part of the very banks who received bailouts. The FCC’s attempts to reclassify broadband may come under similar scrutiny.

Second, whatever policy is formally decided upon by the FCC will be challenged by broadband providers. Today’s kangaroo decision to seek comment on three policy options may prove to be a farce given that option three, reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service, is already endorsed by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and his Democratic cohorts, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Commissioner Michael Copps.

But the FCC will have bigger concerns once they formally decide on the third way. The courts will more than likely reject this sham policy, holding that the FCC, after all its policy wrangling, has still not complied with the requirements of FCC v. Comcast. It’s one thing to say we want to do something over and over again. It’s quite another to have permission to do it.