The FCC chairman kicked off the speech with a number of very sentimental childhood moments that made what otherwise could be a policy debate resonate better with consumers. But otherwise, the controversial “net neutrality” issue stretches way back and pits internet providers, like Comcast (NSDQ: CMCSA), AT&T (NYSE: T), and more recently wireless providers, like Sprint (NYSE: S) and T-Mobile, against internet companies, like Google (NSDQ: GOOG) and Skype, which want unrestricted access to consumers. Meanwhile, the network providers wince at the cost of supporting unrestricted access, especially as people consume richer content at unparalleled rates.

Genachowski said he will ask the other commissioners to support the principles and issue a “proposed rulemaking,” which will provide more details and explanation. The goal is to develop a national broadband plan by Feb. 17, 2010, as requested by Congress. Genachowski: “This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.”

In his speech, Genachowski did a good job of outlining the reasons why there is a lot at stake: “We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content.”

Currently, the FCC is investigating why the Google Voice application was not allowed on Apple’s iPhone, which runs on the AT&T network. In responses to the FCC, Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) denied that it rejected the application and said it was still reviewing it, while Google claims that Apple rejected. Initial speculation pegged AT&T as the culprit, but it denies and Apple confirms, that it played a role in the decision.  A federal appeals court is also reviewing the FCC’s citation last year of Comcast for throttling certain high-bandwidth video connections. Comcast and others have argued that the FCC didn’t have legal standing to issue the punishment, the WSJ reports.

In particular, wireless operators say some restrictions are necessary because bandwidth-hogging apps can degrade the quality of service for others. Genachowski was clear in saying that all roads to the internet must be regulated, but provided this caveat: “How the principles apply may differ depending on the access platform or technology. The rulemaking process will enable the Commission to analyze fully the implications of the principles for mobile network architectures and practices—and how, as a practical matter, they can be fairly and appropriately implemented.”

The new principles expand upon the four rules already in place, which can be summarized as preventing network operators from blocking access to lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.